Even Shell Agrees with Climate Change!

[turbguy + 1,545]

“Addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach,” the energy company said. “We agree that action is needed now on climate change, and we fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/17/california-sues-oil-companies-claiming-they-downplayed-the-risk-of-fossil-fuels

I smell a REALLY big settlement.

Tobacco, anyone??

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by turbguy

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Theyre partly saying they now recognise "climate change" as they would like to get on the good side of banks and investment opportunities. There has been zero desire from banks to fund oil & gas projects since pre pandemic. This has hurt the oil majors and reduced the R&D and exploration to find new oil + gas fields. The oil majors must be at least seen to be transitioning and aiming for net zero even if they have no intention of ever getting there.

[frankfurter + 562]

Yes, I wish to live in a world with much less carbon and other pollutants, and deforestation. But to say carbon is the cause of global warming is moot: for every study attempting to prove the hypothesis, another study dispels the proofs. From geology, we know the Earth has cycled between ice ages and hot ages. Why?  Carbon cycles for the past million years? nope. Answer; the Precession. 

Has the Earth warmed since we started to study this? Yes. What is the period of study? Less than 150 years.

We know the Precession causes a shift of 1 degree every 72 years. So 2 d every 144 years. 2 d is significant and will cause major changes to Earth's climate. Has anybody attempted to study how much sunlight upon the Earth has increased and where?  Yes, NASA. Increased sunlight intensity striking the surface, and moving northwards.  All consistent with the Precession.

The Precession cycle is 72 x 360 = 25920 years.  Nobody has lived this long, and no records kept, so we have no knowledge of what may be the effects of a complete cycle.  Astrology divides the cycle into 12 ages of 2160 years each. In the Greek Bible, Jesus said he would be with us until the end of the age (not the end of time). Astrology places Jesus into the age of Pisces, the fish (no coincidence). So, after +2000 years, are we entering a new age?  Astrology says yes.  Will climate changes result?  Geology history says yes. 

The carbon tax is total BS. simply another attempt to steal wealth and deposit it into the controlling elite.

To reduce carbon pollution, we need alternative fuels. Such as ammonia NH3, which exhausts N, not C.  Maybe not the total solution, but better than exhausting more C into the air, and could lead to carbon-sinking via each vehicle. Humans tolerate N very much better than C. Until we can find the magic solution. 

But warming is caused by the Precession, with Carbon being a contributing factor. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Welcome back Frankie!

Interesting theory to be honest never heard of the "precession"???

I'll look into it.

My take on climate change is that some of it is natural and some is through man made activities. There are far too many variables and the timespan so small I dont believe anyone can know for certain as of yet. There is a lot of panic thanks to Greta, one thing for sure though pollution is killing a lot of people globally and giving many more respiratory disorders and that needs to be curtailed ASAP.

[turbguy + 1,545]

FYI,

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

8 hours ago, turbguy said:

FYI,

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

From this article,

"In 1976, a study in the journal Science by Hays et al. using deep-sea sediment cores found that Milankovitch cycles correspond with periods of major climate change over the past 450,000 years, with Ice Ages occurring when Earth was undergoing different stages of orbital variation.

Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted."

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

What is not understood is the degree of contribution of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, which appears to be very weak when all natural factors are included.

Shell is not a climate research company the last I heard. What they think about CO2 is of no significance to anything.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,255]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

What is not understood is the degree of contribution of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, which appears to be very weak when all natural factors are included.

Shell is not a climate research company the last I heard. What they think about CO2 is of no significance to anything.

Shell is not a climate research company???? nope nor are you....

I trust Shell knows more about energy and the effects of fossil fuels than you

Have you published anything in your lifetime.....Babbling BS does not count for anything

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, turbguy said:

FYI,

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Thanks Turbguy!!

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

8 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 

Shell is not a climate research company the last I heard. What they think about CO2 is of no significance to anything.

They have climate scientists on staff and have for many years.  Yet another opportunity for learning!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-grappled-with-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/shell-fossil-fuels-climate-1970s

"What [you] think about CO2 is of no significance to anything."  What Shell thinks is of significance, as they produce fossil fuels and they manipulate public perception.

Perhaps they brainwashed you:

"Shell also backed the American Petroleum Institute, which had a coordinated campaign in the 1990s to sow public doubt about climate change."

Edited October 18, 2023 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

9 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

They have climate scientists on staff and have for many years.  Yet another opportunity for learning!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-grappled-with-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

https://www.commondreams.org/news/shell-fossil-fuels-climate-1970s

"What [you] think about CO2 is of no significance to anything."  What Shell thinks is of significance, as they produce fossil fuels and they manipulate public perception.

Perhaps they brainwashed you:

"Shell also backed the American Petroleum Institute, which had a coordinated campaign in the 1990s to sow public doubt about climate change."

No, that is very vague. "Shell researchers " is not specific.

If they sowed any doubt about climate change related to anthropogenic CO2 that would be a good thing.

The science has shown that even with the most optimistic assumptions about greenhouse gas significance, anthropogenic CO2 is insignificant as a factor in global warming.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Ecocharger

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

18 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Shell is not a climate research company the last I heard. What they think about CO2 is of no significance to anything.

Well, the Shell scientists might actually be scientists unlike the so called "climate scientists" whose data shows one thing yet claim another so instead say, "model says", not "data shows"... as "science"

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

19 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

No, that is very vague. "Shell researchers " is not specific.

If they sowed any doubt about climate change related to anthropogenic CO2 that would be a good thing.

 

The researchers were part of "Shells Greenhouse effect working group."  Their work is published if you care to look up the authors.

https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

Ignorance is bliss for you eh? Or just convenient?  Raising questions is good, suppressing information you already have is bad.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by TailingsPond

[zlganmaarleyo8961 0]

Are there any of the moderators?
I cannot create the first message.
Yours faithfully.

[Selva + 252]

Hi zlganmaarley8961,

this is a moderator on this forum. Let me send you a message and see if that works. 
 

Selva

[zlganmaarleyo8961 0]

Can someone answer how to change the password ??
Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
Need your help.
Yours faithfully.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

On 9/19/2023 at 6:38 AM, Rob Plant said:

Theyre partly saying they now recognise "climate change" as they would like to get on the good side of banks and investment opportunities. There has been zero desire from banks to fund oil & gas projects since pre pandemic. This has hurt the oil majors and reduced the R&D and exploration to find new oil + gas fields. The oil majors must be at least seen to be transitioning and aiming for net zero even if they have no intention of ever getting there.

The transition is dead. Oil is now at an all-time high production and demand.

I guess no one is really worried that anthropogenic CO2 causes serious climate change. Otherwise there would be a much more determined attempt to reduce dependence on oil and coal.

[TailingsPond + 1,009]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

The transition is dead. Oil is now at an all-time high production and demand.

I guess no one is really worried that anthropogenic CO2 causes serious climate change. Otherwise there would be a much more determined attempt to reduce dependence on oil and coal.

So there is no need to tell us again tomorrow that the transition is dead even when yet another e-car sells and more green energy is installed. 

You guess wrong, try to avoid guessing. People care about the problem.  How has the US "war on drugs" been going?  Do people not care about drug abuse just because the problem has not been solved and is in fact getting worse?

Failure does not equal lack of caring.  Did all the soldiers who died in wars the USA lost not care?

Edited March 3 by TailingsPond