Go Green or Die

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.19488964bcaaf97311e306f2a93c8b38.png

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.

 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I found  a guy who  UNRAVELS the claims global warming agreed  97%

served as science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
https://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 

 

image.png.21ec04238d501c4e70f7c1095e47b1c6.png

image.png.a23e1efecc1b3714670c597ef07efec0.png

 

Edited by mad-trader
Add the mans credentials and Wikipedia link
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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

image.png.61da875c78de80cfb0a92a4c3ec84154.png

Edited by mad-trader
better word
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

20190312_093716.jpg

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought on the title of this thread:  Go Green or Kiss My Ass!  image.png.69d9fd84dc2778bfb055433e1592d51c.png

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Just a thought on the title of this thread:  Go Green or Kiss My Ass!  image.png.69d9fd84dc2778bfb055433e1592d51c.png

🤫

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly harder to describe a "Nobel Laureate in Physics" as a made man..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.a5f974d4b8f8534fd3a9e126c8748905.png

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......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Illurion said:

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

 

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^  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.

image.png.d16dbd59fdf6bbf7d03cbb36d2cdcfa6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor