Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You make an argument that one of my more intelligent nephews made: it is already too late.
I am still puzzled by those that claim this is all some 'liberal conspiracy', when the 'greenhouse effect' was first articulated by a scientist in 1824, and confirmed by others during the succeeding decades. The thought that our atmosphere traps certain gases was confirmed long before Al Gore, or even his great grandfather.
A year or so ago, when I was discussing how our atmosphere is a closed system, one poster charged at me claiming it was all nonsense: the Earth's atmosphere is not closed, for you can easily look up and see the stars.
Of course, such people have no idea what our 'atmosphere' is, or have any idea about the Earth's rotation, gravity, etc. They have never heard of how spacecrafts must re-enter our atmosphere at a proper angle to avoid burning up (due to the speed and other factors).
Whom to believe? Those politicians, like Senator Ted Cruz (born in Canada) that receive a lot of money from the oil industry, or those scientist out in the field, making precise measurements and comparing them to measurements taken over the decades?
Whom to believe.
The sad thing is that people don't need to "believe" anything in regard to global warming/climate change. One need only employ critical thinking. Americans are woefully ignorant about science and scientists, and the entire planet will pay a heavy price for this since the US is the second largest CO2 emitter (China is number one) in the world. China is also becoming a leader in climate research while the US is falling behind in honor of MAGA and the shareholders of Exxon.
People don't spend a good 8 years plus studying to get a PhD in one of the sciences because they long to get rich quick and/or want to impose some evil global government on everyone and/or have so few moral values that they are eager to tell amazing lies to the world. We go into science for the sheer joy of asking and answering the questions of how the world around us really works. "Scio" is the latin root word for knowledge. We go into science in order to pursue the sheer love of learning.
To begin the process of understanding one need only ask the age old question of "cui bono" - who benefits? So ask yourself who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if we abandon fossil fuels. From Exxon's most recent quarterly earning report:
Exxon Mobil Corporation today announced estimated third quarter 2018 earnings of $6.2 billion, or $1.46 per share assuming dilution, compared with $4 billion a year earlier. Cash flow from operations and asset sales was $12.6 billion, including proceeds associated with asset sales of $1.5 billion. During the quarter, the company distributed $3.5 billion in dividends to shareholders. Capital and exploration expenditures were $6.6 billion, up 10 percent from the prior year.
Financial analysts have been been downright gushing over Exxon's 2018 net income:
In 2018, [Exxon Mobile's net income] has been increasing throughout the year giving us an accumulated amount of more than 16 billion in just nine months. Though the fourth quarter is 6.0 billion, 4% lower than 6.24 billion of the third quarter, the full-year amount is really astonishing with a total of 20.8 billion. This is 1.1 billion or 5.5% higher than the previous year.
Exxon could build two of Trump's damn border wall easily with a mere quarter's worth of their 2018 profits.
Who are you going to believe? Who has the most to gain from quashing scientific research in the field of climatology. The petroleum giant Exxon Mobile or a climatologist making around $18.00 per hour? BTW, I use the $18 amount in deference to Google. I don't know how Google comes up with that $18 bucks figure since scientists in academia aren't paid by the hour and tend to live in their labs or out in the field collecting data.
Who benefits? The scientist or Exxon? Don't all answer at once.
The sad thing is that people don't need to "believe" anything in regard to global warming/climate change. One need only employ critical thinking. Americans are woefully ignorant about science and scientists, and the entire planet will pay a heavy price for this since the US is the second largest CO2 emitter (China is number one) in the world. China is also becoming a leader in climate research while the US is falling behind in honor of MAGA and the shareholders of Exxon.
People don't spend a good 8 years plus studying to get a PhD in one of the sciences because they long to get rich quick and/or want to impose some evil global government on everyone and/or have so few moral values that they are eager to tell amazing lies to the world. We go into science for the sheer joy of asking and answering the questions of how the world around us really works. "Scio" is the latin root word for knowledge. We go into science in order to pursue the sheer love of learning.
To begin the process of understanding one need only ask the age old question of "cui bono" - who benefits? So ask yourself who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if we abandon fossil fuels. From Exxon's most recent quarterly earning report:
Exxon Mobil Corporation today announced estimated third quarter 2018 earnings of $6.2 billion, or $1.46 per share assuming dilution, compared with $4 billion a year earlier. Cash flow from operations and asset sales was $12.6 billion, including proceeds associated with asset sales of $1.5 billion. During the quarter, the company distributed $3.5 billion in dividends to shareholders. Capital and exploration expenditures were $6.6 billion, up 10 percent from the prior year.
Financial analysts have been been downright gushing over Exxon's 2018 net income:
In 2018, [Exxon Mobile's net income] has been increasing throughout the year giving us an accumulated amount of more than 16 billion in just nine months. Though the fourth quarter is 6.0 billion, 4% lower than 6.24 billion of the third quarter, the full-year amount is really astonishing with a total of 20.8 billion. This is 1.1 billion or 5.5% higher than the previous year.
Exxon could build two of Trump's damn border wall easily with a mere quarter's worth of their 2018 profits.
Who are you going to believe? Who has the most to gain from quashing scientific research in the field of climatology. The petroleum giant Exxon Mobile or a climatologist making around $18.00 per hour? BTW, I use the $18 amount in deference to Google. I don't know how Google comes up with that $18 bucks figure since scientists in academia aren't paid by the hour and tend to live in their labs or out in the field collecting data.
Who benefits? The scientist or Exxon? Don't all answer at once.
The sad thing is that people don't need to "believe" anything in regard to global warming/climate change. One need only employ critical thinking. Americans are woefully ignorant about science and scientists, and the entire planet will pay a heavy price for this since the US is the second largest CO2 emitter (China is number one) in the world. China is also becoming a leader in climate research while the US is falling behind in honor of MAGA and the shareholders of Exxon.
People don't spend a good 8 years plus studying to get a PhD in one of the sciences because they long to get rich quick and/or want to impose some evil global government on everyone and/or have so few moral values that they are eager to tell amazing lies to the world. We go into science for the sheer joy of asking and answering the questions of how the world around us really works. "Scio" is the latin root word for knowledge. We go into science in order to pursue the sheer love of learning.
To begin the process of understanding one need only ask the age old question of "cui bono" - who benefits? So ask yourself who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if we abandon fossil fuels. From Exxon's most recent quarterly earning report:
Exxon Mobil Corporation today announced estimated third quarter 2018 earnings of $6.2 billion, or $1.46 per share assuming dilution, compared with $4 billion a year earlier. Cash flow from operations and asset sales was $12.6 billion, including proceeds associated with asset sales of $1.5 billion. During the quarter, the company distributed $3.5 billion in dividends to shareholders. Capital and exploration expenditures were $6.6 billion, up 10 percent from the prior year.
Financial analysts have been been downright gushing over Exxon's 2018 net income:
In 2018, [Exxon Mobile's net income] has been increasing throughout the year giving us an accumulated amount of more than 16 billion in just nine months. Though the fourth quarter is 6.0 billion, 4% lower than 6.24 billion of the third quarter, the full-year amount is really astonishing with a total of 20.8 billion. This is 1.1 billion or 5.5% higher than the previous year.
Exxon could build two of Trump's damn border wall easily with a mere quarter's worth of their 2018 profits.
Who are you going to believe? Who has the most to gain from quashing scientific research in the field of climatology. The petroleum giant Exxon Mobile or a climatologist making around $18.00 per hour? BTW, I use the $18 amount in deference to Google. I don't know how Google comes up with that $18 bucks figure since scientists in academia aren't paid by the hour and tend to live in their labs or out in the field collecting data.
Who benefits? The scientist or Exxon? Don't all answer at once.
Polar Vortex last week, here in NYC yesterday temps were in the 50's and poured rain. This is weather more like late March or early April, yet the calendar says 7 February.
Haven't bought a new winter coat in years now. Have gotten through past several NYC winters with mostly just hoodies and down or fleece vests. In fact a fleece vest has become the part of the "uniform" for NYC guys. Hardly see anyone with a coat....
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Colorado Rambler again.
Thank you so much for your brilliant and insightful posts!
And what exactly did you learn from that post?
1. Exxon is bad- tax it to death and let it keep producing CO2
2. Everyone who believes in AGW is brilliant
3. Americans are ignorant about science- particularly those who post about "science" and have no advanced degrees in "science" and have never published in the scientific literature. Unfortunately, those most ignorant in "science" claim to have a supreme understanding of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry.
It is embarrassing to read all the gaffes and gross misinterpretation of data by these "internet scientists" who think a google search confers to them the same qualifications as actual training in science. This is the Dunning -Kruger Effect in action.
How in the world do you claim to understand thermodynamics, chemistry and physics when you have never achieved any degrees in these areas nor taken (at minimum) any classes in college? There must be a miniscule shread of reason that still exists somewhere in you that realizes you cannot understand complex issues without a shred of the education and tools needed to interpret such information.
Let me ask you- If you confronted someone in your field of employment who claimed supreme knowledge of everything you do and the nuances of your business with no experience or training whatsoever, how would you react to them? Think about that one for just a moment.
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 02-07-2019 at 05:27 AM..
1. Exxon is bad- tax it to death and let it keep producing CO2
This is unfortunately the argument being presented as the solution by so many. It is NOT a scientific argument. It is a political one.
It's why the divide is so large. It's why I argue the argument should be one of cleaning up our messes. Few will argue against that as most have taken steps in that direction.
It's the political arguments that separate people and no, those arguments are not scientific ones.
You should be asking what have I learned from your posts?
I have learned that you are the most scientifically illiterate poster on this topic.
You don't even know where the Carbon that's responsible for the Carbon based life on this earth came from.
I've learned that you run and dodge and evade direct evidence that files in the face of your science misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
Are you not the one who thinks that the carbon in your body was synthetically produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process?? You specifically stated that the process that is used to create synthetic petroleum products (gasoline and coal) is, in your mind, somehow incorporated into carbon based compounds in humans and animals!!! Do you understand the difference? Do you eat oil and coal?
This was a process used commercially by the Germans in ww2 to make synthetic fuels when their oil fields in Romania were over run by the Russians. It was not used to create synthetic human beings.
I have news for you. You are not like a being from "Song of the South" made of tar produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process. You are an organic, living organism, in which the carbon compounds in you come from plant life, which was produced from CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now that was one of the funniest things I have ever read and show what happens when someone with no inkling of science whatsoever uses google searches in a "debate" over science. The thing that is even funnier is that you think I am an idiot in science (despite advanced degrees and publications in the literature) and you, with google searches, are brilliant!
Please tell us another good one like you being made from tar or oil. I am still laughing about that one; I told a few of my colleagues that one and they laughed their asses off. You see, they too have taken courses in chemistry and biochemistry and know the difference between a critter Brayer Rabbit and Brayer Fox get stuck in, rather than an actual human.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
