GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,492]

The possible future direction of federal science policy under the incoming Trump administration is going to be positive and real and genuine...it is about time.

https://dof.princeton.edu/people/william-happer

Here is from an interview with a Physics professor at Princeton,

"There are lots of big climate models. If you were to come up with your computer modeling, with results that indicated that increasing CO2 really doesn’t have very much effect on the climate, you would not be renewed. It’s very clear you would not be renewed."

"One of the problems with the programs for the last 15 or 20 years was, unless you promised that your results were going to bring some sort of alarming new evidence that people were driving the planet to extinction by releasing CO2, you couldn’t get funding. That was really sick. You shouldn’t have funding decisions based on whether you expect to get alarmist results from the applicant. And that’s the way it was."

https://www.the-scientist.com/qa-william-happer-possible-science-advisor-to-the-president-32065

Edited Tuesday at 03:58 PM by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

There will be ongoing challenges in the energy landscape due to the current anti-energy policies of many governments, partially reversed by the incoming Trump administration.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-End-of-Economic-Growth-Energy-Shortages-Drive-Global-Downturn.html

"In the past, adding debt was found to be effective way of stimulating the world economy because energy supplies supporting the world economy were not seriously constrained. It was possible to add new energy supplies, quite inexpensively. The combination of additional inexpensive energy supplies and additional “demand” (provided by the added debt) allowed the total quantity of goods and services produced to be increased. Once energy supplies started to become seriously constrained (about 2023), this technique started to work far less well. If energy production is constrained, the likely impact of added debt will be added inflation."

Well get ready for massive amount of debt and inflation!

Tariffs drive up domestic prices, to counter that more money is created devaluing the $ (aka inflation).

The proposed tax reduction will bankrupt the government.  Trump is begging for unlimited debt ceiling for a reason. Hee has no intention on making MAGA for the average Joe, he wants to make MAGA for the rich. 

You are not rich.  Save your money and brace for the incoming pain.

If the oil energy industry can only function on massive debt increases and false "demand" (they put the demand in quotes) what does that say?

*hint* they need a form of government subsidy that puts the debt interest burden on the citizens.  If Musk crushes inefficient debt based spending who will suffer?  Social services are not needed by the rich.

 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 06:44 PM by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The possible future direction of federal science policy under the incoming Trump administration is going to be positive and real and genuine...it is about time.

The incoming administration is pro-green energy.

If you think the US government can change science you do not understand how science works.  At all.  

Science is done on a global scale so no one nation can overly effect the results.  Look at any significant paper and you will notice the authors span many institutions and nations in the vast majority of cases.  They need collaboration and peer review.

The government can choose to fund biased "studies" or cut funding to real scientists but it will not stop the global revolution or the truth. Can the Trump administration debunk relatively or quantum mechanics? Of course not, that would be a silly idea as there is already a global consensus on those topics. 

[Ecocharger + 1,492]

Oil prices are soaring as demand for oil reaches higher levels. The reliance of modern economies on fossil fuels is very impressive.

The current hot demand for oil comes despite a weak economy.

President Trump will come into office with an economy that is reliant on fossil fuels, and he will bring public support to that state of affairs.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/API-Reports-Large-Crude-Draw-Major-Jump-in-Fuel-Inventories.html

"SPR inventories are now at 393.8 million barrels, a figure that is still more than 240 million less than the inventory when President Biden took office.

At 4:16 pm ET, Brent crude was trading up $0.75 (+0.98%) on the day at $77.05"

"Cushing inventories—the benchmark crude stored and traded at the key delivery point for U.S. futures contracts in Cushing, Oklahoma—fell by 3.115 million barrels, according to API data, after increasing by 305,000 barrels in the previous week."

Edited yesterday at 01:00 AM by Ecocharger

[specinho + 475]

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

Well get ready for massive amount of debt and inflation!

Tariffs drive up domestic prices, to counter that more money is created devaluing the $ (aka inflation).

The proposed tax reduction will bankrupt the government.  Trump is begging for unlimited debt ceiling for a reason. Hee has no intention on making MAGA for the average Joe, he wants to make MAGA for the rich. 

You are not rich.  Save your money and brace for the incoming pain.

If the oil energy industry can only function on massive debt increases and false "demand" (they put the demand in quotes) what does that say?

*hint* they need a form of government subsidy that puts the debt interest burden on the citizens.  If Musk crushes inefficient debt based spending who will suffer?  Social services are not needed by the rich.

 

 

 

Not sure if anyone notices there is a consultant for energy is an ceo of oil company.....

Saw a chart yesterday regarding how fuel price is calculated in the UK or what consumers are paying for. The whole sale fuel price is about 50 pences. Fuel duty ~ 53 pences. And there are other miscellaneous charges.

This means, government of UK is taxing oil companies > 50%  per litre of fuel. Is this percentage true to all governments??

1. Who drive up inflation?

Ans: The governments

2. Who do nothing, expect hand out from oil companies yet give them a lot of problems?

Ans: The governments

3. Who spend lavishly on unurgent or useless things and transfer the costs to everyone?

Ans: The governments

 

Why do we need the governments for?? Good for nothing, yes?

AI era is coming... Sooner than expected.

Edited yesterday at 06:21 AM by specinho

[specinho + 475]

14 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

The possible future direction of federal science policy under the incoming Trump administration is going to be positive and real and genuine...it is about time.

https://dof.princeton.edu/people/william-happer

Here is from an interview with a Physics professor at Princeton,

"There are lots of big climate models. If you were to come up with your computer modeling, with results that indicated that increasing CO2 really doesn’t have very much effect on the climate, you would not be renewed. It’s very clear you would not be renewed."

"One of the problems with the programs for the last 15 or 20 years was, unless you promised that your results were going to bring some sort of alarming new evidence that people were driving the planet to extinction by releasing CO2, you couldn’t get funding. That was really sick. You shouldn’t have funding decisions based on whether you expect to get alarmist results from the applicant. And that’s the way it was."

https://www.the-scientist.com/qa-william-happer-possible-science-advisor-to-the-president-32065

 

11 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

The incoming administration is pro-green energy.

If you think the US government can change science you do not understand how science works.  At all.  

Science is done on a global scale so no one nation can overly effect the results.  Look at any significant paper and you will notice the authors span many institutions and nations in the vast majority of cases.  They need collaboration and peer review.

The government can choose to fund biased "studies" or cut funding to real scientists but it will not stop the global revolution or the truth. Can the Trump administration debunk relatively or quantwum mechanics? Of course not, that would be a silly idea as there is already a global consensus on 

If that is the case, the government should halt all funding for all research and activities temporarily. Private companies and philantrophists who like their research or  would like them to alter results to get fund will sponsor them.

Recalling a tag line: how warren Buffett is paying less tax than his secretary......

Why waste money to compete with them and their generousity to fake/ redundant science and then raise tax to squeeze droplets out of them unwillingly?? 

[Ecocharger + 1,492]

The EV market is still in decline, with EV manufacturers in serious trouble.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Porsches-China-Sales-Slump-Drags-Down-Luxury-EV-Market.html

"Porsche is offering significant markdowns on the Taycan EV due to a slump in demand, particularly in China.

The Taycan's declining resale value and high operating costs have contributed to Porsche's sliding profitability.

Volkswagen Group, Porsche's parent company, is facing challenges in the competitive EV market amid a price war with Tesla and Chinese automakers."

[notsonice + 1,268]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The EV market is still in decline, with EV manufacturers in serious trouble.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Porsches-China-Sales-Slump-Drags-Down-Luxury-EV-Market.html

"Porsche is offering significant markdowns on the Taycan EV due to a slump in demand, particularly in China.

The Taycan's declining resale value and high operating costs have contributed to Porsche's sliding profitability.

Volkswagen Group, Porsche's parent company, is facing challenges in the competitive EV market amid a price war with Tesla and Chinese automakers."

you need to stop using drugs.....

EV market is not in decline.....far from it

 

Mr Magoo get some new glasses or stop using drugs or both 

from your article 

..........Porsche's parent company, is facing challenges in the competitive EV market amid a price war with Tesla and Chinese automakers

reality is overpriced EVs are getting the crap beat out of them by price cutting at the same time EV sales are booming

 

looks like NEV sales in China will take the entire market by the end of 2027...................from no sales in 2020 to over 50 percent of the market now.....oh my ...........enjoy

enjoy the  article and the Chart 

CnEVPost

China NEV retail at record 1.38 million in Dec, preliminary CPCA data show

China's NEV retail penetration was 52.6 percent in December and 47.97 percent in 2024, according to preliminary CPCA data.

.

9 hours ago

 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

20 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices are soaring as demand for oil reaches higher levels. The reliance of modern economies on fossil fuels is very impressive.

The current hot demand for oil comes despite a weak economy.

You are so funny.

You claim "soaring oil prices" while oil is, in fact, down from this time last year.  Down.

You may also notice that crude stockpiles are down but distilled fuel stockpiles are way up.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Large-Jump-in-Fuel-Inventories-Outweighs-Crude-Draw.html

Edited yesterday at 09:27 PM by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,264]

On 1/6/2025 at 6:11 PM, TailingsPond said:

If you went to a car dealership and saw 30 EVs and 3 ICE cars for sale what would be your assessment?

I suspect your biases would conclude "a large number of EVs on the lot means low EV demand. Everyone is buying the ICE cars."

Face the reality, the outdated technology is being phased-out if not totally banned.

Well, there aren't alot of EV's here in Central Illinois, so about 99% on the lots are ICE vehicles. While some infrastructure is being put in at places like WalMart and Larger grocery chains, not so much as cost to install them in an area that's already built. Charging times are still a big issue with EV's. And range anxiety. 

The guy who blew up the Tesla Truck in front of Trumps Hotel in Vegas, did you happen to see his route? 4 stops for sure, might have been a 5th but he had to go way out of his way because of Charging Stations! My point being is if on a long trip you best plan it well, or you may need get towed to a charging station.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

15 hours ago, specinho said:

 

If that is the case, the government should halt all funding for all research and activities temporarily. Private companies and philanthropists who like their research or  would like them to alter results to get fund will sponsor them.

 

That is too funny.  The nation would lose all of their top scientists with widespread funding cuts as they flee to places that will fund their research.

Secondly it would cripple the rate of education of future scientists.  If all your scientist move abroad you have nobody to teach your youth.

Combined a " temporary research funding cut" can lead to a lasting brain drain on a nation.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

7 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Well, there aren't alot of EV's here in Central Illinois, so about 99% on the lots are ICE vehicles. While some infrastructure is being put in at places like WalMart and Larger grocery chains, not so much as cost to install them in an area that's already built. Charging times are still a big issue with EV's. And range anxiety. 

The guy who blew up the Tesla Truck in front of Trumps Hotel in Vegas, did you happen to see his route? 4 stops for sure, might have been a 5th but he had to go way out of his way because of Charging Stations! My point being is if on a long trip you best plan it well, or you may need get towed to a charging station.

Go for a trip with a woman with a weak bladder and a love of snacks 4 stops is no problem

Sit down for a cup of coffee or a pint with an appetizer at any hotel and your car would be topped up a bunch.

Edited 23 hours ago by TailingsPond

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,264]

19 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

Go for a trip with a woman with a weak bladder and a love of snacks 4 stops is no problem

But you still own a ICE vehicle. Todays EV's are still spendy for what you get for size of auto. Insurance  is much higher, Electric car insurance costs between 18 and 30 percent more, on average, than insurance for gas-powered vehicles. Hybrids around here make way more sense, when its 0 degrees or below, battery life is shortened massively. EV's also depreciate much faster than ICE. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Old-Ruffneck

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

Just now, Old-Ruffneck said:

But you still own a ICE vehicle. Todays EV's are still spendy for what you get for size of auto. Insurance is is much higher, Electric car insurance costs between 18 and 30 percent more, on average, than insurance for gas-powered vehicles. Hybrids around here make way more sense, when its 0 degrees or below, battery life is shortened massively. EV's also depreciate much faster than ICE. 

We still have two ICE cars but our next one will be EV.

Our detached garage is situated near a power main and the house is already upgraded with a second feed / circuit breaker box.  I think the best idea is to have the utility company install a 3rd main line to the garage and another breaker box but technically we have enough amps available to run the charger from the house.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

26 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

But you still own a ICE vehicle. Todays EV's are still spendy for what you get for size of auto. Insurance is is much higher, Electric car insurance costs between 18 and 30 percent more, on average, than insurance for gas-powered vehicles. Hybrids around here make way more sense, when its 0 degrees or below, battery life is shortened massively. EV's also depreciate much faster than ICE. 

You missed that EVs need no oil changes and have much lower "fuel" costs.

Electricity is relatively cheap around here (mostly from nat gas). Gasoline is really expensive despite the fact we are a oil producing area.

Edited 22 hours ago by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,492]

With the new Trump administration bringing in a new science establishment, we should see some authentic climate research going forward. That will bring about a reduction in the panic quotient which has been preventing economic progress.

This is the silent factor which will bring about the introduction of bullish oil expectations.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Oil-Traders-Turn-Bullish-for-2025.html

"Crude oil traders have shifted from net short to net long positions in oil and fuel futures.

Trump’s potential re-enforcement of sanctions on Iran could reduce Iranian oil exports, particularly to China.

Additional factors such as slowing oil production growth in the Permian Basin, China’s stabilizing demand, and OPEC+ production cuts are reinforcing bullish sentiment in the oil market."

Edited 18 hours ago by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

With the new Trump administration bringing in a new science establishmen, we should see some authentic climate research going forward. That will bring about a reduction in the panic quotient which has been preventing economic progress.

You already posted this misunderstanding of how science works.   Trump does not dictate science. If he could it would not be authentic science.  Trump does not control the world, he not even POTUS yet.

https://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Will-2025-Be-a-Turning-Point-for-Climate-Policy.html

The majority of the world believes in climate change.  Also most think climate change regulations will get stronger not weaker.

Edited 18 hours ago by TailingsPond

[specinho + 475]

5 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

That is too funny.  The nation would lose all of their top scientists with widespread funding cuts as they flee to places that will fund their research.

Secondly it would cripple the rate of education of future scientists.  If all your scientist move abroad you have nobody to teach your youth.

Combined a " temporary research funding cut" can lead to a lasting brain drain on a nation.

You might have missed the point.

1. There are private companies and philantrophists setting up funds for research activities. While the country is in debt, allow them to spend money on research while government reallocate that portion from annual budget on more urgent and necessary things like food, healthcare, social safety net.

2. Not at all. 

a) school and college level:

- experiment compulsory with science subjects are not advisable to have changes. No scientist is needed here. Just teach, prepare exam/test paper, mark, and some admin work. Minority will take extra step to improvise on results obtained. 

- you can have high school graduates teaching primary kids;

college graduates teaching secondary kids; or

university graduates that reeducated on school subjects to be certified to teach. It means relearn ABC 123 after graduated. Stupid system and rules + waste of money? Yes.

 

b) university level:

- only a few fields involve research.

- Universities collect fees from each students every semester. These fees would suffice to pay for a few badges of rats, corn seeds, electricity, chemical required, and other regular basic things.

- lecturers are usually busy when they are new. Preparing lessons, case study etc during the first sem. After the first sem, they will wait until next year to have new badge coming in and reuse material prepared first sem, last year.

What do they do with so much time at hands? Female lecturers usually get pregnant, male lecturers might get into research for PhD or out of interest. When students are in their research final year, lecturers will forever be free again.  Those kids will do things for them, each badge per year, or per 6  months.

Private funding usually secured. Or, they can apply for government funding only when need to.

- was at side campus with 3 faculties. Subjects are fixed. Morning is fully scheduled for my course. After lunch is usually free except some times with lab demonstration. There would be once a week night class. 

- if lecturers are not doing research, they might be busy finding second stream of income after mid day.

Main campus runs differently. Students choose their own courses of interest and follow schedule arranged by admin & lecturers. Do not know their research activities but probably similar or worse. Students do all the work year after year.

One of my teachers was counting maize for her final year experiment using Mendel's law. You recall right?

TT x TT = all tall,

Tt x Tt = 3 tall 1 short etc......

Might have produced some hybrids of corns of different colours, sweetness at the end. But tedious work that lecturers might not want to do repeatedly......

- private university-college would be busier depending on the number of intakes per year. Nevertheless, they will just need to prepare lessons once and use it again and again until retired. No time for research shall there are 2 or 3 intakes per year.

 

Brain drain?? Not so easy. Such a comfortable setting of nearly no work with full government monthly pay, every tom, dick and harry would like to occupy one seat. Research?? Let someone else do it...

This bring to a point, there ought to be research center with scientists, lab tech,  wholeheartedly for research with no other distraction or duty. 

 

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

 While the country is in debt, allow them to spend money on research while government reallocate that portion from annual budget on more urgent and necessary things like food, healthcare, social safety net.

 

You do not get healthcare without the doctors, nurses, dentists, and pharmacists that are trained in universities.

You will absolutely lose many of those educators if you reduce government funding. 

[Ecocharger + 1,492]

Demand for coal is ramping up and continues to set all-time highs, a very healthy industry.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Chinas-Coal-Demand-and-Production-Will-Continue-to-Grow-in-2025.html

"China's coal production is forecast to increase by 1.5% in 2025, marking the ninth consecutive year of growth.

Coal demand is also expected to rise, driven by the power sector and the chemicals industry.

Despite the growth of renewable energy, coal remains a dominant source of energy in China, accounting for about 60% of the country's power generation."

"China’s coal demand and production are expected to continue rising this year and the cheap fuel is set to remain the backbone of the country’s energy system, according to China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association.

Chinese coal production is forecast to increase by about 1.5% this year from 2024, for the ninth straight annual rise, the association said at a briefing, as quoted by Bloomberg.

At the same time, coal demand is also set to rise, by around 1%, according to the main coal industry group in the world’s largest coal consumer. The power sector and higher demand from the chemicals industry will push up coal demand this year, the association said."

Edited 4 hours ago by Ecocharger

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Demand for coal is ramping up and continues to set all-time highs, a very healthy industry.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Chinas-Coal-Demand-and-Production-Will-Continue-to-Grow-in-2025.html

"China's coal production is forecast to increase by 1.5% in 2025, marking the ninth consecutive year of growth.

1.5% per year is not a healthy industry. That is less than inflation.

It is obvious you have no investments and are not an economist.

You claim the EV industry is dead while while Tesla gained 68% in one year.(even after the recent market correction / profit taking).

1.5%/a is "a very healthy industry" too funny...  additionally funny because the coal industry literally produces poison.

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

On 1/7/2025 at 5:58 PM, Ecocharger said:

Oil prices are soaring as demand for oil reaches higher levels.

You seem to like oilprice to do all your thinking so here read this.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Standard-Chartered-US-Oil-Production-Growth-To-Decline-In-2025.html

"The survey of 26 bankers showed that they expect WTI prices to drop to $58.62 a barrel by 2027,"

[TailingsPond + 1,013]

18 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

With the new Trump administration bringing in a new science establishment, we should see some authentic climate research going forward. That will bring about a reduction in the panic quotient which has been preventing economic progress.

How effective was the old Trump administration at changing global science?

Do you think Biden created climate change science?  Climate change has been big since way back, Al Gore got a Nobel way back in 2007.

For all your Trump hopes and dreams remember he already had a chance and succeeded at nothing. Now he is just older and more criminally insane. Yes, he is a criminal (fact) and is obviously insane "going to buy Greenland and make Canada a state."