Global Warning/Climate Change

[temporal1]

2017: Page 41

PeterG wrote:
Who will acknowledge that their own side in the climate debate has been highly politicized?

Clearly, both sides have been highly politicized.
That doesn't mean that all science is driven by politics. The most highly politicized part shows up in the lay-level debates.

I'll say I'm a bit confused when people say that the __________ are pushing climate change as part of some agenda. What exactly is said "agenda"? I've seen no meaningful advance caused by an acknowledgement of climate change.
Can anyone give me a quick rundown without getting their blood pressure too high? (jokes)

Redistribution of wealth, among other things.
Some environmental organizations are pushing for particular energy sources such as wind and solar (certainly not nuclear, there is though a consensus among scientists that nuclear is the best option to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions). I'll let other speak to this.

[temporal1]

2017: Page 34

This may be Wayne’s earliest post on this topic.
(i think) These earlier pages (34-41-ish) with Wayne, appleman and others, are worth revisiting.
Wayne had a scientific mind, education, training, and life experience. A man of faith.

What would you say the 'deepest' ROOT cause of global warming is? (Just pondering this)

Natural events: The Milankovitch cycles, variations in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions.

Earth's climate, while delicate, is amazingly stable.
Nothing that has ever occurred in the past has driven the climate into the positive feedback cycle that is foundational to idea of catastrophic runaway global warming.

i wonder if he would agree that earth is also vulnerable to natural events coming from outside earth’s atmosphere, like meteoric crashes? (he included variations in solar radiation) so, i guess he would.

[temporal1]

Ukraine is now dominant in news.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4584

“Hawley To Introduce Bill Restoring American Energy Production, Ending Dependence on Foreign Adversaries”
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-in ... dversaries


“Manchin Rings Alarm On Continued Russian Crude Oil Imports”
“I am calling on the Administration and industry partners to take action immediately, up to and including banning crude oil imports from Russia.”
https://www.energy.senate.gov/2022/2/ma ... il-imports

- - - - -

Wayne: See above quote from 2017 ^^
.. Redistribution of wealth, among other things.
Some environmental organizations are pushing for particular energy sources such as wind and solar (certainly not nuclear, there is though a consensus among scientists that nuclear is the best option to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions). I'll let other speak to this.

Biden’s milquetoast response to Hawley and Manchin suggest Ukraine isn’t “really” as big-a-deal as propagandist reports are rallying (for extremes, including war). Biden is the current front man for (as Wayne aptly worded) redistribution of wealth.

[temporal1]

Ukraine is now dominant in news.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4584

“Hawley To Introduce Bill Restoring American Energy Production, Ending Dependence on Foreign Adversaries”
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-in ... dversaries


“Manchin Rings Alarm On Continued Russian Crude Oil Imports”
“I am calling on the Administration and industry partners to take action immediately, up to and including banning crude oil imports from Russia.”
https://www.energy.senate.gov/2022/2/ma ... il-imports

- - - - -

Wayne: See above quote from 2017 ^^
.. Redistribution of wealth, among other things.
Some environmental organizations are pushing for particular energy sources such as wind and solar (certainly not nuclear, there is though a consensus among scientists that nuclear is the best option to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions). I'll let other speak to this.

Biden’s milquetoast response to Hawley and Manchin suggest Ukraine isn’t “really” as big-a-deal as propagandist reports are rallying (for extremes, including war). Biden is the current front man for (as Wayne aptly worded) redistribution of wealth.

This cartoon is relevant to Ukraine, ALSO, it’s Stand Operating Procedure for U.S. career politicians/Congress, gross double talk.
Par for the course.

[JimFoxvog]

This cartoon is relevant to Ukraine, ALSO, it’s Stand Operating Procedure for U.S. career politicians/Congress, gross double talk.
Par for the course.

Last year the US exported more oil than it imported. Did that change in the last few months or is this cartoon just a political misdirection?

[Ken]

This cartoon is relevant to Ukraine, ALSO, it’s Stand Operating Procedure for U.S. career politicians/Congress, gross double talk.
Par for the course.

Last year the US exported more oil than it imported. Did that change in the last few months or is this cartoon just a political misdirection?

It is totally inaccurate. The Biden Administration has approved oil and gas leases during its first year in office at a rate that is 1/3 higher than the Trump Administration. To the dismay of environmentalists in fact. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- ... n-climate/

In fact, the American fossil fuel industry is swimming in leases that they don't have the time or inclination to exploit. A lot of it is oil companies locking up leases so their competitors don't get them and then just banking them for the future.

Personally I think fossil fuels are old flawed technology and the faster we pivot to clean and renewable technologies the better. If we were inventing American transportation from the ground up today we would never base it on gasoline and diesel when there are much better and cleaner alternatives. But transitions are always difficult.

[temporal1]

This cartoon is relevant to Ukraine, ALSO, it’s Stand Operating Procedure for U.S. career politicians/Congress, gross double talk.
Par for the course.

Last year the US exported more oil than it imported. Did that change in the last few months or is this cartoon just a political misdirection?

i don’t know.
i’ve been told, U.S. domestic fuel production is not necessarily for domestic sales, but for the world market.
from what i’m currently reading, Russia is a major supplier to U.S. and Europe, in various commodities.

but, for me, this cartoon represents frequent political double-talk, it’s SOP, not new.

for instance, normalizing+enabling fornication via gov schools and healthcare, while funding birth control pills+abortions.
and so much more. possibly, “everything” they touch.

regarding global warnings, climate change, military actions can’t possibly be considered “green” choices for the environment.
not even in career politicians’ double-talk.

[JimFoxvog]

i’ve been told, U.S. domestic fuel production is not necessarily for domestic sales, but for the world market.
from what i’m currently reading, Russia is a major supplier to U.S. and Europe, in various commodities.

Yes, there seem to be economic reasons to both export oil and import oil. The US exports more than it imports. The biggest foreign supplier is Canada, and there were big controversies over pipelines to import more. Russia was the third-largest source of oil last year. Oil is a global market; where tankers come from can be quickly changed. If, because of war, Russian oil exports are limited, then we see price increases until other producers make up for the shortage.

but, for me, this cartoon represents frequent political double-talk, it’s SOP, not new.

Yes, this cartoon is a representative of what can euphemistically be called "political double-talk". It presents the false assertion that the US is depending on foreign energy when we are a net exporter of oil and coal. The US is largest producer of crude oil in the world. If you want to make a case for political action, limiting exports would seem to be the reasonable cause. (I don't know if the right, the left, or nobody is making this case.)

[Ken]

i’ve been told, U.S. domestic fuel production is not necessarily for domestic sales, but for the world market.
from what i’m currently reading, Russia is a major supplier to U.S. and Europe, in various commodities.

Yes, there seem to be economic reasons to both export oil and import oil. The US exports more than it imports. The biggest foreign supplier is Canada, and there were big controversies over pipelines to import more. Russia was the third-largest source of oil last year. Oil is a global market; where tankers come from can be quickly changed. If, because of war, Russian oil exports are limited, then we see price increases until other producers make up for the shortage.

but, for me, this cartoon represents frequent political double-talk, it’s SOP, not new.

Yes, this cartoon is a representative of what can euphemistically be called "political double-talk". It presents the false assertion that the US is depending on foreign energy when we are a net exporter of oil and coal. The US is largest producer of crude oil in the world. If you want to make a case for political action, limiting exports would seem to be the reasonable cause. (I don't know if the right, the left, or nobody is making this case.)

It is cheaper to export Alaskan crude oil to Japan and China and then bring Russian or Middle-eastern oil to the east coast. Than than to try to keep all US oil markets hermetically sealed and try to transport Alaskan oil to say Boston via train or freighter through the Panama Canal.

I read somewhere that close to 40% of all international shipping is moving fossil fuels around the world (oil, coal, and natural gas), the transport of this stuff alone consumes tremendous amounts of fossil fuels and global shipping is an enormous producer of CO2. It would be better for all involved to invest everywhere in clean local renewable sources of energy than what we are doing now. Which is completely unsustainable.

[Josh]

Exactly what source of money can we use to “invest” in “clean renewable energy”?

Print more dollars?

The only sustainable “clean” energy is nuclear - and Europe is busy shutting down their nuclear power plants to replace them with Russian gas.