The Next President is...

[disgruntledemployee]

On 6/14/2022 at 11:02 AM, ecugringo said:

The other interesting point is the Crack Spread.  Words....

Funny.  My Chevron stock is up 70% from last fall.  Its my gas hedge stock, so I think I'll take the dividends this year and get one tank of high quality petrol. 

[ecugringo]

34 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Funny.  My Chevron stock is up 70% from last fall.  Its my gas hedge stock, so I think I'll take the dividends this year and get one tank of high quality petrol. 

lol i bought Exxon in May or June 2020 at around $34.  Was at $104 last week.

[kaputt]

4 hours ago, ecugringo said:

We now have the President telling companies what an acceptable profit margin is.

 

Biden tells oil companies in letter 'well above normal' refinery profit margins are 'not acceptable' (cnbc.com)

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post when it comes to the absolute vacuum of leadership ability in the current administration. The lefty advisors sitting around thinking of their next move can't even help themselves when it comes to their hatred of the oil industry. So they draft up a letter from Biden that simply attacks the oil industry vs trying to be part of a solution.

Like I had said before, the administration could stick to their public goal of trying to move away from fossil fuels while also actually working to help the American public today. There is absolutely no reason the President's letter couldn't have been an olive branch reaching out to the oil industry seeing how the federal government could work with and help the oil industry to increase supply and production. "To the American people, today I sent a letter to America's oil executives expressing my office's desire to sit down and come to real solutions on how to increase oil supply in this country. Make no mistake, my administration is still committed to furthering America's movement towards green energy, a process I feel the oil industry can be a part of as well; but this is a long process that will take time. American's are hurting now though, I feel that pain, and we are going to work together with America's oil and gas industry to make things better."

But instead we get more of the "oil is evil talk". This administration is just simply inept.

[ClearedHot]

On 6/14/2022 at 4:49 PM, Waingro said:

You make a good argument, but it's also comical that you call someone out for "regurgitating talking points" when you plagiarized the American Petroleum Institute's website, bullet point by bullet point, without attributing a word of it as anyone's other than your own.

Dear god Karen, there is a huge difference between using a source to support an argument and simply spewing the tripe and LIES that comes out of the DNC.  I'll make sure all future posts are in the APA style.

[SurelySerious]

I’m sorry, we’re looking for MLA.

[Negatory]

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

[Swizzle]

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

There is WAY more going on, on Earth than your/my/our CO2 contributions....where are we in any of these other factors????

FFS...Earth wobble affects more greatly temps than CO2, or sea currents.

The disconnect is people who believe a single thing IS the cause, when the whole system is more complex and don't consider the other factors. You know, like, pick and choose what suits your narrative instead of the science! Ha, trust the science (cough, hack, the science we tell you to beleive)! Where have we heard that before?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-earths-climate-changes-naturally-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/

 

[Negatory]

44 minutes ago, Swizzle said:

There is WAY more going on, on Earth than your/my/our CO2 contributions....where are we in any of these other factors????

FFS...Earth wobble affects more greatly temps than CO2, or sea currents.

The disconnect is people who believe a single thing IS the cause, when the whole system is more complex and don't consider the other factors. You know, like, pick and choose what suits your narrative instead of the science! Ha, trust the science (cough, hack, the science we tell you to beleive)! Where have we heard that before?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-earths-climate-changes-naturally-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/

 

Case in point. I don't know if you even read the source. Second paragraph:

"We can clearly show the causal link between carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and the 1.28 degree Celsius (and rising) global temperature increase since pre-industrial times." Then he goes on to tell you about other things that have affected the climate in the past, but that article in no way backs up your point. Also, just to be clear, the scientific community is not even slightly split on this. 99-100% consensus on humans causing anthropogenic climate change.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Brandolini's law strikes again. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it"

Edited June 16, 2022 by Negatory

[JimNtexas]

Obama owns two waterfront mansions.  Biden owns one.  The Bush family owns one.  I bet Kerry owns one.

All of them travel via Gulfstream.

I’ll believe I have to give up fossil fuels when these people start living like climate change is real.

[bfargin]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

"We can clearly show the causal link between carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and the 1.28 degree Celsius (and rising) global temperature increase since pre-industrial times." 

What a complete BS claim.

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Brandolini's law strikes again. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it"

Brandolini's law explains how that feces was published in spite of the ridiculous claim shown in quotes in your post.

There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect). I know a Senior Editor who should be replaced.

[Negatory]

24 minutes ago, JimNtexas said:

Obama owns two waterfront mansions.  Biden owns one.  The Bush family owns one.  I bet Kerry owns one.

All of them travel via Gulfstream.

I’ll believe I have to give up fossil fuels when these people start living like climate change is real.

We both know you wouldn't believe even then. Your arguments have always focused on entirely unrelated appeals to emotion and virtually never on evidence or facts.

[Negatory]

2 minutes ago, bfargin said:

What a complete BS claim.

Brandolini's law explains how that feces was published in spite of the ridiculous claim shown in quotes in your post.

There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect). I know a Senior Editor who should be replaced.

@bfarginThat is a quote from the article the previous person posted. Looks like you don't read either.

[bfargin]

No, I read. And call BS on their claim (as I wrote).

[Negatory]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

[bfargin]

35 minutes ago, Negatory said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

nice straw man ... nobody is saying the climate hasn't/doesn't change.

[HeloDude]

53 minutes ago, Negatory said:

We both know you wouldn't believe even then. Your arguments have always focused on entirely unrelated appeals to emotion and virtually never on evidence or facts.

I’ll just judge the climate alarmists by their actions…so yeah, I’m not too worried.

[dream big]

7 hours ago, kaputt said:

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post when it comes to the absolute vacuum of leadership ability in the current administration. The lefty advisors sitting around thinking of their next move can't even help themselves when it comes to their hatred of the oil industry. So they draft up a letter from Biden that simply attacks the oil industry vs trying to be part of a solution.

Like I had said before, the administration could stick to their public goal of trying to move away from fossil fuels while also actually working to help the American public today. There is absolutely no reason the President's letter couldn't have been an olive branch reaching out to the oil industry seeing how the federal government could work with and help the oil industry to increase supply and production. "To the American people, today I sent a letter to America's oil executives expressing my office's desire to sit down and come to real solutions on how to increase oil supply in this country. Make no mistake, my administration is still committed to furthering America's movement towards green energy, a process I feel the oil industry can be a part of as well; but this is a long process that will take time. American's are hurting now though, I feel that pain, and we are going to work together with America's oil and gas industry to make things better."

But instead we get more of the "oil is evil talk". This administration is just simply inept.

That kind of adult language wouldn’t appeal to zealots like AOC. 

[Sim]

I propose we pass a bipartisan bill making volcanoes illegal! and carbon tax them as well!  Do it for the kids! 

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

I don’t know anybody who thinks the climate does not change; the degree to which human behavior impacts the process and what behavior we should modify to create a deliberate changes without unintended consequences seems to be the point of contention.  

However my entire life I have been fed alarmist climate propaganda which failed to materialize.  In 1991 my 6th grade science teacher taught that by 2010 ozone holes would make going to the beach impossible in the summertime.  Thats just one example, and what my kids bring home now are equally dire and silly prophecies.

From acid rain to ozone holes to global heating global cooling polar ice cap melting, etc. climate change activists would be more convincing if they embraced humility and acknowledged their many incorrect predictions…. and quit feeding junk science to children who cannot present a logical argument. Hyperbole feels good in the moment, but does long-term damage to credibility.  

[Swizzle]

7 hours ago, bfargin said:

What a complete BS claim.

Brandolini's law explains how that feces was published in spite of the ridiculous claim shown in quotes in your post.

There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect). I know a Senior Editor who should be replaced.

Amen.

 

[Swizzle]

10 hours ago, Negatory said:

Case in point. I don't know if you even read the source. Second paragraph:

"We can clearly show the causal link between carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and the 1.28 degree Celsius (and rising) global temperature increase since pre-industrial times." Then he goes on to tell you about other things that have affected the climate in the past, but that article in no way backs up your point. Also, just to be clear, the scientific community is not even slightly split on this. 99-100% consensus on humans causing anthropogenic climate change.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Brandolini's law strikes again. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it"

The one thing my quoted article does do truthfully is infer that global warming and cooling is far greater affected by cosmic/solar powers, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and ocean currents...amoung other things other than human activity.

There are far greater powers at play than humans.

[Lawman]

The one thing my quoted article does do truthfully is infer that global warming and cooling is far greater affected by cosmic/solar powers, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and ocean currents...amoung other things other than human activity.
There are far greater powers at play than humans.

If it wasn’t for the massive hidden profit schemes and selective acceptance to a lot of the mitigation ideas, most of the argument for change made by climate activists could gain much wider marketability in how presented.

You could sell it much better as wider species adaptation and resource husbandry. Something that is really necessary regardless of what the climate is doing as more people and countries gain wealth and industrialize.

Instead it’s BS like “drive an electric car if you don’t want all the Seals and Pilar Bears to die!” Or what them wholesale sell the necessities of reducing carbon, and lobby for a massive movement of government money toward a given populist industry like wind power and simultaneously lambast any investment in Nuclear which generates far shorter timelines for effect at curbing carbon emission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blue]

14 hours ago, Negatory said:

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

This thread was producing a lot of good discussion, and then the Climate Change grenade got thrown into the room, sending us into a whole page of nonsense back and forth.

Don't feed the troll.

[Guardian]

So back to the pro life vs pro death debate then?……Right

[ClearedHot]

15 hours ago, Negatory said:

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

Of course it is real, the question is how do you deal with it?  Do you crush the American economy in an empty effort to send a message when China, India and others thumb their nose at the issue?  The numbers from the past two years are skewed given COVID and shutdowns, but in general U.S. emissions have been declining while China and India were increasing.  And please tell me how crushing production within the U.S. then begging Saudi, Venezuela and Iran to increase production is solving the problem?  Come on Man!

I would rather see us be energy independent, keep our economy strong and use the taxes and lease payments to fund a Manhattan Project style approach to capturing, limiting, removing carbon from the atmosphere.  One of the great things about capitalism and the free market is it drives efficiency and problem solving.