OK I see that now but what about saying there was a lack of consistency of thought in my two uses of the word villain?Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod
Contributor
OK I see that now but what about saying there was a lack of consistency of thought in my two uses of the word villain?
Contributor
The US produced more oil last year than any country ever.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545
The groups trying to reduce production and increase prices are not oil companies.
Contributor
I made that exact point about production in an earlier post.
I never said oil companies are trying to reduce production. Rather, I'm saying they simply took their time increasing production as post-lock-down demand increased which increased prices and thus generated record profits.
I also posted multiple times that oil companies know they can keep prices high only so long because it creates incentive for renewable energy.
Contributor
Oh come on now, everything that happens that we don't like is not a result of global warming. Destructive hail storms have been part of our weather forever and insurance costs are increasing along with everything else during this inflationary period. We were told with great certainty that hurricanes would increase in frequency and intensity. Didn't happen.
Contributor
Seems NASA disagrees with you:
"Severe storms are becoming more intense due to global warming, and hailstorms, a type of severe storm, can be more damaging than hurricanes. A NASA project is creating better ways to predict these unusual weather events.
Hailstorms are much more likely to form than tornadoes and are among the most expensive weather events in the U.S., often causing more damage than hurricanes, and computer models predict that due to warming temperatures, severe storms will become more intense."
https://science.nasa.gov/science-res...of-hailstorms/
As does the insurance industry:
"The president of one of the world’s largest insurance brokers warned Wednesday that climate change is destabilizing the insurance industry, driving up prices and pushing insurers out of high-risk markets."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ance-industry/
While everything we don't like may not be a result of climate change, the frequency and intensity of things we don't like is increasing due to climate change.
Contributor
Not at all surprised. Every single agency that is funded by the government takes that position. Easy money.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/...more-frequent/
Isn't Miami supposed to be under water by now? All I am saying regarding all this is the hyperbole is THICK. And facts are being manipulated, ignored and even fabricated. There is no need for all the hysteria. Chart a sane course to reduce fossil fuels over the next few decades to ease the burden on those of moderate means.
Contributor
The propaganda works. People think it's every government and every actual scientist who are lying.
Contributor
Not lying. Exaggerating.
Contributor
I guess it depends on who you choose to listen to. By their own words the Conservative Woman is "counter-cultural offensive against the forces of Leftism, feminism and modernism – against the left-liberal cultural zeitgeist, to counter its anti-family, authoritarian identity politics and ‘equality and diversity’ ideology which had swept through the country’s institutions." Not one mention that I saw about being guided by the science. On the other hand,The Environmental Defence Fund, by their owns words is "Guided by science and economics, and committed to climate justice, we work in the places, on the projects and with the people that can make the biggest difference."
According to the Environmental Defence Fund "Stronger hurricanes are becoming more common in a warmer climate. Researchers suggest that the most damaging U.S. hurricanes are three times more frequent than 100 years ago, and that the proportion of major hurricanes (Category 3 or above) in the Atlantic Ocean has doubled since 1980."
https://www.edf.org/climate/how-clim...0since%201980.
And yes we need to chart a sane course towards reduction in fossil fuel use but not one lead by groups like the Conservative Woman, more like NASA or the Environmental Defence Fund and I think the timeline has to be less than the next few decades, that would have worked if we started a few decades ago.
Contributor
Totally agree. I was only interested in the charts provided and points made. I know nothing about TCW. But I do know it is extremely important to pay attention to opposing viewpoints. Today, everyone has taken sides and completely dismisses any arguments that come from outside their camp.
It seems quite logical that hurricane data historically consists of named storms and today we have skewed the data by naming many more storms.
Contributor
Have a cite for that? (I'm finding lots of stuff about how names are picked, not so much about what qualifies a storm for naming.)
It seems quite logical that "historically" (prior to weather satellites) a named storm would only be one that made landfall or at least got into shipping lanes: you don't name a storm you never saw. But that still allows a pretty accurate count over the last 50+ years.
(Of course one obvious possibility for naming more storms today is that, well, there are actually more of them.)
Yoga class makes me feel like a total stud, mostly because I'm about as flexible as a 2x4.
"Design"? Possibly. "Intelligent"? Sure doesn't look like it from this angle.
We used to be hunter gatherers. Now we're shopper borrowers.
The three most important words in the English language: "Front Towards Enemy".
The world makes a lot more sense when you remember that Butthead was the smart one.
You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo.
Contributor
I tend to look at the credentials and mission statements of groups before I look at what they post. NASA put a man on the moon, seems like they would do their homework and apply the science on climate change before making any statements or predictions.
Contributor
Geeze. I included it in the above post. We have satellites that see every storm now. Many (most?) of them fizzle out. But it gets a name when in the past few would have even been aware of it.
Last edited by Dave Zellers; 03-27-2024 at 11:06 PM.
Contributor
That was my point about taking sides. Just because you disagree with their mission statement doesn't mean they do not have valid points to make.
Everyone seems to have chosen a side. The result is: "I'm right, and you're stupid". Data that should be analyzed is instead ignored.
Contributor
Man made climate change should be taken seriously. It is not. It has been completely politicized and as a result serious scientists who have data that might challenge the status quo stay silent for fear of being canceled. As Nancy Pelosi said "The science is settled" Science is never settled.
Posting Permissions
