ronwagn + 6,290 March 10, 2019 On 3/8/2019 at 8:32 AM, NWMan said: "The problem is that the oil industry has delayed and/or canceled many mid- and large-scale projects since the oil price collapse started in 2014. Given "lower-for-longer" oil prices, more producers turned to short-cycle projects, and over $1 trillion in investments in new supply has been lost since. This is a major problem: over the next five years alone, we will need enough investments to add 20-25 million b/d to the global supply chain. Unfortunately for 2018, IEA sees just a 6% uptick in oil investments, this coming on the heels of 25% reductions in 2015 and 2016. We are way lower that pre-2014 levels, and after rising to close January, prices are now back to about where they were to start the year." https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/03/08/the-continuous-need-for-new-oil-investments/#2c1fcaf31efb So, the price of oil will go up and then investment will increase. Natural gas for trucking would be cleaner and lower priced though. It would keep oil demand under control also. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 March 10, 2019 On 3/7/2019 at 11:10 PM, NWMan said: I work in wind energy and I agree it will make a dent and why should countries spend their surplus money on bombs and bullets when they can build renewable energy sources. The problem is, we need oil but it is so out of favour no one is investing. Oh, I wouldn't say "no one is investing". Here is an example of how one small company is investing: Chevron Corporation 2017 Annual Report (Excerpt) Chevron is in the business of progress – providing the energy to help local communities and economies grow and thrive. We know that our role in supplying the reliable, affordable and ever cleaner energy that the world needs is crucial, and we strive to deliver on our commitments. Each year, we invest tens of billions of dollars in jobs, goods and services in the communities around the world where we operate. Our strategic partnerships and social investments represent further important contributions to community prosperity. Over the past five years, we’ve made more than $1.1 billion in social investments globally, consistently placing Chevron in the top quartile of Fortune 100 companies in these investments. There's also almost 2 billion shares outstanding that represent people investing in this small company's future in oil and gas (and a bit of green tech thrown in for good measure.): Chevron shares outstanding for the quarter ending December 31, 2018 were 1.914B, a 0.84% increase year-over-year. Of course, that's just one small company and a few hundred million investors; there are others I've heard. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mad-trader + 25 TT March 11, 2019 (edited) I found a guy who UNRAVELS the claims global warming agreed 97% served as science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcherhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley Definitions Last one catastrophic global warming needing climate policy and intervention --- he group is not climate change deniers - - audience 100% agreed we are a cause of some warming.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY final picture - the statistical analysis of papers claimed to prove .. 0.3% NOT 97% Conclusion : stats 0.3% say people impact is dangerous and Climate Policy needed You really can't argue 😎 The group further attacks socialism - fracking fears - gun control https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzp8QlVd_hDLfK1LMLDu3dQ DEFINITIONS -- everyone agrees with Edited March 11, 2019 by mad-trader Add the mans credentials and Wikipedia link 1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mad-trader + 25 TT March 11, 2019 (edited) These guys are fun MATH showing Windmills destroy. Have zero effect?? Sounded like 20 years HUGE COST watch it.. the math at first glace looks good. The proposed GIGANTIC wind farm in sea off of England You can fill in the rest - math $$ etc later in teh presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH4m-Cs-u3Y Edited March 11, 2019 by mad-trader better word 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mad-trader + 25 TT March 11, 2019 For the record I don't have a fully formed opinion.. on climate change being as fast as is said or man made. THE ice melting is huge - if they can show true Causal effect that creates hurricanes.. Sure All they have is correlated data .. One CAUSES other 80% Fact But the Warming crowd is so RABID and now full of crap by at least a somewhat reputable source USING DATA -- DATA RULES.. The fact they want MONEY - HUGE MONEY and THEIR AGENDA immediately puts me on defense.. I'd need to look really close at real details Rabid opinionated people piss me off. The irrational stuff and feelings Hold no weight.. SHOW ME THE DATA and SELL IT TO ME is always what I say. Then shut down Them owning proof is always the best way to deal with things.. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mad-trader + 25 TT March 11, 2019 I'm really sorry.. This one is too good. "The founder" of the Weather Channel and original weather man for the good morning america show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist) SAYS it's non-sense https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA3OA_2S4QY 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guillaume Albasini + 851 March 11, 2019 In reality, Coleman was forced out of The Weather Channel in 1983, just a year after he helped found it. Coleman has had no affiliation with The Weather Channel for over 30 years. The Weather Channel has an official statement on climate change. It states, More than a century’s worth of detailed climate observations shows a sharp increase in both carbon dioxide and temperature. These observations, together with computer model simulations and historical climate reconstructions from ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings all provide strong evidence that the majority of the warming over the past century is a result of human activities. This is also the conclusion drawn, nearly unanimously, by climate scientists. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/nov/03/weather-channel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWMan + 89 wl March 11, 2019 This is just like the "great Global warming swindle". The global warming theory people hated it and forced channel 4 to issue statements etc. about bits that were wrong but the hole point of the show was missed by them. Probably deliberately. The point of the show was the lack of true scientific debate. "to question global warming is like being a holocaust denier". Global warming people say every scientist agrees. I am a scientist and I don't and I think there are a few others. The real thing that annoys me is I don't see a document which presents the theory with the advantages and disadvantages. All theories can be wrong or correct. Are we to believe that there is not one piece of data that does not support the theory - really!! How are variations in the suns output modelled? What about variations in the internal temperature of the earth. Is "since records began" (200 years) a representative sample of time, to base the theory on? Maybe I missed it but I have not seen the debate. There is the global warming theory and the others who are considered mad men or woman or people. 2 1 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tom Kirkman + 8,860 March 12, 2019 8 hours ago, NWMan said: This is just like the "great Global warming swindle". The global warming theory people hated it and forced channel 4 to issue statements etc. about bits that were wrong but the hole point of the show was missed by them. Probably deliberately. The point of the show was the lack of true scientific debate. "to question global warming is like being a holocaust denier". Global warming people say every scientist agrees. I am a scientist and I don't and I think there are a few others. The real thing that annoys me is I don't see a document which presents the theory with the advantages and disadvantages. All theories can be wrong or correct. Are we to believe that there is not one piece of data that does not support the theory - really!! How are variations in the suns output modelled? What about variations in the internal temperature of the earth. Is "since records began" (200 years) a representative sample of time, to base the theory on? Maybe I missed it but I have not seen the debate. There is the global warming theory and the others who are considered mad men or woman or people. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6509408121486667777 2 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 March 12, 2019 Just a thought on the title of this thread: Go Green or Kiss My Ass! 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rodent + 1,424 March 12, 2019 5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said: Just a thought on the title of this thread: Go Green or Kiss My Ass! 🤫 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWMan + 89 wl March 12, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 March 12, 2019 34 minutes ago, NWMan said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM The man makes sense. Now let's wait for our friends on the religious side of the argument to tell us the gospel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWMan + 89 wl March 12, 2019 Slightly harder to describe a "Nobel Laureate in Physics" as a made man.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG March 13, 2019 On 3/5/2019 at 10:38 AM, Guillaume Albasini said: The unhealthy air quality is a real incentive to switch away from the fossil fuels as quickly as possible. A view of Gurugram city's skyline enveloped in heavy smog and heavy air pollution. Gurugram is the World's most polluted city. Which they do not appear to be doing...... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG March 13, 2019 https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/12/greenpeace-cofounder-climate-crisis-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/ 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guillaume Albasini + 851 March 13, 2019 4 hours ago, Illurion said: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/03/12/greenpeace-cofounder-climate-crisis-not-only-fake-news-its-fake-science/ This is another fake news from Breitbart. Mr Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace, according to a public statement issued by the environmental group. Despite Fox News and Mr Trump both claiming otherwise, Greenpeace wrote in a statement that while Mr Moore “played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years,” he was not responsible for founding the organisation. “Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental ‘expert’ or even an ‘environmentalist,’ while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance,” the group said in a statement published on its website. “He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.” “He did not found Greenpeace,” the organisation added. Rather, Mr Moore is a public relations consultant who has worked across a number of industries, from mining to nuclear energy and biotechnology defence. He regularly claims humans do not contribute to climate change in statements to the media. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-climate-change-skeptic-patrick-moore-a8819416.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dan Warnick + 6,100 March 13, 2019 ^^ And we have our first zealot, telling us that anyone who speaks against the god of climate change shall be stricken from the record and denounced as a satan worshipper. Oh, and he's of course a liar of great and evil proportions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWMan + 89 wl March 13, 2019 4 hours ago, Guillaume Albasini said: Mr Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace, according to a public statement issued by the environmental group. It does not matter if he is the co founder of green peace or not. He is a scientist. So there is me, the Nobel Laureate in Physics, more than 40 geoscientists, Gregory Wrightstone. So that is 43 plus scientist who do agree that global warming is man made. This does not mean we think recycling is wrong, or looking after the planet is wrong, or reducing the use of hydrocarbons when we can is wrong. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Illurion + 894 IG March 13, 2019 8 hours ago, NWMan said: It does not matter if he is the co founder of green peace or not. He is a scientist. So there is me, the Nobel Laureate in Physics, more than 40 geoscientists, Gregory Wrightstone. So that is 43 plus scientist who do agree that global warming is man made. This does not mean we think recycling is wrong, or looking after the planet is wrong, or reducing the use of hydrocarbons when we can is wrong. more garbage....... https://tammybruce.com/2019/03/flashback-1989-un-predicts-entire-nations-could-be-destroyed-due-to-global-warming-in-2000.html 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NWMan + 89 wl March 14, 2019 look at this - global cooling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling It does not matter if he is the co founder of green peace or not. He is a scientist. So there is me, the Nobel Laureate in Physics, more than 40 geoscientists, Gregory Wrightstone. So that is 43 plus scientist who do not agree that global warming is man made. This does not mean we think recycling is wrong, or looking after the planet is wrong, or reducing the use of hydrocarbons when we can is wrong 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Trending Discussions
