This is an abbreviated version of a post at my personal blog. There you will find more detailed text, additional figures and references.

In 1956, M. King Hubbert predicted that crude oil production in the U.S. (ex-Alaska) would peak in rate around 1970, to be followed by a long, irreversible decline. Hubbert nailed the timing of the peak, and in doing so, cemented his status as a technological visionary among neo-Malthusians and opponents of the “fossil fuels”. But Hubbert’s paper also contained a similar forecast for gas.

In 1956, Hubbert’s estimate of the amount of natural gas that would ultimately be consumed in the U.S. was 850 trillion cubic feet (TCF).

In the 1978 update, Hubbert increased his estimate to 1,103 TCF, but considered that value to be on the high side.

Lower 48 Gas Production, 1900-2010

By the end of 2010, we had produced and marketed 1,131 TCF from the Lower 48, more gas than Hubbert thought would ever be possible. We find ourselves in the midst of a natural gas boom, with gas production now exceeding the peaks of 1973: rates are over three times higher than the 7 TCF per year Hubbert foresaw for 2010. The Lower 48 resource base is some 3,100 TCF, three to four times Hubbert’s earlier estimates.

Peak Oilers rarely mention Peak Gas. Hubbert expected his method to work for all resources; why did it fail with respect to gas? The answers to that question shed light on the shortcomings of Peak Oil Theory, and reveal the reasons why it should not be used as a policy-making tool.

Read More →

So, Google is integrating its websites more. As a result, some privacy settings will apply network-wide, and one site will be able to use data from another site. People are flipping out, naturally. People have been giving Google this data for ages. People have known that Google was watching them, and yet they chose to keep using Google and in fact use one account for many Google services.

Note that the new policy changes nothing about what Google already knew about you. It just changes what certain Google sites will use about you. As Marsha Blackburn and other members of Congress begin to look into it though, Google isn’t helping its case by pleading that it’s alright because certain users are excluded, which just furthers the premise that there’s something wrong with it.

But ultimately, you’re in control of what you do online. Personal responsibility: it’s not just for breakfast anymore.

I feel vindicated though in having about a dozen Google accounts for the limited times I had use for their services, usual in the course of helping somebody else. Different accounts for different uses and different sites. It was never hard. You just had to do it. Oh, and not use their email.

Read More →

Today is January 27th. On this date in 1756, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria, thereby laying the ground work for Falco to top the charts 230 years later. (Which I’m sure was his reasoning in being born.) Today is also the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet forces. I would also like to note that this week was National School Choice Week. I attended a school choice event here in Charlotte last night and will have a post up later today on that. As always, consider this an Open Thread.

Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading on Newt | American Spectator
“I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams. Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary.”

Alternative Certification and ‘Colorblind Racism’ | WSJ
“So IQ tests are racist, except when they’re used to ‘prove’ that people with ‘socially conservative ideologies’ are racist and intellectually inferior.”

President Opts For Small-Ball Demagoguery | Charles Krauthammer
“This is redistribution for its own sake — the cost be damned. It took Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels about 30 seconds of his State of the Union rebuttal to demolish that idea.”

NYT Quotes ‘Retired Cuban Leader’ Castro on ‘Idiocy’ of GOP Field | Newsbusters
“They even suggested the dictator (who they merely called ‘the retired Cuban leader’) ‘had reason to be annoyed’ at threats voiced by Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.”

Today’s word of the day comes from Wordsmith.org.
gascon (GAS-kuhn): noun A braggart. adjective Boastful.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our world that stories like this one (warning, .pdf) (via the Population Research Institute) barely shock us anymore. The gist of the story is as follows: a Massachusetts woman, identified in court pleadings only as Mary Moe, is pregnant with her third child. She aborted her first child. Sometime between this abortion and the birth of her second child, she suffered a “psychotic break” and was diagnosed with shizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder, for which she takes medication. Reading inbetween the lines, it is reasonable to assume that the woman’s first abortion may have been a contributing factor in her mental illness:

The GAL report and the record generally provide additional background. The defendant suffered a psychotic break when she was a college student. Thereafter, she believed people were staring at her and stating that she killed her baby. She becomes agitated and emotional when discussing the pregnancy that ended in an abortion.

Now that Moe is pregnant for the third time, her parents went to a probate judge in Massachusetts in an attempt to get a court to force her to have an abortion, apparently on the theory that the medications Moe takes for her mental illness would be harmful to Moe’s unborn child. Somewhat unsurprisingly, given this history, Moe went to great lengths in front of the judge to avoid having an abortion forced on her, claiming devout Catholicism (a contention that her parents dispute) and denying that she even was pregnant.

Somehow the judge, a Dukakis appointee, got the idea that the best thing for this poor woman would be to force her to have another abortion (because the first one clearly worked wonders for her mental health). This despite the fact that the guardian ad litem appointed by the judge had found that if Moe were not suffering from mental illness, she would not herself choose to have the abortion.  The judge astoundingly ordered that Moe’s parents should get her to the abortion clinic even if Moe had to be  “coaxed,   bribed, or even enticed … by ruse[.]” Additionally, even though no one (including Moe’s delightful parents) had asked for this remedy, the judge sua sponte ordered that once Moe’s parents had successfully conned her into the abortion clinic, Moe must be sterilized so she could never get pregnant again.

Thankfully, the probate judge was overruled on appeal, mainly for failing to make appropriate factual findings and failing to appropriately consider the recommendations of the guardian ad litem. Thus, in this one case, the appropriate result was reached, but reading the judge’s opinion, a different set of circumstances might very well have permitted “Mary Moe”‘s parents to force her to have an abortion against her will. This is the inevitable consequence of a society that has accepted the false premise that under certain circumstances, abortion is the only choice a sane person would make. Such a premise should be rejected by anyone who is truly “pro-choice,” but happily too many who claim to be “pro-choice” let the mask slip from time to time and show us all that when the chips are down, they really are pro-abortion, and nothing else.

So this is what the “age of budget austerity” looks like?

Yesterday, the Senate voted against a measure to disapprove of Obama’s request for an additional $1.2 trillion of debt.  Every Democrat (except for Ben Nelson and Joe Manchin) voted against the resolution.  Consequently, pursuant to the Budget Control Act (the “debt ceiling deal”), Obama will automatically get his new credit card.  Our debt will increase by another $1.2 trillion, topping $16.4 trillion by the end of the year.

Here are the relevant numbers that should define Obama’s presidency, yet they will not be disseminated in the major media.  When Obama took office, the total federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion.  By the end of his first term, the debt will be at least $16.4 trillion, an increase of $5.8 trillion.  To put that in perspective, it took us until late 2001 (from our nation’s founding) to accrue $5.8 trillion in debt.  Even President Bush, who was a big-spending Republican, racked up “only” $4.9 trillion over 8 years.

Let’s now explicate the debt figures as a percentage of our economy.  Our total federal debt and our GDP stand at parity.  The debt is $15.281 trillion, while our GDP is 15.294 trillion.  It is unlikely that our economy will grow by more than a 2-2.5% annualized rate in the coming year.  On the other hand, with the additional $1.2 trillion of debt, our national debt will grow by 7.9%.  In other words, our GDP will remain below our gross debt indefinitely.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are not innocent from reproach in this debt crisis.  While every Republican except for Scott Brown voted for the resolution of disapproval, most of them supported the debt ceiling deal that engendered this disaster in the first place.  Only 19 of the 47 Senate Republicans opposed the debt deal, which gave Obama a defacto blank check to raise $2.1 trillion in debt without any transformational budget reforms.  We have already raised the debt ceiling by $900 billion since passage of the Budget Out of Control Act.  Today, by default, Obama was granted the rest.

This just underscores the need to focus on congressional races.  We might win back the Senate in November; however, if we continue to elect those who will vote for similar inane legislation, it will be worthless.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Download audio here

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the Fed’s interest rate announcement, the divided cultural experiences of America’s upper and lower class, and whether or not “the American way of life” still exists.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

U.S. Stocks Cheer Fed’s Rate Pledge
The New American Divide
Quiz: How Thick Is Your Bubble?

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

I’m biased, but I think the real winner last night was CNN and I feel confident I’d say that even if they didn’t send me a paycheck. After that disastrous and embarrassing NBC debate, Wolf Blitzer held his own, did not get devoured by Newt Gingrich, and engaged in a lot of substance without a lot of random questions like . . . oh . . . say . . . should states ban birth control.

Let me tell you first who lost the debate because it was in a moment with Wolf Blitzer. There was a moment he asked Newt Gingrich about Romney’s tax returns and Newt tried to say the question was inconsequential. He tied his napkin around his neck, pulled up his fork and knife, and was just about to sink his teeth into Wolf when Wolf pushed again. The crowd heckled Blitzer. Gingrich drooled over the moderator he was about to consume. “Wanna try again,” he asked mischievously. Wolf Blitzer, instead of hopping on Newt’s plate pushed once more, pointing out Gingrich had, just this week, attacked Romney on these things. The crowd reacted a bit and Gingrich suddenly tried to get everyone on stage to call a truce. Romney had none of it, instead calling on Gingrich to, in effect, man up and say to Mitt’s face the things he says elsewhere.

The crowd turned on Newt. They laughed. They jeered. Blitzer, saved from the jowls of moderator eater, went straight in to a tax question based on Romney’s taxes and Newt’s tax plan with Newt still on defense from the prior question. The moderator ate Newt. Live by the debate, die by the debate, and Newt Gingrich died in some clever rhetoric, losing the crowd both in that instance and on Mitt Romney’s stock ownership.

Mitt Romney won the debate. He and Gingrich behaved like petulant children, but Romney got under Newt’s skin in a way Newt did not get under Romney’s skin and Newt came off looking the lesser of the two. Additionally, Mitt Romney finally offered up a bold and clear answer on his wealth with a strong defense of capitalism and self-made men. There was no apology and no defense. It was precisely what he needed to do.

Though he may have won, Rick Santorum had the best night of any candidate and though Romney won on points, Santorum won on style and substance. He offered up the strongest attack yet on Romneycare, pointing out how if Romney is the nominee we cede an important line of attack on Obamacare. He rattled Romney in a way Newt did not. He acted like the adult in the room. He got himself some supporters from Newt Gingrich I’m pretty sure.

Then there was Ron Paul. Many of us quickly dismiss Ron Paul, but his performance was stellar. He offered extremely sound responses on healthcare, education, border security, and more. Very few of the questions were on foreign policy, which is where he tends to go off the reservation. Last night he came off as warm, funny, and right on the mark. It was his best debate performance. Santorum and Paul benefited from Romney and Gingrich’s constant bickering.

But Romney did what he had to do. He stopped any swing back from Gingrich. His performance more likely than not helped him secure Florida unless Gingrich can pour in money and manpower in the next 24 hours.

RedState Morning Briefing
January 26, 2012

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

Read More →

I never thought I would see the day, but it looked an awful lot like Newt finished fourth out of the four candidates in tonight’s debate. For the first time during this primary season, Newt paid a price each and every time he went after Romney personally, who looked unusually aggressive and actually managed a passable impersonation of a human being. After the second time, he attempted to follow Santorum’s lead by saying that the tax return question was a distraction, and in a bizarre twist, Newt actually got his liver eaten by a moderator when Wolf Blitzer nailed him for having been the one who made an issue out of the tax returns.

Newt managed to look at least better during the second half of the debate but he did so mainly by staying in the weeds and making several unsubtle appeals to Paul voters. Even then he was overshadowed by Santorum (who has had back-to-back strong debate performances) and even Ron Paul, who a) was clearly on his medication and b) having conceded a last-place finish in Florida, was committed to having some fun at the other candidate’s expense.

In the last three days, Newt has watched a 7-point Florida lead evaporate into a 7-point deficit to Mitt Romney. He needed a bump from tonight’s debate in order to mount a challenge to Romney in Florida and hold his momentum heading into Super Tuesday. Instead, voters saw Romney displaying a killer instinct for perhaps the first time during the campaign, and Newt clearly overshadowed even on style points by both Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

If Mitt Romney ends up winning the nomination, we may end up looking back at tonight as the night the tide finally turned in his favor for good.

Almost a full year into the presidential campaign, Romney finally received a full-fledged beatdown for his mendacity over healthcare.  He has the nerve to feign outrage over Obamacare, even while he touts Romneycare – a carbon copy of Obamacare – as a virtuous success, supported by 90% of Massachusetts residents.  Santorum did his homework, and called him out on the hypocrisy.  Romney was never able to answer why the same market intervention and distortions – mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid – which form the bedrock of Obamacare , supposedly worked so well in Massachusetts.  The reason he couldn’t answer the question is because Romneycare was a complete failure.  It is the canary in the coal mine for Obamacare.

The reality is that Romneycare did not merely affect the 8% that were uninsured, as Romney has suggested; it punished everyone with record high premiums.  It is incontrovertibly clear that MassCare has engendered the highest premiums in the nation,while dumping thousands of people onto federally funded Medicaid and disincentivizing people not to earn more money.

In other words, Romneycare, at its core, is exactly like Obamacare.  When Romney could not articulate any fundamental difference between the two pernicious government takeovers, he wandered off into ancillary differences.  He pointed out that Obamacare contains 2600 pages, raises taxes, and cuts Medicare.  However, those are all nebulous differences related to the packaging or funding of the proposal.  At the core, they are the same; mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid.  That core is what Romney recently dubbed as fundamentally a conservative principle.

Read More →

Undaunted by the constitutionally-questionable appointment of three members to Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board, union attorney and current NLRB chairman Mark Pearce declared in an Associated Press interview that he and his union comrades are continuing their assault on the 93% of private-sector employees who are union-free.

In fact, if Obama’s union appointees have their way, all employees who are targeted for unionization will have their employers forced to turn over their home telephone number and e-mail addresses to unions.

Ever since the 1960s, when unions have targeted companies for unionization through a NLRB-supervised election, employers have been required to turn over the list of employee names and their home addresses. The NLRB, in turn, promptly gives the list of employee names and home addresses to the involved union(s).

This list, called an Excelsior List, gives union organizers the ability to conduct intrusive home visits prior to the NLRB election. As is often said, just as when any other salesperson doing door-to-door sales knocks at the door, targeted employees can invite the union organizers into their homes, or they can sic the chihuahua on them.

Read More →

Unbelievably, yet another debate is on tap tonight. Thankfully, this one is on CNN, so hopefully we will have fewer questions about Terri Schiavo and the Great Beet Sugar Menace. Click the window or chime in in the comments!