notsonice + 1,255 DM March 13 13 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Apparently many science journals use Article Processing Charges, so this is not the least bit unusual. It appears that the better known journals charge the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge In fact, this appears to be very common in well known journals. https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read "For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read Prominent family of highly selective journals expands open-access option" "The Nature journals are jumping into open access for all authors now "because we see that's the future, that's where the scientific enterprise is naturally going to go," said James Butcher, the group's vice president of journals." "The Lancet, which has a higher journal impact factor than Nature, charges an open-access publishing fee of $5000." That is the current system. Darwin had to pay out of his own pocket to publish Origin of Species, and apparently things are similar today. there is a difference between paid articles ....called spotlight articles and research papers. Spotlight articles are not research papers but mostly news or magazine style papers that promote products typically or companies. When you read a journal you can tell the difference between the two. Good research is printed for free as they help keep up Journal subscribers paid articles .........as what you posted..............only attract flies the article you posted by a company that has no reputation...........and that prints anything even by the simpsons.....ha ha ha you really are clueless 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP March 13 12 hours ago, notsonice said: your publication ????? here is the word on the street Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, (check out the wiki link/info for the publisher below................) they are a pay to publish outfit based out of Pakistan..... No reputable Scientific Journal requires authors to pay to publish love the articles written by "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). and one of the authors of your cited paper Gerhard-Wiegleb????? the only one who is a researcher........ makes no mention of ever being an author of your paper..........You should check out to see if your papers have any credibility before posting garbage Here is a link to Gerhards real papers (Gerhard did not publish anything in 2021.....when your so called cited paper was published) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard-Wiegleb enjoy the read, next time find a real article published in a reputable Journal with real authors oh the article is listed as JUNKSCIENCE junkscience.com https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/... [PDF] 10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 - JunkScience.com webSep 10, 2021 · David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb. The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures. International Journal of … File Size: 615KB Page Count: 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group Science Publishing Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 'American Journal of Information Science and Technology' redirects here. Not to be confused with Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ISSN 2330-1635) published by Wiley-Blackwell. 'Bioprocess Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Bioprocess Engineering' (ISSN 0178-515X), now known as 'Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering' (ISSN 1615-7591) published by Springer. 'Humanities and Social Sciences' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia' (ISSN 1022-4483) published by the University of Latvia. 'Industrial Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Industrial Engineering' (ISSN 1866-2269) published by Marcel Dekker. 'International Journal of Data Science and Analysis' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'International Journal of Data Science and Analytics' (ISSN 2364-415X) published by Springer. 'International Journal of Science, Technology and Society' redirects here. Not to be confused with Science, Technology and Society (ISSN 0971-7218) published by SAGE Publications Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York City[2] and many of its journals are named American Journal of..., but the company is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7] SPG uses a Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by scientific experts before publication.[8] In October 2022, most to all of its journals did not have a scientific editor-in-chief. Criticism of publishing practices[edit] The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university business professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1] Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, using more than 200 pseudo-publications like American Journal of Applied Mathematics or International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology.[1][10] The publisher uses techniques related to scams like aggressive emailing (spamming campaigns) with replaced characters (α for a, for example) or invitations to publish in exchange for a payment in order to fool unsuspecting scholars.[11][12] Eco you've just been schooled mate! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 13 (edited) No, man, you have been schooled. Here is how it works. Apparently many science journals use Article Processing Charges, so this is not the least bit unusual. It appears that the better known journals charge the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge In fact, this appears to be very common in well known journals. https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read "For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read Prominent family of highly selective journals expands open-access option" "The Nature journals are jumping into open access for all authors now "because we see that's the future, that's where the scientific enterprise is naturally going to go," said James Butcher, the group's vice president of journals." "The Lancet, which has a higher journal impact factor than Nature, charges an open-access publishing fee of $5000." That is the current system. Darwin had to pay out of his own pocket to publish Origin of Species, and apparently things are similar today. Edited March 13 by Ecocharger 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 13 (edited) Oil demand is robust and getting robuster...as expectations increase for world economic growth, demand forecasts for oil, the essential lubricant of all economic growth, also are pushing upward. The only termination point in the oil business is the helpless stares from the Climate Panic group who know that failure is facing their lost cause. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Prices-Climb-on-Demand-Optimism.html "...OPEC repeated it expected global oil demand to expand by 2.25 million barrels daily this year. The forecast was accompanied by a prediction of stronger than previously expected economic growth. “While some downside risks persist, a continuation of the expected momentum from the beginning of the year could result in additional upside potential for global economic growth in 2024,” OPEC said." "American Petroleum Institute reported inventory draws in both crude oil and fuels, which also helped push prices higher and supported OPEC’s view on oil demand." Edited March 13 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob Plant + 2,756 RP March 13 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: Oil demand is robust and getting robuster...as expectations increase for world economic growth, demand forecasts for oil, the essential lubricant of all economic growth, also are pushing upward. The only termination point in the oil business is the helpless stares from the Climate Panic group who know that failure is facing their lost cause. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Oil-Prices-Climb-on-Demand-Optimism.html "...OPEC repeated it expected global oil demand to expand by 2.25 million barrels daily this year. The forecast was accompanied by a prediction of stronger than previously expected economic growth. “While some downside risks persist, a continuation of the expected momentum from the beginning of the year could result in additional upside potential for global economic growth in 2024,” OPEC said." "American Petroleum Institute reported inventory draws in both crude oil and fuels, which also helped push prices higher and supported OPEC’s view on oil demand." "getting robuster"??? Then again maybe not "The expansive post-pandemic growth phase in global oil demand has largely run its course. The pace of growth already eased sharply, from 2.8 mb/d in 3Q23 to 1.8 mb/d in 4Q23, with an apparent slowdown in China underpinning an 830 kb/d decline in consumption in the final quarter of the year. The deceleration will gather pace in 2024, with world oil demand growth forecast to average 1.2 mb/d, only half last year’s solid expansion. As in 2023, gains will be dominated by a few key countries, most notably China, and to a lesser extent India and Brazil. The three major economies are set to account for 78% of growth in global oil demand in 2024, that is forecast to reach a new peak of 103 mb/d." Oil Market Report - February 2024 – Analysis - IEA 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rob Plant said: "getting robuster"??? Then again maybe not "The expansive post-pandemic growth phase in global oil demand has largely run its course. The pace of growth already eased sharply, from 2.8 mb/d in 3Q23 to 1.8 mb/d in 4Q23, with an apparent slowdown in China underpinning an 830 kb/d decline in consumption in the final quarter of the year. The deceleration will gather pace in 2024, with world oil demand growth forecast to average 1.2 mb/d, only half last year’s solid expansion. As in 2023, gains will be dominated by a few key countries, most notably China, and to a lesser extent India and Brazil. The three major economies are set to account for 78% of growth in global oil demand in 2024, that is forecast to reach a new peak of 103 mb/d." Oil Market Report - February 2024 – Analysis - IEA The IEA is now included in Green Energy obfuscation of analytics. Go figure, it makes on wonder just how bad the market has been distorted. Bigly comes to mind..perhaps Yugely. The IEA, on the other hand, acts like it has a vested interest in the energy transition, which has led it to regularly underestimate oil demand, with its most marked departure from reality to date contained in the original Net Zero Roadmap. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/IEA-OPEC-Divergence-on-Oil-Demand-Becomes-Too-Big-To-Ignore.html Edited March 13 by Eyes Wide Open 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron Wagner + 710 March 13 https://discernreport.com/climate-change-data-is-based-on-fraud-and-scientists-around-the-world-are-pushing-back-against-the-narrative/ Climate Change Data Is Based on Fraud, and Scientists Around the World Are Pushing Back Against the Narrative by Lance D. Johnson, Natural News March 13, 2024 in Commentary, Curated Discern Report was recently named a “Christian Nationalist” conservative news aggregator. We’re okay with this label. (Natural News)—In an attempt to save the world from “climate change,” the United States government is spending trillions of dollars on multiple projects that rely on dishonest marketing tactics, money laundering schemes, insider trading and crony capitalism. At the root of the climate crisis hysteria is data FRAUD, and scientists around the world are pushing back against the climate change narrative. Scientists detect flaws in the collection of global temperature data Governments around the world are combating a fictional problem that is blown completely out of proportion when compared to actual issues that people face. To make matters worse, the Biden regime adheres to dogma and relies on its most recent National Climate Assessment report to argue that human activities are accelerating global warming. The policies coming out of D.C seek to restrict, control or modulate human activities at scale to save the planet from temperatures changes that are out of our control anyway. Mike Lindell and MyPillow are fighting the good fight while delivering quality products. Some “conservative” outlets have stopped allowing them as a sponsor. We will continue to support the company and the mission. Use promo code “JDR” for maximum discount at MyPillow. The National Climate Assessment report (based on a biased agenda and fueled by multinational business interests) uses data fraud to drive climate change hysteria. The report states that man-made emissions of “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide are causing the Earth to become dangerously hot. The U.S. EPA and the UN Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) share this view, and their leaders are pushing for major global policy changes to combat it. But scientists from all over the world in a range of disciplines are fighting back. These scientists point to peer reviewed studies that show flaws in the global temperature data. Some of the issues with temperature data include the lack of geographic and historical data, heat from urban areas contaminating the records and the corruption of the data due to a process known as “homogenization.” According to three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, (CERES) these data flaws are so severe that they render the temperature data — and the models that rely on it — useless. When data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” disappears. Alex Newman from the Epoch Times covers this corruption in great detail. Man-made activities are not to blame for these temperature changes. Policies that seek to control human activity are totalitarian in nature and based on fraud and hysteria. “Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century — heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” said CERES founder and astrophysicist Willie Soon. “But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.” Today’s urban areas are used to skew historic temperature data CERES presents the case that natural climate variability explains what is being observed. “When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said. Three Reasons Lab-Grown “Meat” Must Be Stopped When the temperature data of today is compared to the 19th century, the world seems to have warmed drastically; however, when put in perspective, the 19th century “was exceptionally cold” and was historically a mini-ice age. Because of this, the temperatures of the 21st century could be considered normal, and the higher CO2 levels could be considered more conducive for plant regeneration and agriculture. Furthermore, the data that has historically been gathered from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, tree rings, glaciers and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said. He said the climate outside of the cities is not unusual. It’s the heat from the urban areas that is skewing the data, and these are the temperature sources that are extrapolated to make the case that the whole world is burning up. But that’s just not the case. “If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate,” Mr. Soon said. For the latest on climate change fraud, check out ClimateScienceNews.com. China controls 90% of all pharmaceutical ingredients used in the US. Don’t wait for the supply chain to break or for pharmacies to run out. Stock up on long-term storage antibiotics and prescription meds with Jase. Sources include: TheEpochTimes.com NCA2023.globalchange.com 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Polyphia + 83 LT March 13 1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said: https://discernreport.com/climate-change-data-is-based-on-fraud-and-scientists-around-the-world-are-pushing-back-against-the-narrative/ Climate Change Data Is Based on Fraud, and Scientists Around the World Are Pushing Back Against the Narrative by Lance D. Johnson, Natural News March 13, 2024 in Commentary, Curated Discern Report was recently named a “Christian Nationalist” conservative news aggregator. We’re okay with this label. (Natural News)—In an attempt to save the world from “climate change,” the United States government is spending trillions of dollars on multiple projects that rely on dishonest marketing tactics, money laundering schemes, insider trading and crony capitalism. At the root of the climate crisis hysteria is data FRAUD, and scientists around the world are pushing back against the climate change narrative. Scientists detect flaws in the collection of global temperature data Governments around the world are combating a fictional problem that is blown completely out of proportion when compared to actual issues that people face. To make matters worse, the Biden regime adheres to dogma and relies on its most recent National Climate Assessment report to argue that human activities are accelerating global warming. The policies coming out of D.C seek to restrict, control or modulate human activities at scale to save the planet from temperatures changes that are out of our control anyway. Mike Lindell and MyPillow are fighting the good fight while delivering quality products. Some “conservative” outlets have stopped allowing them as a sponsor. We will continue to support the company and the mission. Use promo code “JDR” for maximum discount at MyPillow. The National Climate Assessment report (based on a biased agenda and fueled by multinational business interests) uses data fraud to drive climate change hysteria. The report states that man-made emissions of “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide are causing the Earth to become dangerously hot. The U.S. EPA and the UN Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) share this view, and their leaders are pushing for major global policy changes to combat it. But scientists from all over the world in a range of disciplines are fighting back. These scientists point to peer reviewed studies that show flaws in the global temperature data. Some of the issues with temperature data include the lack of geographic and historical data, heat from urban areas contaminating the records and the corruption of the data due to a process known as “homogenization.” According to three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, (CERES) these data flaws are so severe that they render the temperature data — and the models that rely on it — useless. When data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” disappears. Alex Newman from the Epoch Times covers this corruption in great detail. Man-made activities are not to blame for these temperature changes. Policies that seek to control human activity are totalitarian in nature and based on fraud and hysteria. “Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century — heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” said CERES founder and astrophysicist Willie Soon. “But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.” Today’s urban areas are used to skew historic temperature data CERES presents the case that natural climate variability explains what is being observed. “When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said. Three Reasons Lab-Grown “Meat” Must Be Stopped When the temperature data of today is compared to the 19th century, the world seems to have warmed drastically; however, when put in perspective, the 19th century “was exceptionally cold” and was historically a mini-ice age. Because of this, the temperatures of the 21st century could be considered normal, and the higher CO2 levels could be considered more conducive for plant regeneration and agriculture. Furthermore, the data that has historically been gathered from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, tree rings, glaciers and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said. He said the climate outside of the cities is not unusual. It’s the heat from the urban areas that is skewing the data, and these are the temperature sources that are extrapolated to make the case that the whole world is burning up. But that’s just not the case. “If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate,” Mr. Soon said. For the latest on climate change fraud, check out ClimateScienceNews.com. China controls 90% of all pharmaceutical ingredients used in the US. Don’t wait for the supply chain to break or for pharmacies to run out. Stock up on long-term storage antibiotics and prescription meds with Jase. Sources include: TheEpochTimes.com NCA2023.globalchange.com There are so many things wrong with your post--the source, the explicit support for the pillow guy that is imbedded in the article, and who is quoted in the article (Willie Soon, who is, interestingly, identified as "Mr."). 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 13 19 hours ago, Ecocharger said: So simple that not one of the Climate Panic brigade can offer any challenge. That is how science progresses. There is a difference between being simple and being a simpleton. I guess the Climate Brigade is not in the former group. It is just such a low quality paper that nobody cares. They keep working on much more advanced models, all of which disagree with that crap. Imagine if physicists just stopped after Newton. Newtons model was very good, but overtime it was found to be too simple to explain certain observations, so Einstein blew that away. Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. From the paper you love "The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity." We need more complexity, not less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 13 7 hours ago, Rob Plant said: "getting robuster"??? Then again maybe not "The expansive post-pandemic growth phase in global oil demand has largely run its course. The pace of growth already eased sharply, from 2.8 mb/d in 3Q23 to 1.8 mb/d in 4Q23, with an apparent slowdown in China underpinning an 830 kb/d decline in consumption in the final quarter of the year. The deceleration will gather pace in 2024, with world oil demand growth forecast to average 1.2 mb/d, only half last year’s solid expansion. As in 2023, gains will be dominated by a few key countries, most notably China, and to a lesser extent India and Brazil. The three major economies are set to account for 78% of growth in global oil demand in 2024, that is forecast to reach a new peak of 103 mb/d." Oil Market Report - February 2024 – Analysis - IEA Famous last words...the EIA is notoriously off the mark, but here is what the EIA's own data actually shows. The EIA needs to get caught up with its own data https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Inventory-Draws-Across-The-Board-Jolt-Oil-Prices.html "Distillate inventories also fell this week, by 1.162 million barrels, on top of last week’s 1.8 million barrel drop. Distillates were already 10% below the five-year average for the week ending March 1, the latest EIA data shows." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: It is just such a low quality paper that nobody cares. They keep working on much more advanced models, all of which disagree with that crap. Imagine if physicists just stopped after Newton. Newtons model was very good, but overtime it was found to be too simple to explain certain observations, so Einstein blew that away. Things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. From the paper you love "The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity." We need more complexity, not less. The trouble with the models which your people rely on is that they are not sophisticated enough, they are incomplete models which exclude some of the most important variables. That renders the models themselves worthless and the correlation coefficients biased. Any undergraduate in statistical models could point out the flaws in those models. I recall that Jay brought one of the most sophisticated models onto this thread, but he failed to notice that it included no solar variables, which I had to discover for him. The paper by Coe and others shows a very straightforward way (which only the most capable of climate scientists would understand) to calculate the relative contributions of the various greenhouse gases and this paper has not been challenged by any climate scientist, as far as I know, And no, they are certainly aware of this paper, they certainly "care" about it, but just have no challenge to make of it. A study which is not challenged gains credibility, those who disagree with it must find a challenge or be consigned to the dustbin of science history. Edited March 13 by Ecocharger 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: The trouble with the models which your people rely on is that they are not sophisticated enough, they are incomplete models which exclude some of the most important variables. The paper you like to post clearly says they are attempting to simplify the model. You are arguing for both simplification and increased sophistication. Pick one. Edited March 14 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 (edited) 21 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Apparently many science journals use Article Processing Charges, so this is not the least bit unusual. It appears that the better known journals charge the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge In fact, this appears to be very common in well known journals. https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read "For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read Prominent family of highly selective journals expands open-access option" "The Nature journals are jumping into open access for all authors now "because we see that's the future, that's where the scientific enterprise is naturally going to go," said James Butcher, the group's vice president of journals." "The Lancet, which has a higher journal impact factor than Nature, charges an open-access publishing fee of $5000." That is the current system. Darwin had to pay out of his own pocket to publish Origin of Species, and apparently things are similar today. Darwin had plenty of money, the book publishing cost far less than the cost of the 5 year trip. Quality researchers have grants, and make good money themselves. The cost of publication is trivial compared to how much the organization paid for the researches salary, lab equipment, etc. I assure you if you write a paper that is anywhere close to good enough to get in Nature you don't have to worry about a few thousand bucks, somebody will give you lots of money as it brings prestige to the organization. They generally increase your research group funding as well. Do you have any idea how expensive scientific research is? Our lab spent about 1,000,000 CND between salaries and operating expenses, not including capital purchases. A single GC-MS-MS can run well over $300,000. Climate researchers spend big money on supercomputers and the electricity they need. It is beyond silly to think a few thousand in publication expenses is relevant. PS The large hadron collider was almost 5 billion dollars. James Webb telescope was also about 10 billion. Science is expensive. Edited March 14 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 (edited) 9 hours ago, Ecocharger said: A study which is not challenged gains credibility, those who disagree with it must find a challenge or be consigned to the dustbin of science history. That is not true. If the paper was good others would reference it in their own papers in agreement of the original author. It would be lauded, but it is not. Heck, Coe still hasn't even earned a PhD. If this paper was any good he would have earned a PhD. https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-coe-7a042b129/ Do you think Einstein was a crappy scientist because his work is referenced far and wide? That is the logic you are using, if ignored means it's good then fame and awards must mean it is bad. https://researchguides.uic.edu/c.php?g=252299&p=1683205 Edited March 14 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 14 (edited) The controlled collapse of the Green Dream. Danish windfarm firm Ørsted to axe up to 800 jobs and pause dividend The Danish company developing the world’s largest offshore windfarm in the North Sea is to cut hundreds of jobs and pause its dividend in an attempt to recover from a chaotic 12 months. Ørsted, which is behind the £8bn Hornsea 3 project off the Yorkshire coast, said on Wednesday it planned to axe up to 800 jobs, pull back from markets in Spain, Portugal and Norway, and suspend dividend payments to shareholders covering the 2023-25 financial years. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/07/danish-windfarm-firm-orsted-jobs-dividend-north-sea Edited March 14 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: The controlled collapse of the Green Dream. Danish windfarm firm Ørsted to axe up to 800 jobs and pause dividend https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/07/danish-windfarm-firm-orsted-jobs-dividend-north-sea Do you pretend in your mind that oil companies never lay off people in order to stay lean? People drilling convention oil commonly get laid off during spring breakup (muddy) only to get rehired in the fall. Zero loyalty to the employees in any downturn. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/tc-energy-announces-layoffs-primarily-calgary-houston-2024-03-06/ Enbridge has also already dropped 500 employees of a planned 650 person reduction. https://globalnews.ca/news/10260448/enbridge-job-cuts-2024/ Does this signal the end of oil aka "the brown dream?" It would by your faulty logic. Edited March 14 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,544 March 14 (edited) 9 hours ago, Ron Wagner said: https://discernreport.com/climate-change-data-is-based-on-fraud-and-scientists-around-the-world-are-pushing-back-against-the-narrative/ Climate Change Data Is Based on Fraud, and Scientists Around the World Are Pushing Back Against the Narrative by Lance D. Johnson, Natural News March 13, 2024 in Commentary, Curated Discern Report was recently named a “Christian Nationalist” conservative news aggregator. We’re okay with this label. (Natural News)—In an attempt to save the world from “climate change,” the United States government is spending trillions of dollars on multiple projects that rely on dishonest marketing tactics, money laundering schemes, insider trading and crony capitalism. At the root of the climate crisis hysteria is data FRAUD, and scientists around the world are pushing back against the climate change narrative. Scientists detect flaws in the collection of global temperature data Governments around the world are combating a fictional problem that is blown completely out of proportion when compared to actual issues that people face. To make matters worse, the Biden regime adheres to dogma and relies on its most recent National Climate Assessment report to argue that human activities are accelerating global warming. The policies coming out of D.C seek to restrict, control or modulate human activities at scale to save the planet from temperatures changes that are out of our control anyway. Mike Lindell and MyPillow are fighting the good fight while delivering quality products. Some “conservative” outlets have stopped allowing them as a sponsor. We will continue to support the company and the mission. Use promo code “JDR” for maximum discount at MyPillow. The National Climate Assessment report (based on a biased agenda and fueled by multinational business interests) uses data fraud to drive climate change hysteria. The report states that man-made emissions of “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide are causing the Earth to become dangerously hot. The U.S. EPA and the UN Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) share this view, and their leaders are pushing for major global policy changes to combat it. But scientists from all over the world in a range of disciplines are fighting back. These scientists point to peer reviewed studies that show flaws in the global temperature data. Some of the issues with temperature data include the lack of geographic and historical data, heat from urban areas contaminating the records and the corruption of the data due to a process known as “homogenization.” According to three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, (CERES) these data flaws are so severe that they render the temperature data — and the models that rely on it — useless. When data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” disappears. Alex Newman from the Epoch Times covers this corruption in great detail. Man-made activities are not to blame for these temperature changes. Policies that seek to control human activity are totalitarian in nature and based on fraud and hysteria. “Climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century — heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” said CERES founder and astrophysicist Willie Soon. “But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.” Today’s urban areas are used to skew historic temperature data CERES presents the case that natural climate variability explains what is being observed. “When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said. Three Reasons Lab-Grown “Meat” Must Be Stopped When the temperature data of today is compared to the 19th century, the world seems to have warmed drastically; however, when put in perspective, the 19th century “was exceptionally cold” and was historically a mini-ice age. Because of this, the temperatures of the 21st century could be considered normal, and the higher CO2 levels could be considered more conducive for plant regeneration and agriculture. Furthermore, the data that has historically been gathered from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, tree rings, glaciers and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said. He said the climate outside of the cities is not unusual. It’s the heat from the urban areas that is skewing the data, and these are the temperature sources that are extrapolated to make the case that the whole world is burning up. But that’s just not the case. “If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate,” Mr. Soon said. For the latest on climate change fraud, check out ClimateScienceNews.com. China controls 90% of all pharmaceutical ingredients used in the US. Don’t wait for the supply chain to break or for pharmacies to run out. Stock up on long-term storage antibiotics and prescription meds with Jase. Sources include: TheEpochTimes.com NCA2023.globalchange.com Oh, wow! The worst media rating I have ever come across... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/ "A factual search reveals that Natural News has failed too many fact checks to list here. ...we rate Natural News a Questionable source based on the promotion of quackery-level pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, as well as extreme right-wing bias. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet". And... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/discern-report-bias/ OUCH! Edited March 14 by turbguy 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 14 30 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: It would by your faulty logic. Ya Don't Say Ørsted, which is behind the £8bn Hornsea 3 project off the Yorkshire coast, said on Wednesday it planned to axe up to 800 jobs, pull back from markets in Spain, Portugal and Norway, "and suspend dividend payments to shareholders covering the 2023-25 financial years." 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Ya Don't Say Ørsted, which is behind the £8bn Hornsea 3 project off the Yorkshire coast, said on Wednesday it planned to axe up to 800 jobs, pull back from markets in Spain, Portugal and Norway, "and suspend dividend payments to shareholders covering the 2023-25 financial years." So, did you notice all the oil industry layoffs? Why do they not matter? You have very faulty logic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193217/employment-in-the-us-oil-and-gas-extraction-industry-since-1998/ The USA had 200,000 people employed by oil in 2014, by 2022 it was down to 112,000. End of oil? Edited March 14 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 14 (edited) 21 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: The USA had 200,000 people employed by oil in 2014, by 2022 it was down to 112,000. End of oil? China Virus...go figure! The pandemic made 107,000 oil and gas jobs disappear. Most aren’t coming back anytime soon By Matt Egan, CNN Business https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/business/oil-gas-jobs/index.html Edited March 14 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 14 (edited) 30 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: So, did you notice all the oil industry layoffs? Why do they not matter? You have very faulty logic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193217/employment-in-the-us-oil-and-gas-extraction-industry-since-1998/ The USA had 200,000 people employed by oil in 2014, by 2022 it was down to 112,000. End of oil? And of course Build Back Better Biden administration admits it killed thousands of jobs by canceling Keystone Pipeline President Joe Biden’s decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline on his first day in office cost the U.S. economy 59,000 jobs and $9.6 billion in economic growth, according to a study released last month by his own Energy Department. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2585086/biden-administration-admits-it-killed-thousands-of-jobs-by-canceling-keystone-pipeline/ Edited March 14 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 12 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: China Virus...go figure! The pandemic made 107,000 oil and gas jobs disappear. Most aren’t coming back anytime soon By Matt Egan, CNN Business https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/08/business/oil-gas-jobs/index.html The virus didn't lay off the employees, the companies did. I do like how you noticed most aren't coming back anytime soon. Perhaps death of the industry? Does that few hundred layoffs at a wind company seem so important now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 March 14 (edited) 2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: do like how you noticed most aren't coming back anytime soon. Perhaps death of the industry? Ya Don't Say... This Could Be A Gamechanger For Natural Gas In Europe Those days are over. But Germany, the European Union’s biggest economy, still needs natural gas, even if this winter’s storage is nearly full. It’s not full as a result of domestic sources. Germany has traded one form of dependence for another. The filling up of winter storage has come at a high price tag thanks to expensive LNG imports, which are now at risk, as well, due to the Biden administration’s pause on new LNG export projects. At the height of the crisis, the European Union was paying some 40% more for U.S. LNG imports than it was for Russian piped gas. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/This-Could-Be-A-Gamechanger-For-Natural-Gas-In-Europe.html Edited March 14 by Eyes Wide Open Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 9 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: And of course Build Back Better Keystone XL was never going to happen, some states didn't want, and many Canadians didn't want it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 14 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said: Ya Don't Say... No, you were the one that posted that in your usual large font. "Most aren’t coming back anytime soon" Edited March 14 by TailingsPond Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members