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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

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. 

According to certain sects of the globalism religion, people are the problem of planet earth.  Ted Turner, for example, was pretty specific.  Yes, he really said this.  You can bet that YOU are NOT included in that figure of 250 to 300 million total earth population.

quote-a-total-population-of-250-300-million-people-a-95-decline-from-present-levels-would-ted-turner-130-95-22.jpg.142fe02e87a0803d2839b7952d2c5288.jpg

 

fae405ae834ec9d5b339879d94db758fdaf13a0dcfdf57d0f5d59056ab858780.thumb.jpg.1b3a5a4b45a6fc22f75304a9ff074c29.jpg

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2020 at 5:11 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

According to certain sects of the globalism religion, people are the problem of planet earth.  Ted Turner, for example, was pretty specific.  Yes, he really said this.  You can bet that YOU are NOT included in that figure of 250 to 300 million total earth population.

quote-a-total-population-of-250-300-million-people-a-95-decline-from-present-levels-would-ted-turner-130-95-22.jpg.142fe02e87a0803d2839b7952d2c5288.jpg

 

 

 

How in the world? I don't get his logic... 300 million people. What are you going to do with all the extra space? And the empty cities and unused infrastructure...?

With only 300 million people, who's going to build and design your car, drill the oil, farm everything, build your plane, fuel your plane, FLY your plane, build that resort you go to every summer, work that resort, FUND that resort...

I mean I can see logic for decreasing from current size, especially as many enter the first world, but that's so drastic as to be the limit of feasible while still allowing a billionaire like him to maintain his lifestyle... (And would make it incredibly hard to stay a billionaire... He's a media tycoon, the way he made his money was by getting pennies from every person who tuned in, and then investing in a growing economy.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Otis11 said:

How in the world? I don't get his logic... 300 million people. What are you going to do with all the extra space? And the empty cities and unused infrastructure...?

With only 300 million people, who's going to build and design your car, drill the oil, farm everything, build your plane, fuel your plane, FLY your plane, build that resort you go to every summer, work that resort, FUND that resort...

I mean I can see logic for decreasing from current size, especially as many enter the first world, but that's so drastic as to be the limit of feasible while still allowing a billionaire like him to maintain his lifestyle... (And would make it incredibly hard to stay a billionaire... He's a media tycoon, the way he made his money was by getting pennies from every person who tuned in, and then investing in a growing economy.)

 

Try doing a bit of searching about Agenda 21 and related topics.

Better to use DuckDuckGo for searching these topics, as Google generally squelches the more "interesting" search results.

Here, I'll get you started.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2020 at 8:32 PM, 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. 

A point which a Physics undergraduate in a University Lab can disprove fairly easily. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Otis11 said:

How in the world? I don't get his logic... 300 million people. What are you going to do with all the extra space? And the empty cities and unused infrastructure...?

Ted Turner is the USA's largest private landlord, in terms of acreage.  I forget just how much land he owns, but it is staggering.  Out West, the only entity that owns more land is the Federal Government!   Turner has this idea that by "he" owning all this land then it is "preserved" against the infidels, meaning ordinary people, whom he so despises.  Those vast tracts are all posted "no trespassing," and his men ride horseback patrols to shoo off any unwary tourists that stop by the roadside in Montana to have a little picnic.  Turner has also started up large herds of American Buffalo  ["bison"], where he has some idea that these are better as food source and as prairie animals than cattle.  He might be right on that one.  But his ideas of having huge tracts of land utterly empty, no people allowed, is a bit strange, for a man that lives in urban Atlanta.  

Turner is also not a particularly chivalrous man.  He has the money to purchase these very expensive fast racing sailboats.  In one sail race, I think it was called the Fastnet, the racing boats left a port on the English Channel, possibly Plymouth, and raced around the far end of Cornwall (England) to Ireland, on the Irish Sea.  Well, it turned out that a huge storm blew up and other competitors got into very serious trouble in the Irish Sea, one boat being dismasted and swamped.  It is part of the sailors' code of honor that you do not leave a boat in distress, abandoning the crew to their fate.  Turner pressed on with the race (most boats had already abandoned the attempt, turning back to the shelter of the Channel ports) and some of the men on a stricken boat died.  Turner's comment:  "If you are not prepared for a tough race, then you shouldn't be racing, so you get what you deserve."  [That is a paraphrased quote, I don't remember his exact words, but basically he intended that if you go out then the Code of Sailors to rescue those in distress did not apply to him.]    That is the kind of person Ted Turner is, so watch out. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Turner is also not a particularly chivalrous man.  He has the money to purchase these very expensive fast racing sailboats.  In one sail race, I think it was called the Fastnet, the racing boats left a port on the English Channel, possibly Plymouth, and raced around the far end of Cornwall (England) to Ireland, on the Irish Sea.

FYI

The Fastnet Race takes place every two years over a course of 608 nautical miles (1,126 km). The race starts off Cowes on the Isle of Wight on the south coast of England at the Royal Yacht Squadron. Leaving The Solent through The Needles Channel, the race follows the southern coastline of England westward down the English Channel, before rounding Land's End. After crossing the Celtic Sea, the race rounds the Fastnet Rock off the southwest coast of Ireland. Returning on a largely reciprocal course, the race rounds the Isles of Scilly before finishing at Plymouth.

The Fastnet is a challenging race. Taking place in August, the race is often provided with Westerlies that are strong to gale force in strength. The succession of low pressure systems which advance on Ireland and Britain across the North Atlantic Ocean provide a constantly moving weather pattern for which Fastnet navigators must plan. These depressions are mostly centered north of the English Channel. Knowledge of where meteorological disturbances are likely to occur, and how best to use them, is the keynote to success in the race.

You might want to peruse the attached 

https://www.pacmar.com/story/2015/07/01/maritime-law/rescue-at-sea/357.html

Mr.Turner sounds like a lovely piece of work!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Mr.Turner sounds like a lovely piece of work!

Now you know why Jane Fonda dumped him!

Those billionaires don't do so hot with women, I have noticed.   Jeff Bezos, the head of Amazon, now worth some 133 Billion  (but hey, who's counting?), got dumped by his wife.  She took $38 billion for a divorce settlement.  Jeff ends up missing a hefty chunk of cash and a nice wife.  Tells you something about his mental state.   And now you know why those Amazon Fulfillment Centers have 100% employee turnover in a year.   Another lovely fellow. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

She took $38 billion for a divorce settlement.

I don't suppose you've got her contact details as well Jan??😂

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I don't suppose you've got her contact details as well Jan??😂

Psh, good luck! You rockstars are bums next to $38 Billion. That's such a staggering amount of money. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has to be the largest divorce settlement ever.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2020 at 1:55 PM, NickW said:

A point which a Physics undergraduate in a University Lab can disprove fairly easily. 

If this were true, why have  they not done so....  Oh right, clouds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 11:35 PM, PE Scott said:

Psh, good luck! You rockstars are bums next to $38 Billion. That's such a staggering amount of money. 

You could buy more than one entire country with that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2020 at 11:57 PM, 0R0 said:

You could buy more than one entire country with that. 

Along with the entire Parliament, the President, and the Presidential Palace!

Nah, she's American, so she will just live simply in California.  $60 million for a house?  Chump change.

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

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0