For me what the main question is that what do these fossil fuel companies want out of events like this? Friendly policy towards their product to help it in the marketplace against competition like renewables, by using voters to support that policy.
But you can't claim your product is inherently "affordable" while also pushing for policy to give it help against competition.
And I think this is something that frustrates me a bit about the climate movement which is sometimes too strong with the "there is no market solution to the climate problem" framing. I understand and sympathize with that position just by knowing history of energy markets, but I think it is more persuasive to amplify really how much fossil fuel companies really on tax breaks, or very low royalty fees to the DOI, or all the other friendly provisions in law and elsewhere that I think a lot of people wouldn't think of as the "market". Because the perspective I get from some, is that they see things like the IRA as government spending, which it is, but not all the tax breaks fossil fuel companies get as government spending, which it also is. And I believe fossil fuel companies really rely on that disconnect. Just something I have tried to amplify.
The FF industry is very successfully fracturing what should be a progressive/environmental coalition.
But to me the responses by the activists quoted here illustrate one reason they are succeeding. Mostly I read EJ/CJ platitudes which don't address a reasonable point. Burning methane gas is pretty cheap heat (most places, most years) if you do it even modestly efficiently. Its GHG pollution is mostly invisible so it looks "clean" compared to, say, that from diesel trucks.
Where are the responses from some POC about the low utility costs of their community's new heat pump heated Passivhaus LMI apartment in upstate NY or IL? Trot out Donnel Baird to talk about his experiences and BlocPower retrofitting apartments all over the country. And so on. The activists should be talking about black builders and makers; folks you would trust to keep you warm in the winter.
Also, the EJ/CJ activist response seems heavy on "FFs are killing my people," and light on "Hey methane gas (burnt, vented and leaked) causes about a third of America's global warming pollution." I know there are some good reasons to focus on the former, but a bunch of the former can be fixed while we still burn gas. The latter always happens when we burn gas.
Around here the gas biz targets Hispanics. A memorable placard inside my valley bus claimed, if my rudimentary Spanish didn't fail me, something like "Without gas in your home, your aunt will won't be able to make you a fresh tortilla." I was just in NM, and the anti-energy transition propaganda was targeting the New Age purity types... "OMG, EMFs, battery chemies..."
We already have advertising which lies about fossil fuels. This stage of infomercials makes sense including reaching out to create Astro turf groups to muddy the water. The Kochs have been doing it for decades and have extended it through ALEC to short circuit public policy. It’s good to see the NAACP hold the fort, however I don’t see them on this issue at my local NAACP. We have to change our local governments to take the climate crisis seriously and transition now despite the industries buying their inattentive policy making.
Yep…This is another example of how these left wing woke Marxist groups add victim-hood and identity politics to everything, and in this case confused themselves with there own brilliance.
Sometimes the truth just comes through..
Fossil fuels are the only main solution to provide energy and prosperity, and messing with the providers of this essential resource is foolish and should be a crime.
Its now clear that CO2 is not only not a pollutant, and not the driver of a naturally warming planet, but its increase is a benefit to our food supply.
Nigel, why are you still fossil spamming the HEATED comment section? Your lies and polluter propaganda are a great example of the fraud and grift Emily and team expose weekly. We read your drivel and think, Oops, there's another misspelling of "their", Oops, there goes another fraudulent claim, Oops, there goes another sellout, Oops, there goes another ignoramus now!
Because you people need educating so you don’t continue to spread your panic and lies into our society that is already damaging our prosperity. The good news is that a growing number of the population are gaining awareness of the fraud of climate change alarmism and the dangerous non-scientific religion that it promotes. A counter argument is always needed in any democracy.
Take your second to last sentence in your OP. You got three things wrong. Can you name a scientific organization anywhere that supports any of that fossil fuel myth-filled statement? No.
Can I explain why some people ignore the consensus of science about AGW and the pollution from fossil fuels that is the main driver according to science? Yes: some are well paid to spin myths and lies to delay legislative action to address this scientifically identified serious pollution problem. For others it's simply a toxic mix of ideology, ignorance, and hubris.
For the rest of us, there are powerful, beneficial, far-reaching solutions we can advocate for that will reduce pollution, improve health, put more money in people's pockets, make the US more competitive in the global market, and hold other countries accountable: carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back.
Here you go again… trying to shore up your position in the face of dire and growing scientific dispute.
I will try to be brief on a response to your comments....
We now have plenty of scientific organizations and leading scientists that do not agree with the so called climate emergency consensus with many declaring that the warming is mostly natural and not an emergency…. If I send you the links will you review or ??
About historical and current trends…
All we need is a bit of climate adaption…Using data from established scientific reporting sources it shows no trends of adverse climate conditions with most trends on sea level rise, floods, fires and such all heading in a safe direction. Even the IPCC agrees on most of these points.
So about predictions….
The sources you keep using are out of date and new studies show that CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature. Unless of course you use the discredited hockey stick, the climate models that keeping getting it wrong, or the outlandish political scare statements from the UN and its IPCC, and the "paid to say the party line to get the funding" by most of the subjugated scientific community now melded into the climate emergency industrial complex. The peer review process is of course part of this subjugation with the snouts in the funding bucket.
But thankfully we have funding organizations that are ensuring pushback so the hoax gets exposed.
The last comments you made on carbon tax is a huge joke here in Canada, as its failed to make any progress or sense and its getting reversed at the next election. And its certainly not putting real money in peoples pockets, its just a huge mistake and is reducing our prosperity… so no that’s a foolish approach to follow even if it was necessary.. which its not.... the only viable solution is keep using fossil fuels and Nukes and stop the climate panic!
Nigel, you've proven you are long winded, but you failed to name a single scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports any of the three claims you made in this statement: "Its now clear that CO2 is not only not a pollutant, and not the driver of a naturally warming planet, but its increase is a benefit to our food supply."
I'm not interested in anything else. Can you name a single scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports this? No, you can't. So it's time for you to slink away and spin your myths to an uninformed group.
99% of peer-reviewed scientific research refutes your statement, and 200 scientific organizations support the opposite of your fossil lies: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.
Look…Please try to stay away from the personal attacks, as I try hard not to do that as it shows a lack of class and professionalism.
I agree to focus on your prime questions…
Is CO2 a pollutant?... meaning.. has it caused the climate change.
And is it creating an emergency?
On the emergency part..
Data shows clearly that the warming planet has had no impact on the environment that effects humans, and in fact the increase in CO2 has been a benefit.. This is data from published and reviewed sources.. and has been described in the sources below and is fast being accepted as fact. Look at these movies and tell me what real recorded data you disagree with or have questions about the source.
Many leading scientist that are tired of the subjugation of science have formed these organizations and almost 2000 have signed up to expose the truth.. so its your problem if you wont accept their credibility… many are capable and recognized climate scientists. They are far more accredited and believable than the subjugated snouts in the funding bucket that support the climate emergency complex.
These same scientific groups have determined that CO2 is a very poor GHG and that many other events and factors are more prime drivers and are outside our control, such as the sun and the movement of the earth etc..
Either way we don’t need NetZero.
So you say you have proof of causation that CO2 acts as the main driver of climate change. I hope its not just failed climate models or discredited hockey sticks or political spin jobs by the IPCC and UN … So show me sunshine!
I firmly believe you are a logical and virtuous individual but are misinformed.
I would suggest you listen to this interview with Seven Koonin.
In this interview he 100% describes the position I subscribe too.
I believe he is on the side of truth in this interview, and in his book, as he only quotes from the facts from the IPCC report, and he then describes the mischief that occurs when it is translated into a UN political brief... I would be interested in where exactly you find a logic to disagree.
If you wont listen due to political and religious prejudice … then there is no hope for you in the world of science. I have met Koonin many times at Clintel zoom sessions and he is great scientist.
Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge (youtube.com)
For me what the main question is that what do these fossil fuel companies want out of events like this? Friendly policy towards their product to help it in the marketplace against competition like renewables, by using voters to support that policy.
But you can't claim your product is inherently "affordable" while also pushing for policy to give it help against competition.
And I think this is something that frustrates me a bit about the climate movement which is sometimes too strong with the "there is no market solution to the climate problem" framing. I understand and sympathize with that position just by knowing history of energy markets, but I think it is more persuasive to amplify really how much fossil fuel companies really on tax breaks, or very low royalty fees to the DOI, or all the other friendly provisions in law and elsewhere that I think a lot of people wouldn't think of as the "market". Because the perspective I get from some, is that they see things like the IRA as government spending, which it is, but not all the tax breaks fossil fuel companies get as government spending, which it also is. And I believe fossil fuel companies really rely on that disconnect. Just something I have tried to amplify.
Really excellent reporting here!
Love the bullet points at the end too!
The FF industry is very successfully fracturing what should be a progressive/environmental coalition.
But to me the responses by the activists quoted here illustrate one reason they are succeeding. Mostly I read EJ/CJ platitudes which don't address a reasonable point. Burning methane gas is pretty cheap heat (most places, most years) if you do it even modestly efficiently. Its GHG pollution is mostly invisible so it looks "clean" compared to, say, that from diesel trucks.
Where are the responses from some POC about the low utility costs of their community's new heat pump heated Passivhaus LMI apartment in upstate NY or IL? Trot out Donnel Baird to talk about his experiences and BlocPower retrofitting apartments all over the country. And so on. The activists should be talking about black builders and makers; folks you would trust to keep you warm in the winter.
Also, the EJ/CJ activist response seems heavy on "FFs are killing my people," and light on "Hey methane gas (burnt, vented and leaked) causes about a third of America's global warming pollution." I know there are some good reasons to focus on the former, but a bunch of the former can be fixed while we still burn gas. The latter always happens when we burn gas.
Around here the gas biz targets Hispanics. A memorable placard inside my valley bus claimed, if my rudimentary Spanish didn't fail me, something like "Without gas in your home, your aunt will won't be able to make you a fresh tortilla." I was just in NM, and the anti-energy transition propaganda was targeting the New Age purity types... "OMG, EMFs, battery chemies..."
We already have advertising which lies about fossil fuels. This stage of infomercials makes sense including reaching out to create Astro turf groups to muddy the water. The Kochs have been doing it for decades and have extended it through ALEC to short circuit public policy. It’s good to see the NAACP hold the fort, however I don’t see them on this issue at my local NAACP. We have to change our local governments to take the climate crisis seriously and transition now despite the industries buying their inattentive policy making.
Yep…This is another example of how these left wing woke Marxist groups add victim-hood and identity politics to everything, and in this case confused themselves with there own brilliance.
Sometimes the truth just comes through..
Fossil fuels are the only main solution to provide energy and prosperity, and messing with the providers of this essential resource is foolish and should be a crime.
Its now clear that CO2 is not only not a pollutant, and not the driver of a naturally warming planet, but its increase is a benefit to our food supply.
Its time to talk facts rather than fiction.
Nigel, why are you still fossil spamming the HEATED comment section? Your lies and polluter propaganda are a great example of the fraud and grift Emily and team expose weekly. We read your drivel and think, Oops, there's another misspelling of "their", Oops, there goes another fraudulent claim, Oops, there goes another sellout, Oops, there goes another ignoramus now!
Because you people need educating so you don’t continue to spread your panic and lies into our society that is already damaging our prosperity. The good news is that a growing number of the population are gaining awareness of the fraud of climate change alarmism and the dangerous non-scientific religion that it promotes. A counter argument is always needed in any democracy.
Take your second to last sentence in your OP. You got three things wrong. Can you name a scientific organization anywhere that supports any of that fossil fuel myth-filled statement? No.
Can you explain why even Exxon's scientists disagree with you (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/). No.
Can you explain why Shell's production team showed that you are wrong in 1991 (https://youtu.be/vTlYYlRN0LY). No.
Can you explain why Koch pays for so much disinformation and political meddling to delay addressing its pollution (https://drexel.edu/news/archive/2013/december/climate-change). No.
Can I explain why some people ignore the consensus of science about AGW and the pollution from fossil fuels that is the main driver according to science? Yes: some are well paid to spin myths and lies to delay legislative action to address this scientifically identified serious pollution problem. For others it's simply a toxic mix of ideology, ignorance, and hubris.
For the rest of us, there are powerful, beneficial, far-reaching solutions we can advocate for that will reduce pollution, improve health, put more money in people's pockets, make the US more competitive in the global market, and hold other countries accountable: carboncashback.org/carbon-cash-back.
Here you go again… trying to shore up your position in the face of dire and growing scientific dispute.
I will try to be brief on a response to your comments....
We now have plenty of scientific organizations and leading scientists that do not agree with the so called climate emergency consensus with many declaring that the warming is mostly natural and not an emergency…. If I send you the links will you review or ??
About historical and current trends…
All we need is a bit of climate adaption…Using data from established scientific reporting sources it shows no trends of adverse climate conditions with most trends on sea level rise, floods, fires and such all heading in a safe direction. Even the IPCC agrees on most of these points.
So about predictions….
The sources you keep using are out of date and new studies show that CO2 is not a significant driver of global temperature. Unless of course you use the discredited hockey stick, the climate models that keeping getting it wrong, or the outlandish political scare statements from the UN and its IPCC, and the "paid to say the party line to get the funding" by most of the subjugated scientific community now melded into the climate emergency industrial complex. The peer review process is of course part of this subjugation with the snouts in the funding bucket.
But thankfully we have funding organizations that are ensuring pushback so the hoax gets exposed.
The last comments you made on carbon tax is a huge joke here in Canada, as its failed to make any progress or sense and its getting reversed at the next election. And its certainly not putting real money in peoples pockets, its just a huge mistake and is reducing our prosperity… so no that’s a foolish approach to follow even if it was necessary.. which its not.... the only viable solution is keep using fossil fuels and Nukes and stop the climate panic!
The latest movie to watch..
Climate The Movie - The Cold Truth - 4K (youtube.com)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ut3cjENZg
Nigel, you've proven you are long winded, but you failed to name a single scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports any of the three claims you made in this statement: "Its now clear that CO2 is not only not a pollutant, and not the driver of a naturally warming planet, but its increase is a benefit to our food supply."
I'm not interested in anything else. Can you name a single scientific organization anywhere in the world that supports this? No, you can't. So it's time for you to slink away and spin your myths to an uninformed group.
99% of peer-reviewed scientific research refutes your statement, and 200 scientific organizations support the opposite of your fossil lies: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.
Look…Please try to stay away from the personal attacks, as I try hard not to do that as it shows a lack of class and professionalism.
I agree to focus on your prime questions…
Is CO2 a pollutant?... meaning.. has it caused the climate change.
And is it creating an emergency?
On the emergency part..
Data shows clearly that the warming planet has had no impact on the environment that effects humans, and in fact the increase in CO2 has been a benefit.. This is data from published and reviewed sources.. and has been described in the sources below and is fast being accepted as fact. Look at these movies and tell me what real recorded data you disagree with or have questions about the source.
Many leading scientist that are tired of the subjugation of science have formed these organizations and almost 2000 have signed up to expose the truth.. so its your problem if you wont accept their credibility… many are capable and recognized climate scientists. They are far more accredited and believable than the subjugated snouts in the funding bucket that support the climate emergency complex.
Home - CO2 Coalition
A Climate Conversation (youtube.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfQzMgvfDA&t=2790s
Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) climate change and climate policy
Climate: The Movie - Clintel
https://clintel.org/climate-the-movie/
On the question …. is CO2 warming the planet..
These same scientific groups have determined that CO2 is a very poor GHG and that many other events and factors are more prime drivers and are outside our control, such as the sun and the movement of the earth etc..
Either way we don’t need NetZero.
So you say you have proof of causation that CO2 acts as the main driver of climate change. I hope its not just failed climate models or discredited hockey sticks or political spin jobs by the IPCC and UN … So show me sunshine!
I wish I could find a way to block you.
So you want a kind of safe space?...... sad.....
John
Last chance..
I firmly believe you are a logical and virtuous individual but are misinformed.
I would suggest you listen to this interview with Seven Koonin.
In this interview he 100% describes the position I subscribe too.
I believe he is on the side of truth in this interview, and in his book, as he only quotes from the facts from the IPCC report, and he then describes the mischief that occurs when it is translated into a UN political brief... I would be interested in where exactly you find a logic to disagree.
If you wont listen due to political and religious prejudice … then there is no hope for you in the world of science. I have met Koonin many times at Clintel zoom sessions and he is great scientist.
Hot or Not: Steven Koonin Questions Conventional Climate Science and Methodology| Uncommon Knowledge (youtube.com)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l90FpjPGLBE