GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

9 minutes ago, turbguy said:

..and the legal similarity is suppressed knowledge of harm for decades beforehand.

No, the oil industry is not a climate expert, the government takes responsibility for designing commuinity policy and the legal burden for that responsibility. The government consults experts.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,545]

22 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the oil industry is not a climate expert, the government takes responsibility for designing commuinity policy and the legal burden for that responsibility. The government consults experts.

The Oil Industry consulted experts. 

In fact, Exxon had its own climate research team that was working on the issue as early as the 1970s. The team was led by James Black, a senior scientist at Exxon, who was one of the first scientists to warn about the potential dangers of climate change.

Exxon's climate research team produced a number of internal reports that outlined the risks of climate change. These reports were circulated to senior executives at the company, but they were not made public.

In the 1980s, Exxon began to fund a number of outside climate experts, including Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels. These experts were known for their skepticism about climate change, and they helped Exxon to cast doubt on the science of climate change.

Exxon's public stance on climate change changed in the 1990s. The company began to acknowledge the reality of climate change, but it continued to downplay the risks. Exxon also lobbied against climate change regulations.

Phillip Morris wasn't a health care expert.

Johns-Manville wasn't a health care expert.

Remember this??

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by turbguy

[specinho + 470]

On 7/19/2023 at 1:33 PM, TailingsPond said:

That paper contradicts your regular position....

"It has long been accepted that the “greenhouse effect”, where the atmosphere readily transmits short wavelength incoming solar radiation but selectively absorbs long wavelength outgoing radiation emitted by the earth, is responsible for warming the earth from the 255K effective earth temperature, without atmospheric warming, to the current average temperature of 288K."

PS burning fossil fuels also releases H2O vapour and warmer air holds more water.

There has been a discussion posted related to this myth...

A draft was drawn showing possibly all surface condition on earth i.e. ocean, polar ice capped, grass land, forest, barren land etc...

The aim was to show, in fact, energy is not reflected but absorbed... For examples,

a) how would ice melt? Energy must be absorbed to break the molecular bonds, before ice could turn liquid, yes? Therefore, we usually have colder surrounding when ice is melting.

Light is being reflected. But it might not essentially carry energy until the melting is completed. Excessive energy would be released, not reflected.

b) how would ocean get warmer? Energy is absorbed, yes? We usually find surface  water temperature cooler than the direct sun until evaporation is ready to take place. Again, excessive heat is released, not reflected.

c) other topographies, forest absorbed energy for photosynthesis. Water vapour released cool down the area further. We usually have lower temperature in the forest than outside of that, yes? Barren land, concrete structure, tar roads, absorb energy until reaching capacity and released excessive energy as heat. Not reflected.

If this refreshing perspective is agreeable, then when heat is released, water vapour follows suit. Cloud gradually formed. These clouds, would later absorb more heat from incoming cosmic ray. When too heavy to sustain, rain formed.

Hence, places with cloud are usually protected from extreme temperature due to water cycle that dampen the heat. Places without, e.g. desert, temperature differences would usually be extreme. 

Ecocharger might be right. Commonly accepted does not necessary be true.

Increment of temperature hence, can be attributed by factors that absorb heat and release it when excessive mentioned just now e.g.

i) massive number of concrete structure,

ii) tar roads,

iii) barren land,

iv) massive size of agricultural land for non permanent plantations,

v) ozone hole

vi) etc.

Burning of fossil fuel could reduce percentage of oxygen in an area. Matter could be made worse with massive deforestation and development. These impact on ozone layer that provides protection against high energy ray.

Heat and water produced by fossil fuel would make a cycle of water- rain- dampen heat. Not too much of an issue.

Depletion of oxygen would need to be overcome, particularly by having more forest and no more massive development. Total ban on usages of fossil fuel would then deem unnecessary. 

 

[turbguy + 1,545]

6 hours ago, specinho said:

There has been a discussion posted related to this myth...

A draft was drawn showing possibly all surface condition on earth i.e. ocean, polar ice capped, grass land, forest, barren land etc...

The aim was to show, in fact, energy is not reflected but absorbed... For examples,

a) how would ice melt? Energy must be absorbed to break the molecular bonds, before ice could turn liquid, yes? Therefore, we usually have colder surrounding when ice is melting.

Light is being reflected. But it might not essentially carry energy until the melting is completed. Excessive energy would be released, not reflected.

b) how would ocean get warmer? Energy is absorbed, yes? We usually find surface  water temperature cooler than the direct sun until evaporation is ready to take place. Again, excessive heat is released, not reflected.

c) other topographies, forest absorbed energy for photosynthesis. Water vapour released cool down the area further. We usually have lower temperature in the forest than outside of that, yes? Barren land, concrete structure, tar roads, absorb energy until reaching capacity and released excessive energy as heat. Not reflected.

If this refreshing perspective is agreeable, then when heat is released, water vapour follows suit. Cloud gradually formed. These clouds, would later absorb more heat from incoming cosmic ray. When too heavy to sustain, rain formed.

Hence, places with cloud are usually protected from extreme temperature due to water cycle that dampen the heat. Places without, e.g. desert, temperature differences would usually be extreme. 

Ecocharger might be right. Commonly accepted does not necessary be true.

Increment of temperature hence, can be attributed by factors that absorb heat and release it when excessive mentioned just now e.g.

i) massive number of concrete structure,

ii) tar roads,

iii) barren land,

iv) massive size of agricultural land for non permanent plantations,

v) ozone hole

vi) etc.

Burning of fossil fuel could reduce percentage of oxygen in an area. Matter could be made worse with massive deforestation and development. These impact on ozone layer that provides protection against high energy ray.

Heat and water produced by fossil fuel would make a cycle of water- rain- dampen heat. Not too much of an issue.

Depletion of oxygen would need to be overcome, particularly by having more forest and no more massive development. Total ban on usages of fossil fuel would then deem unnecessary. 

 

I could use a "QUESTION MARK" reaction emoji...

Edited July 22, 2023 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

The Oil Industry consulted experts. 

In fact, Exxon had its own climate research team that was working on the issue as early as the 1970s. The team was led by James Black, a senior scientist at Exxon, who was one of the first scientists to warn about the potential dangers of climate change.

Exxon's climate research team produced a number of internal reports that outlined the risks of climate change. These reports were circulated to senior executives at the company, but they were not made public.

In the 1980s, Exxon began to fund a number of outside climate experts, including Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels. These experts were known for their skepticism about climate change, and they helped Exxon to cast doubt on the science of climate change.

Exxon's public stance on climate change changed in the 1990s. The company began to acknowledge the reality of climate change, but it continued to downplay the risks. Exxon also lobbied against climate change regulations.

Phillip Morris wasn't a health care expert.

Johns-Manville wasn't a health care expert.

Remember this??

 

Remember this?

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is insignificant to global warming/cooling. End of story.

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

 "From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact."

 

The courts have already ruled in California that the government bears legal responsibility for environmental regulations.

The government did not rely on Exxon for climate expertise but employed and consulted its own experts, as a result of which the Biden administration strongly urged the oil industry to increase oil production to provide affordable gasoline to the American economy. The California courts have correctly ruled that the government bears legal responsibility for climate policy and oil industry regulations.

The plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that oil industry consultation of its own experts contributed to government policy or to quantifiable damage to the American climate.

A completely frivolous lawsuit, for which the oil industry will claim legal costs. Potentially, if nuisance lawsuits persist, the oil companies could sue plaintiffs for legal harassment.

.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-lawsuits-idUKKBN1JM0EP

Edited July 22, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,545]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Remember this?

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is insignificant to global warming/cooling. End of story.

http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

 "From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact."

 

The courts have already ruled in California that the government bears legal responsibility for environmental regulations.

The government did not rely on Exxon for climate expertise but employed and consulted its own experts, as a result of which the Biden administration strongly urged the oil industry to increase oil production to provide affordable gasoline to the American economy. The California courts have correctly ruled that the government bears legal responsibility for climate policy and oil industry regulations.

The plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that oil industry consultation of its own experts contributed to government policy or to quantifiable damage to the American climate.

A completely frivolous lawsuit, for which the oil industry will claim legal costs. Potentially, if nuisance lawsuits persist, the oil companies could sue plaintiffs for legal harassment.

.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-lawsuits-idUKKBN1JM0EP

“We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute, our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they’ve caused.”

The judge, William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, acknowledged the science of global warming and the great risks to the planet, as did the oil and gas companies being sued.

It appears that the petroleum industry agrees with climate science.

 

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

“We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute, our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they’ve caused.”

The judge, William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, acknowledged the science of global warming and the great risks to the planet, as did the oil and gas companies being sued.

It appears that the petroleum industry agrees with climate science.

 

Baloney. There is no liability even if the nonsense about global warming were true, which it isn't.

The government is responsible for regulation of the oil and gas industries, as California courts have already ruled, and the oil sector has always produced in response to government plans and Biden Administration approval and pleas for increased production.

Case closed.

"From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact."

Edited July 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,545]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Baloney. There is no liability even if the nonsense about global warming were true, which it isn't.

The government is responsible for regulation of the oil and gas industries, as California courts have already ruled, and the oil sector has always produced in response to government plans and Biden Administration approval and pleas for increased production.

Case closed.

"From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO₂ contributing 3.3K and CH₄ and N₂O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO₂ concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H₂O, while climate sensitivities to CH₄ and N₂O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO₂ will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH₄ and N₂O will have very little discernable impact."

Cases never seem to be "closed", do they...

The Government is also responsible for promoting the general welfare.

Edited July 23, 2023 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

Cases never seem to be "closed", do they...

The Government is also responsible for promoting the general welfare.

The government owes a duty of care to both the citizenry and to private firms which rely upon the regulatory function of the government to operate. If there is no regulatory objection to the oil firms' operations by government regulators, there is no liability for the oil firm to produce its product. Assuming that the producer exercises reasonable care not to dump toxic waste and to conform to other regulations.

The oil firm can claim a reasonable reliance on the functions of regulatory bodies acting on government orders. Determining national environmental and climate policies is beyond the scope of oil firms' responsibilities.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 470]

17 hours ago, turbguy said:

I could use a "QUESTION MARK" reaction emoji...

Which part is not clear? '-'

You need to empty your preset mind, take a deep breath and read without opinion until you are done reading...

Otherwise, you are likely not able read through three words because it is not what you were told, taught, or believe in.... Like Tailingponds. 

 

[specinho + 470]

Edited July 23, 2023 by specinho

[specinho + 470]

On 7/21/2023 at 10:05 PM, Polyphia said:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/20/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-sea-level-rise-climate/index.html

Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise

"A recently discovered ice core taken from beneath Greenland’s ice sheet decades ago has revealed that a large part of the country was ice-free around 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now, according to a new report – an alarming finding that could have disastrous implications for sea level rise.

The study overturns previous assumptions that most of Greenland’s ice sheet has been frozen for millions of years, the authors said. Instead, moderate, natural warming led to large-scale melting and sea level rise of more than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet), according to the report published Thursday in the journal Science."

"The potential implications for sea level rise are enormous, Tammy Rittenour, a professor from Utah State University and study co-author said in a statement. 'We are looking at meters of sea level rise, probably tens of meters. And then look at the elevation of New York City, Boston, Miami, Amsterdam. Look at India and Africa – most global population centers are near sea level.'

As well as contributing to sea level rise, the loss of the ice also accelerates global warming, as white ice, which reflects the sun’s energy away from the Earth’s surface, is replaced with darker rock and vegetation, which absorbs the sun’s energy."

In replying your statement regarding global warming/ cooling, page 395 
has a chart by notsonice, and here, a quote reply over not so nice, n and turbguy...

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/23356-green-new-deal-blizzard-of-lies/?page=395#comment-206534

It shows

a) global warming and cooling is a cyclical event over hundred thousands of years ago. The globe has warmed up even before human existence. And then plunged into ice age.

Therefore, global warming is caused by both natural events historically + human activities in recent century.

b) test out how much heat can CO2 absorb and give us a  figure how many degrees the increment from 0.003% of CO2 to 0.004% has resulted....

 

2. From an image posted from Guinness book of Amazing Nature, over hundred of thousands of years, sea level had changed more than 100 meters, compared to the current affair of 15 cm.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by specinho

[NWMan + 89]

Global warming guys accept that temperature has changed over geological time.  The entire argument is that the current change is so quick it must be man made.  Geological effects take a longer time.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,191]

11 minutes ago, NWMan said:

Global warming guys accept that temperature has changed over geological time.  The entire argument is that the current change is so quick it must be man made.  Geological effects take a longer time.

Which is blatant BS as we have plenty of records which show late 19th century had massive warming(not manmade)... Why do we know? A few temperature records and massive glacial melting rates many times faster than anything we see today which is supposedly "warming fast".  Also ocean floor deposits say differently though honestly the science behind ocean floor deposits and their claims for or against recording accurately an inferred temperature are flimsy at best.  We have tree ring data which shows your statement to be complete BS as well.  We know that as little as ~700 years ago the entire central Great Plains of the USA were moving sand dunes from Texas up through South Dakota and yet today... are not.  We have deposit rates in the Dead Sea which correlate to Very fast warming & cooling mood swings of the earth(see previous statement about ocean floor flimsyness for correlation). 

Its "amazing" how "fast" temperatures are rising when every time the IPCC publishes a report miraculously the temperatures of the past keep getting biased lower and lower.  Amazing they never ever get "corrected" warmer... Its almost as if they are publishing fraud when by their OWN report for the last 2 decades, the upper atmosphere over the tropics is warming less than the weather stations near the ground...  You know hot air rises, one literally cannot have differential rates here and still pretend they are "following science"...  That is what happens when one keeps biasing older temperatures lower and lower to make last years temps "hottest" ever.   Are temps warming?  Ya, glaciers are melting though the RATE glaciers are melting has RAPIDLY slowed down since the beginning of the 20th century and especially over the last few decades... Last few decades which supposedly are the "HOTTEST EVER" with the majority of man made CO2 put into the air. 

Gee, what am I going to believe the Glacial moraines left from the 19th century from ALL OVER THE EARTH showing a global MINIMUM temperature which were ploughing over villages in Europe, which then melted VERY rapidly for the next ~70-->100 years and have slowed down massively, or modern blowhards clearly fudging data all in a SINGLE direction?  Damn, the earth had better be warming up as a glacier maximum would suck ass for most of the world.

[NWMan + 89]

10 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

shows your statement to be complete BS as well

I don't really believe in global warming, I think it is a possibility.  I made a statement about "global warming guys".  It is all based on speed and my main problem with the theory is that fast temperature variations in the past may have been averaged out by the estimation methodology.

[bloodman33 + 22]

The reckoning is a coming for the shills of big oil, and the leaders of big oil!  There will be judgement!!!!!!!!!!!!  The anger and rage unleashed will be incomprehensible. They they will be cast down into their own pits of oil fire  as hell burns them for eternity  and QOC brings salvation to the land once again.  Ecocharger, she is your god. 

[bloodman33 + 22]

That said, buy VLO, CVI, MPC, MTDR, TNK, SFL, DHT, STNG, and RIVN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bloodman33 + 22]

The oil shills on this board Bloviate!  God I love that word. They take oil money and then Bloviate!.  They practice Bloviation.    There a bunch of freaken bloviators!

[bloodman33 + 22]

Cholera mouthed BLOVIATORS!

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

3 hours ago, bloodman33 said:

The reckoning is a coming for the shills of big oil, and the leaders of big oil!  There will be judgement!!!!!!!!!!!!  The anger and rage unleashed will be incomprehensible. They they will be cast down into their own pits of oil fire  as hell burns them for eternity  and QOC brings salvation to the land once again.  Ecocharger, she is your god. 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

Oil demand is at an all-time high.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Sees-Oil-Prices-Rising-On-Record-Demand.html

"Oil prices are set to rise to $86 per barrel at year-end, from $80 now, as record-high oil demand and lowered supply will lead to a large market deficit.

“We expect pretty sizable deficits in the second half with deficits of almost 2 million barrels per day in the third quarter as demand reaches an all-time high,” Daan Struyven, head of oil research at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” program on Monday."

Edited July 24, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Boat + 1,324]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Oil demand is at an all-time high.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Sees-Oil-Prices-Rising-On-Record-Demand.html

"Oil prices are set to rise to $86 per barrel at year-end, from $80 now, as record-high oil demand and lowered supply will lead to a large market deficit.

“We expect pretty sizable deficits in the second half with deficits of almost 2 million barrels per day in the third quarter as demand reaches an all-time high,” Daan Struyven, head of oil research at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” program on Monday."

So the Saudi and the Russians threaten or do cut production and Goldman Sachs calls it demand? Can you whip out some consumption numbers? The silly math reminds me of what’s wrong with humans. They just can’t read a chart and tell the truth. Let’s call it collusion incorporated drives inflation starving poor people worldwide. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

9 minutes ago, Boat said:

The silly math reminds me of what’s wrong with humans. They just can’t read a chart and tell the truth. Let’s call it collusion incorporated drives inflation starving poor people worldwide. 

Welcome to the real world Mr. Woke. Do you actually believe in some of the dribble of wokeism/environmental actism being spewed? All that has been accomplished would be world wide chaos. Dumpty Dumpty has fallen.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

42 minutes ago, Boat said:

So the Saudi and the Russians threaten or do cut production and Goldman Sachs calls it demand? Can you whip out some consumption numbers? The silly math reminds me of what’s wrong with humans. They just can’t read a chart and tell the truth. Let’s call it collusion incorporated drives inflation starving poor people worldwide. 

I think that you can be absolutely certain that the analyst here understands the difference between oil demand and oil supply, he makes the clear distinction.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Sees-Oil-Prices-Rising-On-Record-Demand.html

"Oil prices are set to rise to $86 per barrel at year-end, from $80 now, as record-high oil demand and lowered supply will lead to a large market deficit.

“We expect pretty sizable deficits in the second half with deficits of almost 2 million barrels per day in the third quarter as demand reaches an all-time high,” Daan Struyven, head of oil research at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” program on Monday."

 

[Boat + 1,324]

‘

6 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I think that you can be absolutely certain that the analyst here understands the difference between oil demand and oil supply, he makes the clear distinction.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Goldman-Sachs-Sees-Oil-Prices-Rising-On-Record-Demand.html

"Oil prices are set to rise to $86 per barrel at year-end, from $80 now, as record-high oil demand and lowered supply will lead to a large market deficit.

“We expect pretty sizable deficits in the second half with deficits of almost 2 million barrels per day in the third quarter as demand reaches an all-time high,” Daan Struyven, head of oil research at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” program on Monday."

 

Current consumption is down from 2019 levels. Even if a record was broken you could easily call it the lost 1/2 decade for oil growth. Cutting production to boost prices looks of desperation, not healthy demand. You should hire me to be the expert. One must look at the history to understand the present. Understanding 101. 
Goldman is owned by institutional investors who also own most of the oil infrastructure. Sense a conflict of interest? Meanwhile the Russians are driving up wheat prices. Less money for fuel and other commodities? Oil doesn’t do well in inflationary times.