Environmentalists demand oil and gas companies *IN THE USA AND CANADA* reduce emissions to address climate change

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Oh dear, oil & gas companies in the USA and Canada are apparently the worst evildoers in the world for Climate Armageddon.

(Ignore that Middle East and China behind the curtain.)

I suggest that everyone in the U.S  and Canada PANIC now, and begin self-flagellation as penance for their climate crimes.

Did I mention PANIC yet?

 

Environmentalists demand oil and gas companies reduce emissions to address climate change

Expected expansion of oil and gas development in the United States could push global warming to dangerous levels during the next five years.

With the industry anticipating a $1.4 trillion investment during that time, the subsequent developments could push global warming beyond 2 degrees Celsius, read a December report from the Global Gas and Oil Network.

Scientists estimated 1.5 Celsius increase could lead to dramatic changes in the world’s ecosystem.

The Network that authored the study titled Oil, Gas and Climate was comprised of numerous environmentalist groups around the world, including the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club and Earthworks.

The research found that most of the expected production would come from the United States and Canada, and that additional investments could cause another 148 gigatonnes of carbon emissions by 2050 – the equivalent of 1,200 new coal-fired power plants.  ...

 

... Jamie Henn, communications director at 350 Action – a New York-based environmentalist group – called on the federal government cease fossil fuel production.

“The public isn’t falling for it. We know the only solution in line with the latest science is to stop all new fossil fuel projects and phase-out existing production as soon as possible.”

 

[Hotone + 412]

I suppose you haven't been following the events in Australia?  Many people blame it on climate change

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

People will blame each and every catastrophe or change in recent weather patterns on climate change...whether there is any scientific evidence or not.

If you can’t identify the cause, just blame it on climate change! It is then politically incorrect to argue with you.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 oil & gas companies in the USA and Canada are apparently the worst evildoers in the world for Climate Armageddon.

(Ignore that Middle East and China behind the curtain.)

Hahahahahah look at Mr Patriotic here 🤣 - love it Tom LOL. A few weeks ago, this would have been JUST a reference to China guaranteed!!  🤣

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If you can’t identify the cause, just blame it on climate change! It is then politically incorrect to argue with you.

Is it? You have been away from here more than you think obviously 🤣

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 hours ago, Hotone said:

I suppose you haven't been following the events in Australia?  Many people blame it on climate change

Presumably you are referring to the wildfires.  Australia is a naturally dry continent, with perhaps 1/3 or more of the Outback very dry, just about desert.  You have little water vapor in the air and that translates to little rain.  Meanwhile fires have largely been suppressed to avoid destruction to bother farm structures and agriculture, including tree crops.  It is now going through another cycle of great dryness, and fire is one of the results. 

So the real question is not, "is there climate change?," because obviously there is, but instead: "Is this change caused by the human activity of burning oil and natural gas, thus generating CO2 as a byproduct? " 

Let's remember that current CO2 levels are measured as a trace gas in the atmosphere.  N2, basic nitrogen, is a gas measured in parts per hundred.   O2 is also measured in parts per hundred.  CO2 is measured in parts per million.   Argon gas is also measured in parts per million, roughly where CO2 is.  So, ask yourself: is there an argon gas emergency? 

The next argument being presented is that CO2 is somehow a "greenhouse gas" that traps heat below it.  That is a bit silly.  First, there is not enough of the stuff out there:  again, the gas is measured in minuscule levels.  Second, the idea stems from some experiment in a lab where CO2 was placed inside a glass bottle and light was passed through it. This experiment, done a hundred years ago, and largely forgotten, has been resurrected from the museum and now made this cornerstone of all "climate science."  I find this to be a dubious proposition. 

Arguing that CO2 was this trapper gas or reflector gas might hold some water if it had a concentration in parts per hundred.  At parts per million, there is just not enough of the stuff out there to make any difference, other than to slightly  improve the absorption of biomass in the growth cycle of plants.  the mania you are observing about CO2 is on the same intellectual level of the tulip bulb bubble of ancient (medieval) Holland, or the idea that Michael Jackson did not die, he is on a resort on Mars.  Up there with Elvis Presley.  

When you start taking this stuff seriously, you have abandoned critical thinking.  That is a thought process of dubious merit. 

 Edit P.S.:  @DayTrader will declare that I am making it up as I go along.  It is entirely plausible that he and his assessment is quite correct.  That, however, does not denigrate the accuracy of the final result, which I leave to you to judge. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Jan van Eck

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Presumably you are referring to the wildfires.  Australia is a naturally dry continent, with perhaps 1/3 or more of the Outback very dry, just about desert.  You have little water vapor in the air and that translates to little rain.  Meanwhile fires have largely been suppressed to avoid destruction to bother farm structures and agriculture, including tree crops.  It is now going through another cycle of great dryness, and fire is one of the results. 

So the real question is not, "is there climate change?," because obviously there is, but instead: "Is this change caused by the human activity of burning oil and natural gas, thus generating CO2 as a byproduct? " 

Let's remember that current CO2 levels are measured as a trace gas in the atmosphere.  N2, basic nitrogen, is a gas measured in parts per hundred.   O2 is also measured in parts per hundred.  CO2 is measured in parts per million.   Argon gas is also measured in parts per million, roughly where CO2 is.  So, ask yourself: is there an argon gas emergency? 

The next argument being presented is that CO2 is somehow a "greenhouse gas" that traps heat below it.  That is a bit silly.  First, there is not enough of the stuff out there:  again, the gas is measured in minuscule levels.  Second, the idea stems from some experiment in a lab where CO2 was placed inside a glass bottle and light was passed through it. This experiment, done a hundred years ago, and largely forgotten, has been resurrected from the museum and now made this cornerstone of all "climate science."  I find this to be a dubious proposition. 

Arguing that CO2 was this trapper gas or reflector gas might hold some water if it had a concentration in parts per hundred.  At parts per million, there is just not enough of the stuff out there to make any difference, other than to slightly  improve the absorption of biomass in the growth cycle of plants.  the mania you are observing about CO2 is on the same intellectual level of the tulip bulb bubble of ancient (medieval) Holland, or the idea that Michael Jackson did not die, he is on a resort on Mars.  Up there with Elvis Presley.  

When you start taking this stuff seriously, you have abandoned critical thinking.  That is a thought process of dubious merit. 

 Edit P.S.:  @DayTrader will declare that I am making it up as I go along.  It is entirely plausible that he and his assessment is quite correct.  That, however, does not denigrate the accuracy of the final result, which I leave to you to judge. 

I take it you missed the Physics lectures on "transparency of atmospheric gases to infrared light'? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

  @DayTrader will declare that I am making it up as I go along.  It is entirely plausible that he and his assessment is quite correct.

Haha no that's not every time (underlined), unlike the bold bit which is a constant.

50 minutes ago, NickW said:

I take it you missed the Physics lectures on "transparency of atmospheric gases to infrared light'? 

I'm afraid I did despite the exciting sounding title ...   

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Second, the idea stems from some experiment in a lab where CO2 was placed inside a glass bottle and light was passed through it. This experiment, done a hundred years ago, and largely forgotten, has been resurrected from the museum and now made this cornerstone of all "climate science."  I find this to be a dubious proposition.

Infrared spectroscopy is widely used, and has never been "largely forgotten."  

It's very useful for detecting the presence or absence of functional groups when monitoring a reactions' progress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, DayTrader said:

 

I'm afraid I did despite the exciting sounding title ...   

It would be more exciting than you would imagine.

Most people have little understanding on how "light" interacts with matter.  Radio waves essentially do nothing, microwaves can detect or cause rotations, infrared is vibrations, visible light is non-ionizing electronic / orbital transitions, UV is the start of ionizing radiation, x-rays mostly pass through but also ionize, gamma rays almost always just pass through matter without interaction.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

It would be more exciting than you would imagine.

Haha I'm sure it is man, it's just not my bag at all this stuff. I was falling asleep halfway through your next paragraph, sorry, just not my thing, but I am happy for you and Nick that you stay awake. Just that is impressive, let alone ''non ionizing electronic transitions'' .... zzzz, ooh drifting off again ...

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Hahahahahah look at Mr Patriotic here 🤣 - love it Tom LOL. A few weeks ago, this would have been JUST a reference to China guaranteed!!  🤣

Is it? You have been away from here more than you think obviously 🤣

Just tell the greenies we will stop producing oil and gas and switch to coal like China is doing at home and elsewhere. 

[Boat + 1,315]

6 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Just tell the greenies we will stop producing oil and gas and switch to coal like China is doing at home and elsewhere. 

Ron, we just went through this awhile back. We showed you the hundreds of billions spent in the last decade on renewables and nat gas, Don’t act like Trump with all this disinformation. Google. Coal in comparison has basically leveled off in spite of tremendous growth in GDP.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 1/5/2020 at 8:50 AM, Hotone said:

I suppose you haven't been following the events in Australia?  Many people blame it on climate change

 

Two points to my rebuttal.

 

1)  Climate Change models seem to conveniently exclude this temperature data below.

Syndey Morning Herald from 1939 stated that the record high temperature for New South Wales was 125 degrees in 1909.  Conveniently, most climate models for Australia seem to start at 1910.  Climate cherry picking data.  Piss poor "science".

 

 

2) Much of the current fires in Australia are attributed to arson by humans, but much of mainstream media refuses to report this fact.

Nearly 200 People Arrested Across Australia For Deliberately Starting Bushfires

Authorities in Australia have arrested close to 200 people for deliberately starting the bushfires that have devastated the country, yet the media and celebrities continue to blame “climate change” for the disaster.

The fires have caused at least 18 deaths, destroyed thousands of homes, millions of hectares of land and killed hundreds of millions of animals.

A total of 183 people have been arrested by police in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania for lighting bushfires over the last few months, figures obtained by news agency AAP show.

In New South Wales, 24 people were arrested for arson, risking prison sentences of up to 25 years.

In Queensland, police concluded that 103 of the fires had been deliberately lit, with 98 people, 67 of them juveniles, having been identified as the culprits.

“The link between arsonists and the deadly fires that devastate Australia every summer is well known and well documented, with the rate of deliberately lit fires escalating rapidly during the school holiday period,” reports Breitbart’s Simon Kent.

Around 85 per cent of bushfires are caused by humans either deliberately or accidentally starting them, according to Dr Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson.

“About 85 per cent are related to human activity, 13 per cent confirmed arson and 37 per cent suspected arson,” he said.

“The remainder are usually due to reckless fire lighting or even just children playing with fire.”

Read also highlighted the link between school holidays and kids starting fires, commenting, “School holidays are a prime time for fire bugs, but especially over summer.” The kids have got time to get out there and light, and the most dangerous adults choose hot days.”

...

 

==================================

Perhaps Climate Terrorism by environmentalist extremists are actually to blame.

 

 

===================================

Similar deliberate misdirection as Southern Africa blaming food shortages on "Climate Change" when in actual fact the white farmers were chased away / killed and the remaining people did not farm the land.  Footbullet.

 

[James Regan + 1,776]

I quite liked the honorable Mr Scott Morrison and apparently this has not been taken well something about climate change responsible for Australian Bush Fires which have been happening for Milena, has nothing to do with encroachment on new land and infrastructure, apparently we need to stop evolving...

https://youtu.be/nQLRXD_xXfM

[ronwagn + 6,290]

17 hours ago, Boat said:

Ron, we just went through this awhile back. We showed you the hundreds of billions spent in the last decade on renewables and nat gas, Don’t act like Trump with all this disinformation. Google. Coal in comparison has basically leveled off in spite of tremendous growth in GDP.

It was a facetious comment. I want us to use maximum natural gas and think that is the best answer. Obviously Asians don't care to spend a little more for imported LNG but will buy Russian and Asian piped natural gas if it is cheap enough. The whole worldwide green scam is primarily a way to ruin Western economies. Communists are never criticised. America has the best record of any large nation due to switching to natural gas and renewables and away from coal. China is burning more coal than ever and building more coal plants in other countries. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by ronwagn
addition

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hmmmmm

 

[Hotone + 412]

On 1/7/2020 at 12:15 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Two points to my rebuttal.

 

1)  Climate Change models seem to conveniently exclude this temperature data below.

Syndey Morning Herald from 1939 stated that the record high temperature for New South Wales was 125 degrees in 1909.  Conveniently, most climate models for Australia seem to start at 1910.  Climate cherry picking data.  Piss poor "science".

 

 

2) Much of the current fires in Australia are attributed to arson by humans, but much of mainstream media refuses to report this fact.

Nearly 200 People Arrested Across Australia For Deliberately Starting Bushfires

Authorities in Australia have arrested close to 200 people for deliberately starting the bushfires that have devastated the country, yet the media and celebrities continue to blame “climate change” for the disaster.

The fires have caused at least 18 deaths, destroyed thousands of homes, millions of hectares of land and killed hundreds of millions of animals.

A total of 183 people have been arrested by police in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania for lighting bushfires over the last few months, figures obtained by news agency AAP show.

In New South Wales, 24 people were arrested for arson, risking prison sentences of up to 25 years.

In Queensland, police concluded that 103 of the fires had been deliberately lit, with 98 people, 67 of them juveniles, having been identified as the culprits.

“The link between arsonists and the deadly fires that devastate Australia every summer is well known and well documented, with the rate of deliberately lit fires escalating rapidly during the school holiday period,” reports Breitbart’s Simon Kent.

Around 85 per cent of bushfires are caused by humans either deliberately or accidentally starting them, according to Dr Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson.

“About 85 per cent are related to human activity, 13 per cent confirmed arson and 37 per cent suspected arson,” he said.

“The remainder are usually due to reckless fire lighting or even just children playing with fire.”

Read also highlighted the link between school holidays and kids starting fires, commenting, “School holidays are a prime time for fire bugs, but especially over summer.” The kids have got time to get out there and light, and the most dangerous adults choose hot days.”

...

 

==================================

Perhaps Climate Terrorism by environmentalist extremists are actually to blame.

 

 

===================================

Similar deliberate misdirection as Southern Africa blaming food shortages on "Climate Change" when in actual fact the white farmers were chased away / killed and the remaining people did not farm the land.  Footbullet.

 

Just spotted this. From the Guardian.

Bots and trolls spread false arson claims in Australian fires ‘disinformation campaign’

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/twitter-bots-trolls-australian-bushfires-social-media-disinformation-campaign-false-claims

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 minutes ago, Hotone said:

Just spotted this. From the Guardian.

Bots and trolls spread false arson claims in Australian fires ‘disinformation campaign’

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/twitter-bots-trolls-australian-bushfires-social-media-disinformation-campaign-false-claims

Yep, the epitome of unbiased left wing truthiness, The Guardian.  Attempting damage control.  I saw this hours ago.  Lame attempt by The Guardian.

[Danny Hangartner + 31]

On 1/7/2020 at 5:14 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep, the epitome of unbiased left wing truthiness, The Guardian.  Attempting damage control.  I saw this hours ago.  Lame attempt by The Guardian.

Social media is something that I'm straying away from. Changing my mind and stuff is impossible when not allowed to delete previous posts.

So I edit.

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Danny Hangartner
Social media is something that I'm straying away from. Changing my mind and stuff is impossible when not allowed to delete previous posts. So I edit.

[Hotone + 412]

On 1/8/2020 at 8:14 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Yep, the epitome of unbiased left wing truthiness, The Guardian.  Attempting damage control.  I saw this hours ago.  Lame attempt by The Guardian.

Here they go after you again:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/12/disinformation-and-lies-are-spreading-faster-than-australias-bushfires

[grantbus + 3]

Anyone with an eye on the horizon, acknowledges the necessity of a transition to a zero emission economy.  It’s not about saving the whales any more it’s about saving the kids.

The physics of CO2 are unarguable. The Australian fires follow arguably (there are different ways to measure the severity of a drought) the worst drought in our history, and 2019 was the hottest and driest year in history.

The Murdoch media and fringe fake news sites have been deflecting from the reality of atmospheric heating, by focusing on arson or poor fire management practice, but what we are seeing is simply landscape change that is the inevitable product of climate change.

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, grantbus said:

Anyone with an eye on the horizon, acknowledges the necessity of a transition to a zero emission economy.  It’s not about saving the whales any more it’s about saving the kids.

The physics of CO2 are unarguable. The Australian fires follow arguably (there are different ways to measure the severity of a drought) the worst drought in our history, and 2019 was the hottest and driest year in history.

The Murdoch media and fringe fake news sites have been deflecting from the reality of atmospheric heating, by focusing on arson or poor fire management practice, but what we are seeing is simply landscape change that is the inevitable product of climate change.

Not on here. We have Fisiks 'professors' at OP.com who refute that there are any differences in the transparency of different  atmospheric gases to infrared radiation. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by NickW

[0R0 + 6,251]

11 hours ago, grantbus said:

Anyone with an eye on the horizon, acknowledges the necessity of a transition to a zero emission economy.  It’s not about saving the whales any more it’s about saving the kids.

The physics of CO2 are unarguable. The Australian fires follow arguably (there are different ways to measure the severity of a drought) the worst drought in our history, and 2019 was the hottest and driest year in history.

The Murdoch media and fringe fake news sites have been deflecting from the reality of atmospheric heating, by focusing on arson or poor fire management practice, but what we are seeing is simply landscape change that is the inevitable product of climate change.

We are recognizing that we need zero emission environmentalists..

Being opposed to the existence of civilization and its supporting industries makes environmentalists a deadly nihilist fringe group that should be treated the same way we treat racists. Social ostracism and constant denigration. 

Bottom line is that adherence to environmentalist priorities means the death of billions of people. Why? because of the religious dogma hung upon vague scientific projections. Whatever catastrophic future they predict, does not justify decimating billions of people now. 

This is the first year of declining births. We have essentially capped the population through the tried and true method of urbanization. That means that over the next decades we will be spending less on infrastructure, on building new plant and thus producing lower emissions in any case. The renewable energy technologies are making headway in commercial implementation and where they are not sufficient or impractical, natural gas is being used increasingly to displace coal and oil, which both have a larger carbon footprint than NG. 

The world will be burning less, not more, in less than 20 years without any environmentalist laws or actions. There is no longer a problem, if there ever was one. . 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

58 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

We are recognizing that we need zero emission environmentalists..

Being opposed to the existence of civilization and its supporting industries makes environmentalists a deadly nihilist fringe group that should be treated the same way we treat racists. Social ostracism and constant denigration. 

Bottom line is that adherence to environmentalist priorities means the death of billions of people. Why? because of the religious dogma hung upon vague scientific projections. Whatever catastrophic future they predict, does not justify decimating billions of people now. 

This is the first year of declining births. We have essentially capped the population through the tried and true method of urbanization. That means that over the next decades we will be spending less on infrastructure, on building new plant and thus producing lower emissions in any case. The renewable energy technologies are making headway in commercial implementation and where they are not sufficient or impractical, natural gas is being used increasingly to displace coal and oil, which both have a larger carbon footprint than NG. 

The world will be burning less, not more, in less than 20 years without any environmentalist laws or actions. There is no longer a problem, if there ever was one. . 

This was never about a systemic threat to the environment. It was always about unelected bureaucrats telling the entire world (especially the First World) what to do, effectively a one world government. They're not going to let little things like being wrong stop that agenda.