The illusion of nationalism
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
Your "general premise" isn't anything resembling a valid argument unless that is what actually happened. It isn't. Not even close.
Did you read the Exxon article I posted? If you did, do you agree with the shift in policy based on profit motive? That’s what the 3 percent are paid to protect, and that’s not science...that’s propaganda.
What exactly is climate alarmism used to accomplish? What was Al Gore's motive behind a carbon exchange? Is there profit in green energy or is green energy a not for profit business model? Is there a financial incentive for the green energy sector to see fossil fuel production and use become much more expensive? What public policy decisions could be made to make fossil fuel production and use more expensive and who benefits from that?
If you think oil and gas is the only energy sector motivated by profit, you're very mistaken. Once you realize the financial motives on both sides of the politics of climate science, you'll start to view the science as actual science, good and bad.
Sure, everything has a profit motive.
That said, you can’t compare the human impact between green energy and oil and gas. Windmills kill birds...Oil and gas explosions kill people and pollute the environment. And these companies dump their waste in our water supplies.
You can’t reasonably conflate the negative impacts between the 2, it’s completely nonsensical.
I thought we were discussing climate change. The production of green energy isn't without pollution. Look into how solar panels are made. Look into how wind turbines are manufactured. Google neodymium.
I get that. It’s impossible to eliminate all pollution. But this administration, in particular, has relaxed standards and requirements in place to encourage profit over people. That’s just a fact.
1. What would be the negative results of shutting down oil and gas
2. What would be the negative results of shutting down the wind farms
I realize that you (probably) aren't advocating for shutting down fossil fuel production. But, If you are going to do a comparison of the negative effects of each industry, you should also weigh that against the positives that both industries provide.
I’m advocating for oil and gas to be as clean and safe as possible. They can and should been doing much better, regardless of additional costs. I readily acknowledge the importance of the industry in Oklahoma’s economy, but that absolutely should not give them carte Blanche to do as they please without sensible regulation. This administration has emphasized profit over people with its actions to relax EPA regulations and standards to the point that EPA officials have spoken out about the disgusting shift in agenda.
You do realize that scientific fact by consensus isnt a real thong?
That's why man made global climate change is still a theory and not a fact.
Just like the idea that man evolved from primates is also still a theory. Macroevolution.
Whereas, the idea that plants and animals evolve to adjust to their changing environment is a demonstrable fact with evidence. Microevolution
Last edited:
Here's the issue.
Again, the discussion was about climate change. You've taken some side road. But that's fine.
You just asserted as complete fact that the Trump administration has relaxed standards and requirements to encourage profit over people. Let's see the evidence that makes that assertation factual.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-epa-rescinding-obama-era-auto-fuel-efficiency/story?id=54184178
https://www.google.com/amp/www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/tns-trump-smog-states-companies.html?AMP
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-epa-scott-pruitt-clean-water-coal-ash-829776
To name a few...
Looks like some people have strong ideological opinions. Where's the evidence that the change in policy will harm people? Alarmist shrieking isn't evidence.
At the risk of sounding argumentative, how can you say that you support them but that there is no limit to the expenses that can be levied against them?
I’m not saying that they should be hamstrung to the point of nonprofitability, but they shouldn’t be able to dump waste and pollute and affect people’s livelihoods the way they have. Dumping waste into streams and waterways I have a big problem with that, as any reasonable person should. Smog standards should be tighter than China...I don’t want that here, where they literally have days with no smog and it’s a different sky entirely.
I mentioned a documentary about Pennsylvania fracking in another thread before...the company contaminated the groundwater within months. Residents couldn’t drink their water...it was literally flammable.
We can take sensible steps to reduce the human impact. These companies shouldn’t be able to operate without blame, but they often do and it’s wrong.
I don't recall saying anything about being "versed." I didn't review my post,but I'm pretty sure I said take a look at some of the examples I gave and then we could probably have an excellent dialogue. I'm still here.
No, it actually isn't. I don't have any interest in discussing climate change from any political perspective. I'm interested in discussion of actual science. I figure if someone is going to actually do some reading on such things as HCF gases, they are likely interested in having a discussion about actual science as well.
OK,
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Human activity has increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
3. Increased greenhouse gases increase the temperatures at which the earth achieves energy balance (energy in from sun=energy out from radiation) and CO2 is chief amongst these gases.
“Chesapeake Energy Corp., which has large oil and gas stakes in Pennsylvania, supplied the researchers with the database, the largest of its kind, and also funded the work.”
And, your point?
Data is data is data.
Show me where Chesapeake influences the outcome of the study?
Be careful with your answer because I'm setting you up.
c02 is also the chief fuel for vegetation which produces oxygen, so... wouldn't the real question be at what point we produce more c02 than the vegetation can process? @07pilt ?
This isn’t exactly believable lol...
“I think our paper, in my view, pretty much seals the deal.”
The Stanford researcher directly refuted him...
“They’ve introduced a whole series of methods that introduced noise into the data set,” Jackson says. He adds that, in a trip to Chesapeake headquarters in Oklahoma in 2011, he offered to collaborate with the company using the large data set but was rebuffed.
A good way to tell if we are producing more CO2 than plants can process is if the atmospheric concentration is increasing
That's an entirely different point than your first post. Stay focused.
You implied the study conclusions were invalid or flawed based on who funded the study. Do you stand by that?
Never said it was. I just said that the assertion that CO2 was the main green house gas was incorrect.
Yes...and the Stanford guy backs up the flaws in the study. Oil and gas companies will routinely dismiss findings contradictory and damaging to their own studies. That’s just a fact and you know it.
CO2 is "chief" amongst GHGs? What do you mean by that? The most abundant? The biggest contributor radiative-wise? It controls other gases?
Got an interesting study for you to peruse if you haven't already. It makes some interesting observations, especially in regards to paleoclimate time scales...
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
Ok, good point. CO2 is is chief among the anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
The point you are missing is that you are dismissing the results of the study based on who funded it.
So, why can't I dismiss other funded studies bases on who was paying the bills?
Right? Either data is data is data. Or, everyone gets yo question the motives.
https://www.economist.com/news/scie...gas-scientists-struggle-explain-worrying-rise
“EVERY year human endeavours emit 50bn tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”. This way of measuring things reflects the climatic importance of CO2, which traps heat in the atmosphere for centuries before it breaks down, compared with other, shorter-lived greenhouse gases...
First, methane is a powerful heat-trapper. Although it is far less abundant than carbon dioxide and stays in the air for only a decade or so, molecule for molecule its warming effect (calculated over 100 years) is 25 times higher.”
“EVERY year human endeavours emit 50bn tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent”. This way of measuring things reflects the climatic importance of CO2, which traps heat in the atmosphere for centuries before it breaks down, compared with other, shorter-lived greenhouse gases...
First, methane is a powerful heat-trapper. Although it is far less abundant than carbon dioxide and stays in the air for only a decade or so, molecule for molecule its warming effect (calculated over 100 years) is 25 times higher.”
Why was the Stanford guy rebuffed by Chesapeake when he offered further data and analysis? They funded the study and wanted the least damaging data possible and not a wider study that gave contradictions. Weird.
Similar threads
