Any doubts about Climate Change?

**S Landreth** · 09-03-2021, 06:36 AM

Copernicus – February 2021

The global-mean temperature for February 2021 was a little above the climatological average for 1991-2020, but less extreme than for any month since April 2015. The month was:

*0.06°C warmer than the 1991-2020 average for February
*more than 0.6°C cooler than February 2016, the most anomalously warm month on record
*more than 0.5°C cooler than February 2020, the second warmest February,
*between 0.2°C and 0.5°C cooler than the Februaries of 2017, 2018 and 2019, and cooler than several other Februaries in the record.

Homepage | Copernicus

Zack Labe - Cumulative change in the mass of glaciers around the world - preliminary data now available through 2020: https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1366471916110839808 - Database Error

Berkeley Earth - With a relatively mild start and an ongoing La Niña, 2021 is unlikely to be a record warm year.

We anticipate that 2021 will be around the 4th or 5th warmest year on record. It is still very likely to be among the 7 warmest years, beating all years prior to 2015.: https://twitter.com/BerkeleyEarth/st...30558792921089

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Just for you Harry

Oil Giants Prepare to Put Carbon Back in the Ground - The New York Times

still? Hook, line and sinker

Originally Posted by S Landreth

How to spot the tricks Big Oil uses to subvert action on climate change

Three ways fossil fuel companies try to trick the public.

Aware of the science but afraid of the impacts it might have on their returns, oil executives funded opposition research that “attacked consensus and exaggerated the uncertainties” on the science of climate change for many years, with the goal of undermining support for climate action.

Their messaging has worked for so long because Big Oil has become really good at stretching the truth.

So what are the talking points the oil industry uses to try to convince the public in these PR blitzes?

People can recognize fossil fuel industry talking points by thinking about what they’re designed to do. In general, fossil fuel talking points are designed to do three things: make people believe that climate action will hurt them, and hurt their pocketbooks in particular; make people think we need fossil fuels; and try to convince us that climate change isn’t such a big deal.

1) Right now, they’re really hammering the point that climate action is going to hurt jobs and the economy.

It is true that if we phase out the fossil fuel industry there are going to be people, and indeed whole communities, that will need to find their livelihood in different industries. That is absolutely true.

But two things about that: Number one, you can design policies so that those people don’t suffer, and number two, you can put incentives in place so that the new jobs are created in the geographical regions that are already depopulated and suffering economically, because the fossil fuel industry is not actually prosperous enough anymore to sustain a vibrant economy in those regions to begin with.

So you can set up both: policies to ease the transition and policies to incentivize new investment so that the economy ends up more vibrant in these locations than it was before. Nothing is inevitable. The transition can be managed.

2) The second thing oil and gas companies will do is try to make people believe that we need fossil fuels, and that oil and gas companies should stay in business.

One I’ve seen a lot lately raises people’s national security fears with the message that we need to extract oil to maintain our “energy independence,” as if domestically produced fossil energy alone were powering America’s homes and businesses.

The truth is that, according to the US Energy Information Agency, in 2019 (the latest year for which full data is available) the US imported 9.14 million barrels of petroleum a day — half a million more than we exported. It’s clean, safe energy sources like wind and solar that are sure to be domestically produced, not oil and methane gas.

Another talking point designed to make us believe that we need fossil fuels is the message that we cannot halt global warming without “innovation.” This is a tricky one, because you’ll often hear energy researchers talk about the innovations we’ll want to develop in order to enable continued aviation and industrial shipping.

But saying that new technologies will help us is different from saying that we need them, which implies that the world cannot stop using fossil fuels now. So politicians in the pockets of the oil and gas producers will proclaim that they support “innovation,” and fossil fuel companies will place ads touting the money they’re spending on research and development— but the money they actually do spend is orders of magnitude smaller than their PR budgets, not to mention their budgets for exploring and developing new fossil fuel reserves.

3) The third thing Big Oil will try to do is to make people believe that climate change is not such a big deal. Either they call people trying to communicate the dangers of global warming “alarmists” or they simply don’t talk about the climate crisis at all.

In their campaign of silence they’re aided by the vast majority of the broadcast news media, which mostly proceeds as if the crisis didn’t exist and won’t even mention the words “climate change” when they report on floods, fires, and hurricanes in which there are scientifically established links to global warming.

Summary: Okay, so we now have the three points the fossil fuel industry often uses: Convince people climate action will hurt their pocketbooks, suggest that we need fossil fuels, and downplay the climate emergency. How do climate scientists, activists, and the media counter that narrative?

We’ve got to keep climate change in the foreground of people’s attention.: Climate change crisis: How oil and gas companies try to trick the public - Vox

Just for fun.

Part of #2 - talking point designed to make us believe that we need fossil fuels is the message that we cannot halt global warming without “innovation.”

Hook, line and sinker

**harrybarracuda** · 09-03-2021, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Just for you Harry

Oil Giants Prepare to Put Carbon Back in the Ground - The New York Times

Of course they will want paying for that as well.

**RPETER65** · 09-03-2021, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Of course they will want paying for that as well.

If you read the article you would see it is their money that is developing these processes.

**harrybarracuda** · 09-03-2021, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If you read the article you would see it is their money that is developing these processes.

If you had half a brain cell you'd know they are probably paying for it out of the $20Bn they screw from the taxpayer.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI.

**panama hat** · 09-03-2021, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If you had half a brain cell

. . . and there's the catch with repeater

**RPETER65** · 10-03-2021, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If you had half a brain cell you'd know they are probably paying for it out of the $20Bn they screw from the taxpayer.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI.

Better than stashing the money in there pockets

**RPETER65** · 10-03-2021, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

If you had half a brain cell you'd know they are probably paying for it out of the $20Bn they screw from the taxpayer.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs | White Papers | EESI.

Tha article is about BP (England) not the US.

**panama hat** · 10-03-2021, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Better than stashing the money in there pockets

Where?

**harrybarracuda** · 10-03-2021, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Tha article is about BP (England) not the US.

Awwww repeater, did you not know the US gives subsidies to foreign oil companies operating on US soil?

Was this like a little light bulb moment for you after your first inane comment?

Does it not occur to you that getting these subsidies allows them to stuff their own earnings in their pockets?

You doddery old fool.

**RPETER65** · 10-03-2021, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Awwww repeater, did you not know the US gives subsidies to foreign oil companies operating on US soil?

Was this like a little light bulb moment for you after your first inane comment?

Does it not occur to you that getting these subsidies allows them to stuff their own earnings in their pockets?

You doddery old fool.

Are you sure the US is subsidizing a carbon capture operation in England.

The other thing is if any US subsidy is going toward getting carbon out of the air I am all for it.

**harrybarracuda** · 10-03-2021, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Are you sure the US is subsidizing a carbon capture operation in England.

The other thing is if any US subsidy is going toward getting carbon out of the air I am all for it.

Who mentioned subsidies in England? Can't you read or something?

And I'm glad you are in favour of subsidies for climate change initiatives, so you won't moan when Biden creates a lot more of them.

**bsnub** · 10-03-2021, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Are you sure the US is subsidizing a carbon capture operation in England.

You are one stupid mother fuck and a prime example of why trumpism is a fucking cancer of dimwits.

**Backspin** · 11-03-2021, 03:01 AM

If you really believe in climate change then you should be the biggest proponent of zero emissions nuclear. If you oppose nuclear then it just exposes you as a Malthusian.

**S Landreth** · 11-03-2021, 03:41 AM

^Simpleton

The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change

1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
2. Cost
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
4. Meltdown Risk
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
7. Waste Risk

Summary

To recap, new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues). Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated (between 9 to 37 times depending upon plant size and construction schedule). In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.

“There is no such thing as a zero or near-zero-emission nuclear power plant”

**RPETER65** · 11-03-2021, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Who mentioned subsidies in England? Can't you read or something?

And I'm glad you are in favour of subsidies for climate change initiatives, so you won't moan when Biden creates a lot more of them.

What was mentioned in the article is this is a project being done in England . Please try to keep up.

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2021, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

What was mentioned in the article is this is a project being done in England . Please try to keep up.

What does that have to do with BP getting subsidies and tax breaks from the US government?

Other than that they can use the money to pay for projects anywhere else with their winnings?

**RPETER65** · 11-03-2021, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

What does that have to do with BP getting subsidies and tax breaks from the US government?

Other than that they can use the money to pay for projects anywhere else with their winnings?

Ok I take your point however no matter where the money comes from is spending it on carbon removal not a good thing.

I am sure you will find some ridiculous point to counter this such is your nature.

**harrybarracuda** · 11-03-2021, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ok I take your point however no matter where the money comes from is spending it on carbon removal not a good thing.

I am sure you will find some ridiculous point to counter this such is your nature.

I have no problem with the oil companies spending their money on projects that might profit them and don't harm the environment. I've already said they should be taxed to the hilt to pay for climate change mitigation measures.

I do have a problem with anyone else having to pay for it. After all, in earning those profits, they have been the major contributor to the damage.

however, their business model is to make money, so they won't be doing it for the public good.

They need to be held accountable.

**Backspin** · 11-03-2021, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

^Simpleton

The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change

1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
2. Cost
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
4. Meltdown Risk
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
7. Waste Risk

Summary

To recap, new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh (between 2.3 to 7.4 times depending upon location and integration issues). Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated (between 9 to 37 times depending upon plant size and construction schedule). In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.

“There is no such thing as a zero or near-zero-emission nuclear power plant”

Do fuck off. That list is utter shite. You are a malthusian

**panama hat** · 12-03-2021, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by Backspin

You are a malthusian

Uuuuhhhh . . . coming from a

Originally Posted by Backspin

Neo Cameralist

. . . thems fightin' words

**harrybarracuda** · 12-03-2021, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Uuuuhhhh . . . coming from a
. . . thems fightin' words

Oh fuck is he off again? Twat.

**RPETER65** · 12-03-2021, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Who mentioned subsidies in England? Can't you read or something?

And I'm glad you are in favour of subsidies for climate change initiatives, so you won't moan when Biden creates a lot more of them.

Depends on what they are and what repercussions

**RPETER65** · 12-03-2021, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I have no problem with the oil companies spending their money on projects that might profit them and don't harm the environment. I've already said they should be taxed to the hilt to pay for climate change mitigation measures.

I do have a problem with anyone else having to pay for it. After all, in earning those profits, they have been the major contributor

however, their business model is to make money, so they won't be doing it for the public good.

They need to be held accountable.

The point you make about taxing the oil companies to the hilt,as you should know, will mostly be passed on to the end user and they are the people you seem to be most concerned about.
I agree to some extent but I also believe the end point user enjoying the benefits not be exempted in helping fix the poroblem.

**harrybarracuda** · 12-03-2021, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The point you make about taxing the oil companies to the hilt,as you should know, will mostly be passed on to the end user and they are the people you seem to be most concerned about.

That's great. They will be more tempted to replace their gas guzzlers with more environmentally friendly vehicles.

**S Landreth** · 13-03-2021, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

That's great. They will be more tempted to replace their gas guzzlers with more environmentally friendly vehicles.

and why a user fee would be the way to go (speed it up)………

Originally Posted by S Landreth

An increased Federal user fee on all oil products (and oil based products) would be nice. Pay for infrastructure and maintenance, R&D and help some who are not as fortunate (discounted rates on some oil related items. Examples would be heating oil/public transportation).

That user fee might be easier for most to swallow. If you don’t want to pay the fee,……don’t use it.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions