AMOC shutdown - the reason for the cold spring?
- Thread starter Frankfooter
- Start date
Why do you always try change the subject back to your love of racial supremacy and genocide?
Of course you think Fox is good science.You need to check yourself in...
That really is a good example of your lack of intelligence or ability to discern any source's credibility.
You might be more interested in this study, its a good thing for us left wingers to keep in mind when we talk to people that worship a rapey, fraud artist and felon as their alpha male. The guy who has told thousands of lies.
APA PsycNet
You mean the fossil fuel sheople.
The ones who can't follow the money and think its scientists getting rich through research.
Of course you think Fox is good science.
That really is a good example of your lack of intelligence or ability to discern any source's credibility.
You might be more interested in this study, its a good thing for us left wingers to keep in mind when we talk to people that worship a rapey, fraud artist and felon as their alpha male. The guy who has told thousands of lies.
APA PsycNet
psycnet.apa.org
Why Depression Rates Are Higher Among Liberals
Columbia researchers look at the politics of despair.
it proves that our local climate doesn't experience heat waves like we did when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's. In other words our climate has moderated. Winters are warmer and summers are cooler.
How much have governments spent on studies that are in the affirmative vs. the negative when it comes to anthropogenic climate change?
Is that being a flat earther and saying it must be fixed because every study says the planet is round?
The incredibly stupid part of this line of argument is that both Exxon and Shell had their own scientists research the effects of burning fossil fuels in the 80's. You'd think when they were spending their own money they'd want them to come up with studies that showed that burning oil is good for you and the planet, like the 4/5 doctors who backed smoking cigarettes. But no, both Shell and Exxon's own research teams came up with the same results as the IPCC and even hockey stick Michael Mann.
Now, being a good right winger who is allergic to actual debate and facts you will ignore this post, leave the thread or just come back with the same claims in 2 weeks as if this never happened. What you won't do is dispute it or argue against it.
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
www.theguardian.com
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
You can bullshit your way all you want but you didn't answer my question. So I'll give you the answer. If you were a skeptic (which all scientists should be btw) you had maybe a 1% chance of getting funded.Is that being a flat earther and saying it must be fixed because every study says the planet is round?
The incredibly stupid part of this line of argument is that both Exxon and Shell had their own scientists research the effects of burning fossil fuels in the 80's. You'd think when they were spending their own money they'd want them to come up with studies that showed that burning oil is good for you and the planet, like the 4/5 doctors who backed smoking cigarettes. But no, both Shell and Exxon's own research teams came up with the same results as the IPCC and even hockey stick Michael Mann.
Now, being a good right winger who is allergic to actual debate and facts you will ignore this post, leave the thread or just come back with the same claims in 2 weeks as if this never happened. What you won't do is dispute it or argue against it.
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformationwww.scientificamerican.com
If you do shitty science you won't get funded, you mean.
Like every single climate change denier you won't even acknowledge that oil$gas funded scientists were paid by the oil industry and came up with the same results.
The problem is not the funding, its that you won't accept the results.
Its hard to have a conversation with someone so blind to the basics.
The oil$gas industry rakes in billions, with Canada giving out $26 billion a year in subsidies alone.
The amounts they've spent on disinformation is likely way more than spent on the science of climatology.
You have to work really hard to be ignorant of the changes to the global temp, rain and forest fires.
You have to work really, really hard to claim that every single legit scientist from over 100 countries and over 40 years have all been in one single conspiracy.
You have to be really, really wacko to think that every single government on the planet has over decades funded only research that confirms anthropogenic climate change because they are all in the same conspiracy.
How do you really believe all that?
How do you ignore the fact that the predictions have been very accurate and the planet has already warmed 1.5ºC?
It is true.
Here's the challenge.
Provide a dozen scientists with a counter theory that explains why the planet has warmed 1.5ºC.
Or even one with a published and peer assessed work that provides a counter theory.
Go ahead.
Show us where you get your science.
(and I get my science from the IPCC and NASA, with scientists who still post on the xitter)
$26 billion a year. GTFO. More alarmist propaganda. Here's 2021
Exploration and development expenses $1.47B
Accelerated CCA for LNG industry $2.6MM
Flow Through Shares tax shelter $15MM
Total $1.65B
Ok, I was wrong.
Its $29 billion.
Update: Canada's oil and gas industry received $29.6B in subsidies, financing in 2024, report finds
The subsidies and financing dwarf the previous years total and come as Ottawa said it would wind down direct financial support for the industry
www.biv.com
They're not subsidies, read the article. $21B is for pipeline infrastructure which is in our national interest. Another $7.5B is financing through EDC.Ok, I was wrong.
Its $29 billion.
Update: Canada's oil and gas industry received $29.6B in subsidies, financing in 2024, report finds
The subsidies and financing dwarf the previous years total and come as Ottawa said it would wind down direct financial support for the industry
If the government pays $21 billion of our money so a private company can rake in the profit, its a subsidy.
former BP executive:
That's an admission that you can't find scientists who can explain the 1.5ºC warming the planet sees now.
Its an admission that you have no idea what you are talking about.
There will just be more and more of this stuff now.
Technically you are correct. The private oil companies reap the benefits of the government funding. But so do taxpayers because they reap the benefit of getting goods transported quicker and at a cheaper delivery cost. You can make the argument that an oil pipeline is in a national energy security interest.
Transportation companies use highways that were government built. They reap the benefits of government paid infrastructure. I wouldn't expect them to have to foot the bill to construct new roads or highways.
If renewables got $21 billion a year in subsidies you'd have a heat pump and drive an EV and be happy about how much cheaper it all is.
You will be dead by then but if you have kids they will have to try to survive 4ºC warming, so much warming that 90% of humanity will likely die off.
Its not $21B a year. The pipeline construction spans several years. And no I have no interest in an EV or solar panels to heat my house. I want reliable energy.
