Climate Change

#51
If you just look at the history of this planet there have been several insane changes and life ending events created by itself outside of a meteor strike. Thinking that humans alone are causing the change is very narcissistic. Volcanos emit more crap into the atmosphere than we do. Launching these satellites into space emit stuff as well. Hydrocarbons, NOX, etc. Lightning strikes a dry forest and giant fire happens and smoke and ash and all the normal gasses go into the air. Only in recent times do we have people to battle these fires, in nature they would burn until they run out of fuel or conditions change.

Realistically there are no true experts because nobody has been alive long enough to know what the weather was exactly doing 400+ years ago. Hell, how long have we actually been able to accurately measure temperature for? I guess they can look at the tree rings and rocks for "evidence" but it still only tells one story for that location. How many times have the "experts" told us the climate was going this direction or that, only to be wrong and then instead of global warming, global cooling or whatever buzz words they want. Now it's just climate change so they can never be wrong. No shit climate changes all the time.

Ocean currents shift and it affects the weather. An earthquake happens near Thailand and moves the currents 200 miles in a different direction, weather responds. Volcano erupts over here and the weather corresponds. I know guys that chase marlin all over the world and they use this exact info to predict what the ocean and weather will do and go to the right areas to catch marlin. Somehow 60% of the time it works every time. So sorry I am not going to listen to a few people that write a paper with their theory that CO2 is pulling heat and going to cause satellites to fall out of orbit. If I am wrong and it happens I will admit it. I feel stronger that they will strike some space garbage and break up and fall to earth and then it will be blamed on climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosin46 and The D
#52
I'm with Thomas on this.
 

Attachments

  • f715298979d25e1f894c7d6b59d56e498b0e07b7-2985111.jpeg
    f715298979d25e1f894c7d6b59d56e498b0e07b7-2985111.jpeg
    31.6 KB · Views: 23
  • Like
Reactions: mosin46, LuckyLuke80, Dawhit and 2 others
#54
Ronws said:
I read that report. He was killed in a motorcycle accident and it was listed as a COVID death because the antibodies showed up in his blood during autopsy.
Click to expand...
It may not be the same guy. There were so many of them. This was a local guy who wasn't in the local paper.

Money perverts everything. When you give people a monetary incentive to make things up, they will almost invariably start lying and rationalizing. My son was born last month. Normal delivery. Cost to insurance company: $51,000+. Uninsured people pay much less for medical services. Same care. Our system made it possible for the hospital to claim it needed $51,100 plus some additional bills, so it found ways to justify the invoices. The consensus among the doctors, techs, and administrators was that delivering a healthy baby from a healthy mother should cost more than most new cars. Meanwhile, in equally-advanced countries, it costs a pittance. Israel has better hospitals than we do, and parents pay less than 10% of what my insurer did.

Climate scientists can't go to headhunters and get jobs at places like Macy's and Wells Fargo. They have to look to governments, universities (always leftist), and research organizations (95% as bad). They can't waltz in wearing MAGA hats and expect to be hired. They can't risk showing up with long records of publishing sound papers rejecting climate hysteria. They'd end up driving for Uber. They have to toe the line, and they can't be trusted. The fact that their hysterical conclusions are impossible to prove through measurements and experiments makes it worse. They can't be held accountable, and if they were, it would be by other people who have to toe the line.

It's like the epidemic of cops beating their wives. The only people who have the power to help are other cops, and they go after the victims.

The left's blacklisting needs to have its back broken. It has ruined our schools. A friend of mine worked at a veterinary hospital at a state university here. She couldn't say anything about coronavirus at work, unless it fell in line with the leftist establishment's lies. She couldn't say things like, "I'm not sure social distancing works," or, "It looks like healthy young people may not need to be vaccinated." She said they would have fired her. Her job had nothing to do with human medicine or politics, but she was afraid that if she opened her mouth, she wouldn't be able to feed her three sons. She was also barred from putting any type of conservative political material on her office door, but the other employees were allowed to post any leftist junk they wanted.

Robert Bork was an extraordinary legal scholar, and he was almost blacklisted at Yale because the other profs were afraid adding a third conservative would swing the school too far to the right. As I recall, there were a total of 50 professors. My law school's only "conservative" was about three degrees to the right of Bernie Sanders.

We have no idea what the truth about covid is, and we are being lied to about global warming every day, by a collection of scientists some of whom have admitted the real purpose of climate hysteria is to defeat capitalism. No one can be blamed for skepticism, especially given that there are brilliant climate scientists who reject the party line. Science that isn't impartial isn't science.

I guess I shouldn't mention the "transgender" study that was recently suppressed because it showed that puberty blockers didn't improve children's mental health. Better to castrate and inject wrongly than to admit the hippie philosophy is insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mosin46, Dawhit and ChezJfrey
#56
Ronws said:
Yes.
MSM made sure to help throttle anyone even having questions.

Are the MIT guys money-grubbing scum and idiots? Yes.

Why are they not also publishing the data of what is more important, which is heat reflection? Many gases and liquids can reflect radiation in the infrared and of heat. CO2 has a very narrow bandwidth at 15 is microns. Relatively invisible.

There is a huge bandwidth of reflection at 6 microns, which is water vapor, i.e., clouds.

Another throttled scientist proved with a 20 year study that gamma rays have to do with cloud formation. So, high solar activity that wards of gamma radiation affects the local climate.

Also, you geniuses at MIT have it bass-akwards because that's what pays the bills. It is the ocean that produces the largest amounts of CO2. Also, plants reverse the process somewhat at night.

Finally, since I have not seen you here before, let me educate you. I do not care what subject you bring up, you will find an SME or at least some educated people in the Pit who can and will debate you on it. Just be prepared for that and that argument from authority (these guys are from MIT!) is not a very successful tool of debate.
Click to expand...

I worked with an entire team of PhDs at Chevron for years so the idea that the geniuses in here think scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are all leftists is hilarious to me.

I think almost everyone here had strong opinions about this article without even reading the article, or about the work the team that was interviewed for this article is doing, or for that matter what data is behind that teams analysis. They took a look at the headline and said "that data is bullshit".

If that's the level of analysis someone does when looking at a problem I don't think it's really worth talking to them about something complex.

My USAID contract for fedposting pro climate change propaganda in shooting forums still has 2 trillion dollars in it though so I'm not going anywhere patriots.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ronws
#57
Bantam1 said:
If you just look at the history of this planet there have been several insane changes and life ending events created by itself outside of a meteor strike. Thinking that humans alone are causing the change is very narcissistic. Volcanos emit more crap into the atmosphere than we do. Launching these satellites into space emit stuff as well. Hydrocarbons, NOX, etc. Lightning strikes a dry forest and giant fire happens and smoke and ash and all the normal gasses go into the air. Only in recent times do we have people to battle these fires, in nature they would burn until they run out of fuel or conditions change.

Realistically there are no true experts because nobody has been alive long enough to know what the weather was exactly doing 400+ years ago. Hell, how long have we actually been able to accurately measure temperature for? I guess they can look at the tree rings and rocks for "evidence" but it still only tells one story for that location. How many times have the "experts" told us the climate was going this direction or that, only to be wrong and then instead of global warming, global cooling or whatever buzz words they want. Now it's just climate change so they can never be wrong. No shit climate changes all the time.

Ocean currents shift and it affects the weather. An earthquake happens near Thailand and moves the currents 200 miles in a different direction, weather responds. Volcano erupts over here and the weather corresponds. I know guys that chase marlin all over the world and they use this exact info to predict what the ocean and weather will do and go to the right areas to catch marlin. Somehow 60% of the time it works every time. So sorry I am not going to listen to a few people that write a paper with their theory that CO2 is pulling heat and going to cause satellites to fall out of orbit. If I am wrong and it happens I will admit it. I feel stronger that they will strike some space garbage and break up and fall to earth and then it will be blamed on climate change.
Click to expand...

Humans can't change the climate because all historical instances of the climate changing did not involve humans is sure a take. Humans can replicate the conditions of historical rapid climate change events and nothing will happen is sure another.

All the worlds scientists got together and fudged their data and noone on the inside has been able to call them out for it except some coal and oil think tanks seems like another take.
 
Last edited:
#58
teknikallysekure said:
I worked with an entire team of PhDs at Chevron for years so the idea that the geniuses in here think scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are all leftists is hilarious to me.

I think almost everyone here had strong opinions about this article without even reading the article, or about the work the team that was interviewed for this article is doing, or for that matter what data is behind that teams analysis. They took a look at the headline and said "that data is bullshit".

If that's the level of analysis someone does when looking at a problem I don't think it's really worth talking to them about something complex.

My USAID contract for fedposting pro climate change propaganda in shooting forums still has 2 trillion dollars in it though so I'm not going anywhere patriots.
Click to expand...
Honest question:
What lead to the exit of the last ice age?

R
 
#59
Rthur said:
Honest question:
What lead to the exit of the last ice age?

R
Click to expand...

I think as far as we know entirely natural cycles. Really luck as far as humanity is concerned.

If it had kept going for 10,000 more years would we all be sitting here talking about it with our thinking sand machines? Who knows man.
 
#62
I remember being scared humanity was going to freeze to death because our new ice age is NOW!
In the early seventies.

Even the National Geographic was pushing the story and as a child I knew that if it's in the National Geographic, it was truth and I was scared.

To make me worry even more, it snowed in San Jose, CA that year. I was living there at the time.

I'm not sorry I have doubt about global warming because humanity was to end by 2000. Nat Geo told me.

The weather patterns are changing, no doubt. Doing the stupid shit that "scientists" are doing now means very little to me, I think it's an available scam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllenOne1
#63
teknikallysekure said:
I think as far as we know entirely natural cycles. Really luck as far as humanity is concerned.

If it had kept going for 10,000 more years would we all be sitting here talking about it with our thinking sand machines? Who knows man.
Click to expand...
A perfectly reasonable answer.
Problem I find is no one that I've heard of or read from can answer it either.
Without this answer and others like it they haven't the basis to predict any distance into the future.
Measurements of data since we've gained tools to achieve said is a very small sample in a cycle that could be 22kish years or longer.

R
 
#65
Buck Wilde said:
You always have to ask who is paying people to say what they say. Scientists lean way left because they have no common sense, and they get tons of money for doing research that, amazingly, turns out to support leftist pseudo-scientific hoaxes.

Hospitals were paid tens of thousands of dollars for every covid diagnosis, and look at the lies they went on to tell us. It was amazing. I remember downloading the official government diagnostic guidelines they used early in the pandemic. Testing was not even required. It took a long time for tests to be developed and distributed.

Any patient whose symptoms matched part of a list of symptoms commonly associated with the flu and other respiratory infections could be diagnosed with covid, and then the government would send a check. The amount started at about $13,000 per patient, went to $39,000 with a ventilator, and could go higher.

Imagine what went on in doctors' minds. "Hmm. He had a cough, a low fever, a sore throat, and chills. I don't know what it is. If I say it's covid, we get $13,000. If I say it's the flu, we get nothing. Hmm. This is tough. You know, this is really starting to look like covid to me."

Then the flu magically almost entirely DISAPPEARED for several years. What a coincidence that was! It was almost as if the vast majority of flu cases were recorded as covid, but we know that could never happen, because doctors are honest little gods.

Anyone who doesn't think this happened, or who has forgotten, needs to look it up. The flu just WENT AWAY. And we were supposed to believe it.

Now covid is disappearing. Why? They told us we would never get permanent immunity, even with the dangerous shots that killed a lot of people who didn't need vaccinations to begin with. But the figures last year were low, and this year, they're down around 2/3 from that.

In 2020, there were so few flu cases, they were nearly nonexistent. Last year: 40 million. Are we supposed to believe covid cures the flu?

I wonder how many people here knew folks who died from things like car accidents yet were listed as covid deaths. It happened. Guy near me died in a motorcycle accident and got written up as a covid casualty.

All I can say about global warming is that I hope it cancels out global cooling, which must have been afflicting us for the last 45 years. Scientists said it was upon us, so it must have happened. Personally, I did not notice it, but I live in Florida.

As for scientific consensus, the consensus among American scientists was that Kamala Harris would be a great president. This is a fact, and it should wreck anyone's confidence in the judgment of scientists.
Click to expand...
we are getting weird stuff here in FL. grass started greening in jan. had to run AC i day in jan, 82 in the house. last nite v.lite frost. no,i know it's not co2. just weirdness with no explanation. kinda is what it is. IF human activity is leading to higher temps,one might take a look at concrete. it is warmer than in the 50s here overall. i suspect the sun has something to do with that. yes,global cooling would be a real population reducer. it is weird getting a climate NWO prog here. there have been 3 (?) rabid pro Uke anti Rus trolls that come and go. i sorta think it's the same dork with 3 accounts. expect that but climate? oh well.
 
#66
teknikallysekure said:
I worked with an entire team of PhDs at Chevron for years so the idea that the geniuses in here think scientists who believe in anthropogenic climate change are all leftists is hilarious to me.

I think almost everyone here had strong opinions about this article without even reading the article, or about the work the team that was interviewed for this article is doing, or for that matter what data is behind that teams analysis. They took a look at the headline and said "that data is bullshit".

If that's the level of analysis someone does when looking at a problem I don't think it's really worth talking to them about something complex.

My USAID contract for fedposting pro climate change propaganda in shooting forums still has 2 trillion dollars in it though so I'm not going anywhere patriots.
Click to expand...
You most carefully did not say what you were working on or why you were working with PhDs. In fact, I have not ever seen you post anything until this thread and I have not been here very long.

You also have not answered the questions and points I raised in other posts. Which means you are not reading the thread or the rebuttals.

And just about every person I have read who is believing in man-made climate change is a commie, to the bone.

You have specifically avoided addressing the concerns or, in due diligence, mentioned other scholary work and actual runs of experiments that doubt the theory you hope wins out so that all of our money can be taken from us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311
#67
Regarding MIT, Per Grok:

MIT plays a significant role in World Economic Forum (WEF) initiatives, leveraging its expertise in innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship to contribute to the WEF's mission of addressing global challenges. While there isn’t a single, centralized "MIT-WEF partnership" outlined in public records, MIT’s involvement can be traced through its faculty, research, and institutional alignment with WEF goals, particularly in areas like technology governance, sustainability, and economic ecosystems.

MIT also engages with WEF initiatives through its faculty and leadership. Experts from MIT, such as those in the MIT Sloan School of Management or the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, often participate in WEF dialogues, providing data-driven insights on topics like the Fourth Industrial Revolution, climate action, and digital transformation. For example, MIT’s work on quantum technologies and AI aligns with WEF efforts like the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where scalable models for technology integration are developed—though direct collaboration isn’t always explicitly documented.

In short, MIT’s role in WEF initiatives is multifaceted: it’s a source of cutting-edge research, a hub for influential thinkers, and a breeding ground for solutions that WEF amplifies on a global stage. The collaboration is less about formal agreements and more about a shared ethos of using technology and innovation to tackle systemic problems—though concrete examples often depend on specific events, like Davos meetings, where MIT voices and ideas frequently surface.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ronws and The D
#69
lariat said:
Regarding MIT, Per Grok:

MIT plays a significant role in World Economic Forum (WEF) initiatives, leveraging its expertise in innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship to contribute to the WEF's mission of addressing global challenges. While there isn’t a single, centralized "MIT-WEF partnership" outlined in public records, MIT’s involvement can be traced through its faculty, research, and institutional alignment with WEF goals, particularly in areas like technology governance, sustainability, and economic ecosystems.

MIT also engages with WEF initiatives through its faculty and leadership. Experts from MIT, such as those in the MIT Sloan School of Management or the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, often participate in WEF dialogues, providing data-driven insights on topics like the Fourth Industrial Revolution, climate action, and digital transformation. For example, MIT’s work on quantum technologies and AI aligns with WEF efforts like the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, where scalable models for technology integration are developed—though direct collaboration isn’t always explicitly documented.

In short, MIT’s role in WEF initiatives is multifaceted: it’s a source of cutting-edge research, a hub for influential thinkers, and a breeding ground for solutions that WEF amplifies on a global stage. The collaboration is less about formal agreements and more about a shared ethos of using technology and innovation to tackle systemic problems—though concrete examples often depend on specific events, like Davos meetings, where MIT voices and ideas frequently surface.
Click to expand...
Yeah, MIT is a super shady place.
 
#77
The real problem isn't climate change. The real problem is that the establishment, which is leftist (or at least statist), has lied to us so many times, we are no longer able to trust it. When you spend decades screwing with science and lying about it, the people who depend on you don't know what to believe.

The systematic lying has happened. That is fact, not opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fedupflyer, Major Wader, lariat and 3 others
#78
Buck Wilde said:
The real problem isn't climate change. The real problem is that the establishment, which is leftist (or at least statist), has lied to us so many times, we are no longer able to trust it. When you spend decades screwing with science and lying about it, the people who depend on you don't know what to believe.

The systematic lying has happened. That is fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...
Does anyone actually think that China, India and the 3rd world nations are using fossil fuels to keep their GDP up really give two shits about satellites? It won’t happen. If most of your people are eating dirt for nutrition or you want to elevate your country you will use every cheap resource available to accomplish that goal. I have been to quite a few, and as some practical economists have said, every carbon fuel source will be used, regardless of what some self-appointed body says. The astrophysicists need to figure it all out because nothing is going to change until energy costs go below what is readily available through carbon sources AND the education level of the indigenous population rises enough to capitalize on those alternatives. Anyone that has been to Africa, the ME and certain countries in the East knows the dual hurdle this presents. Hell, we have this problem in the West. Economic viability is related to the valuation cycle of commodities, not to mention the voter base politics of it all. Academics who get paid but never have to struggle have an internal bias about the world they don’t see but others genuinely feel because they live in it.

Most of the people who spout this bullshit have never been to a 3rd world country. They simply have never seen true poverty. And I will submit they don’t care either, be it from ignorance or from a sheer callousness that borders on evil.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buck Wilde, yakstone, Emerson0311 and 1 other person
#79
lariat said:
Does anyone actually think that China, India and the 3rd world nations are going to stop using fossil fuels to keep their GDP up really give two shits about anything other than making a buck? It won’t happen. If most of your people are eating dirt for nutrition or you want to elevate your country you will use every cheap resource available to accomplish that goal.
Click to expand...
Fify
 
#80
fact is that people like our newest poster want America to not be competitive in any way. easier to destroy it if you try to run and compete with sunlight and wind for power. most of those people are stupid. their leaders are not and they know that solar and wind will never replace petro and nuc,thus making the US a 3rd world country. bringing in 10 mil third world savages helps as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllenOne1
#82
Rthur said:
A perfectly reasonable answer.
Problem I find is no one that I've heard of or read from can answer it either.
Without this answer and others like it they haven't the basis to predict any distance into the future.
Measurements of data since we've gained tools to achieve said is a very small sample in a cycle that could be 22kish years or longer.

R
Click to expand...

I don't think we need to measure local satellite surface temperatures to understand that ice cores and densities or different rock formations indicate that millions of years ago carbon or temperature were escalating or decreasing during a given period of time, or roughly how long that time frame was.

I also don't think recognizing that historical atmospheric makeups leading to different climate temperature outcomes, or forcing functions and tipping points requires this degree of observation.

You can simultaneously have near term visibility at a very high resolution, and low resolution of visibility at a longer term and understand conditional outcomes.

For instance on a drilling rig in the GoM you may have recently installed an RDS system with a bank of Coriolis meters that gives you extremely fine pore pressure frac gradient data such that you can monitor changing formation makeup conditions almost in real time.

In the past you didn't have that microscope to observe your drillhead MWD conditions, but you still knew that when your mud pumps started filling up with a bunch of salt you were probably about to run into blowout territory if you're expecting rock.
 
#83
AllenOne1 said:
If the scientists are always right why don't they believe the scientists hired by the tobacco and oil companies?
Click to expand...

Because the data those scientists turn out are almost always shit

Also, you're talking about the scientists hired by the oil and tobacco companies SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of PR. The scientists that actually work at the OIL companies concur with the MIT scientists explicitly and have since the 70s and 80s. There was a whole lawsuit about this that created a massive shareholder and insurance scenario for Exxon.

Exxons official position for the last 50 years is that burning oil is going to increase PPM of Co2 in the atmosphere, and that increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere is going to heat the atmosphere and destabilize global temperatures and cost everyone untold trillions of dollars as the climate becomes less predictable or habitable for food crops etc. That's just not a position they advertise because it damages their path of least resistance business model.
 
#84
teknikallysekure said:
Because the data those scientists turn out are almost always shit

Also, you're talking about the scientists hired by the oil and tobacco companies SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of PR. The scientists that actually work at the OIL companies concur with the MIT scientists explicitly and have since the 70s and 80s. There was a whole lawsuit about this that created a massive shareholder and insurance scenario for Exxon.

Exxons official position for the last 50 years is that burning oil is going to increase PPM of Co2 in the atmosphere, and that increasing the Co2 in the atmosphere is going to heat the atmosphere and destabilize global temperatures and cost everyone untold trillions of dollars as the climate becomes less predictable or habitable for food crops etc. That's just not a position they advertise because it damages their path of least resistance business model.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok. So just pick the science you want to believe and go with that. Got it, thanks for the clarification.
 
#85
lariat said:
Does anyone actually think that China, India and the 3rd world nations are using fossil fuels to keep their GDP up really give two shits about satellites? It won’t happen. If most of your people are eating dirt for nutrition or you want to elevate your country you will use every cheap resource available to accomplish that goal. I have been to quite a few, and as some practical economists have said, every carbon fuel source will be used, regardless of what some self-appointed body says. The astrophysicists need to figure it all out because nothing is going to change until energy costs go below what is readily available through carbon sources AND the education level of the indigenous population rises enough to capitalize on those alternatives. Anyone that has been to Africa, the ME and certain countries in the East knows the dual hurdle this presents. Hell, we have this problem in the West. Economic viability is related to the valuation cycle of commodities, not to mention the voter base politics of it all. Academics who get paid but never have to struggle have an internal bias about the world they don’t see but others genuinely feel because they live in it.

Most of the people who spout this bullshit have never been to a 3rd world country. They simply have never seen true poverty. And I will submit they don’t care either, be it from ignorance or from a sheer callousness that borders on evil.
Click to expand...

China is not obligated to make all of their decisions on the basis of constantly improving quarterly profits they plan in decades and control their economy so the same short term profit motives that cause us to often make really stupid long term decisions(like sending all our manufacturing to China even for our critical infrastructure).

China now has almost double the small reactor count planned in the next decade to the west combined. Their wind and solar growth also dwarf the west. Their projection for consumption of both oil and gas as sources of energy is intended to net decline with all the projections they've posted.

The funny thing about all of this is the reason they're doing it is probably financially motivated. It's just financially motivated on a different time scale than the one we're motivated to act on.

All of this discussion aside Peak oil is real and anyone that tries to tell you we have such massive reserves that's nonsense has never bothered looking at how meager the return on Enhanced oil recovery techniques for reserves that still have 40% untapped are. EOR is shit. Chevron is already looking at Bakersfield EOL.
 
#86
AllenOne1 said:
Oh, ok. So just pick the science you want to believe and go with that. Got it, thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing science, with obvious propaganda generated entirely to support business outcomes. Those ozempic commercials on TV aren't science. That's the white papers noone reads.
 
#90
Bill Nye is not a scientist. He's a mechanical engineer with a bachelor's degree, which means his education prepared him to do things like measuring tire wear for Goodyear or helping design partial assemblies for machines that put potato chips in bags.
 
#92
teknikallysekure said:
China is not obligated to make all of their decisions on the basis of constantly improving quarterly profits they plan in decades and control their economy so the same short term profit motives that cause us to often make really stupid long term decisions(like sending all our manufacturing to China even for our critical infrastructure).

China now has almost double the small reactor count planned in the next decade to the west combined. Their wind and solar growth also dwarf the west. Their projection for consumption of both oil and gas as sources of energy is intended to net decline with all the projections they've posted.

The funny thing about all of this is the reason they're doing it is probably financially motivated. It's just financially motivated on a different time scale than the one we're motivated to act on.

All of this discussion aside Peak oil is real and anyone that tries to tell you we have such massive reserves that's nonsense has never bothered looking at how meager the return on Enhanced oil recovery techniques for reserves that still have 40% untapped are. EOR is shit. Chevron is already looking at Bakersfield EOL.
Click to expand...
I like how you made excuses for China while continuing to say "USA bad". The fact is, China and the rest will do what they need to in order to compete. That includes fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, satellites be damned.

No one really cares about the satellite issue, except this young PhD student who wrote the paper. Its too abstract. Furthermore, no one is going to do anything about it as there is too much money to make in fueling the global GDP along with the money being made on the services those satellites provide. The global warming/cooling/climate change horseshit is discredited because of all the lies that are obvious. It could be real but at this point with it being taken hostage by people who want to control the world, everyone now not only doubts it but truly hates everything it stands for - globalism and mass starvation. And the science isn't settled that we can even control it.

Next thing you are going to tell us is that the cow farts and trees are destroying the world, and Bill Gates is right that we need to bury the trees to capture the CO2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllenOne1, The D and mosin46
#93
  • Like
Reactions: AllenOne1
#94
lariat said:
I like how you made excuses for China while continuing to say "USA bad". The fact is, China and the rest will do what they need to in order to compete. That includes fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, satellites be damned.

No one really cares about the satellite issue, except this young PhD student who wrote the paper. Its too abstract. Furthermore, no one is going to do anything about it as there is too much money to make in fueling the global GDP along with the money being made on the services those satellites provide. The global warming/cooling/climate change horseshit is discredited because of all the lies that are obvious. It could be real but at this point with it being taken hostage by people who want to control the world, everyone now not only doubts it but truly hates everything it stands for - globalism and mass starvation. And the science isn't settled that we can even control it.

Next thing you are going to tell us is that the cow farts and trees are destroying the world, and Bill Gates is right that we need to bury the trees to capture the CO2.
Click to expand...

Who needs satellites amiright
 
#95
I like the part about "us" deciding to move manufacturing to China.

This is not how an economy works. We didn't have a referendum and decide to do something stupid in order to save a few dollars at Walmart. Many manufacturers had NO CHOICE. Our idiot leaders gave China unneeded favoritism, and for many companies, it became impossible to keep factories open in the US.

Leftists always think businesses can do the green thing or the gay thing or the socialist thing or the SJW thing and keep right on running. It doesn't work like that. Businesses can't force Americans to buy their products and services, and price will always matter.

I'm always amazed that there are people out there screaming for us to quit using Walmart and Harbor Freight. That's not going to happen. No one is going to pay $25 for an American carrot peeler when Chinese costs $2.50.

Trump is fighting to make China play fair, and leftists are literally trying to kill him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawhit and mosin46
#96
theLBC said:
Continued Construction:
China's construction of new coal-power plants reached a 10-year high in 2024, with construction starting on 94.5 GW of new coal-fired power plants

www.carbonbrief.org

China’s construction of new coal-power plants ‘reached 10-year high’ in 2024 - Carbon Brief

A “resurgence” in construction of new coal-fired power plants in China is “undermining the country’s...
www.carbonbrief.org www.carbonbrief.org
Click to expand...

This seems more indicative of me that China is growing than it does seem to be any sort of contradiction to anything I've said.
 
#97
Buck Wilde said:
I like the part about "us" deciding to move manufacturing to China.

This is not how an economy works. We didn't have a referendum and decide to do something stupid in order to save a few dollars at Walmart. Many manufacturers had NO CHOICE. Our idiot leaders gave China unneeded favoritism, and for many companies, it became impossible to keep factories open in the US.

Leftists always think businesses can do the green thing or the gay thing or the socialist thing or the SJW thing and keep right on running. It doesn't work like that. Businesses can't force Americans to buy their products and services, and price will always matter.

I'm always amazed that there are people out there screaming for us to quit using Walmart and Harbor Freight. That's not going to happen. No one is going to pay $25 for an American carrot peeler when Chinese costs $2.50.

Trump is fighting to make China play fair, and leftists are literally trying to kill him.
Click to expand...

It's the consumers fault! Let me know how many of those Maga hats and shirts are made in America ;) Didn't Vivek and Trump and Elon just say the problem is Americans are too stupid to fill the jobs our brave companies need filled?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Vermont
Replies
24
Views
671
sirhrmechanic
sirhrmechanic
Im2bent
Under Paris
Replies
0
Views
225
Im2bent
Im2bent
PatMiles
Boeing-Made Intelsat 33E Satellite Explodes in Geostationary Orbit – Dozens of Pieces of Debris Are Now a Hazard for Satellites and Spacecrafts!
Replies
27
Views
1K
Im2bent
Im2bent
P
Optics Leica 2800.COM
Replies
3
Views
234
paigecm
P
M
another climate control disaster in the making
Replies
7
Views
678
DocRDS
D
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts