CNN, NYT, ABC News, C-SPAN Take Trump Out of Context to Falsely Suggest He Called Immigrants ‘Animals’

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

 ANWR drilling?   Were you aware that we cannot use known, proven reserves of petroleum without catastrophic ecological consequences?    I know that isn't taught in law school, but didn't you have a BS degree?  No science huh?

Federal judges?   Yeah, that's gonna help the working man: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-21/supreme-court-says-employers-can-bar-worker-class-action-suits-jhgbqpz0

ISIS?  Have we won yet?

Deregulation?   Oh puleeze, do I really need to list the idiotic decisions regarding this?  How about some informative links:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-epa-spends-year-rolling-back-environmental-regulations/story?id=52162794

"signing the national aeronautics and space admin transition authorization act"  WTF did this accomplish?  Take away NASA's involvement with earth sciences maybe?  Brilliant!

NATO Reform?  Yeah, if you consider how much influence we traded away for his irrational, bombastic statements. (But I am sure his buddy Vlad appreciated it. 

You're not as smart as I thought you might be.  

 

" Good Grief" you think and your editors think the man is God. No wonder you are so obsessed and what is your deal with Nola and his age?

A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the Environment

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

You must be gaining weight eating homie's breakfast, lunch and dinner?

Yep. Sweets-only for that tree hugger.

[kevon67 2,368]

8 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

You are duly forgiven. We all make mistakes but only some can admit it.

Thankyou my good man.......I was in my final stages of my MTV Rock The Vote movement phase.....Kennedy was there.......Now at FOX?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

7 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

You must be gaining weight eating homie's breakfast, lunch and dinner?

I imagine you'll be fitted for a cheerleader outfit and pom-poms any day now.

[homersapien 11,386]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

see? It was a waste of time. I guess you’re the arbiter of truth in this matter. Sure, it’s very easy to search for google headlines and find articles that bash everything trump does.Try thinking for yourself for once, I dare you.

“Catastrophic ecological consequences?” Seriously? My gosh you need to tighten up on your research. Any knowledgeable person on the matter would realize that such a hotly contested/debated issue cannot be characterized with such a “snippet” statement.

 You bitch about exploration and then in the very next part of your statement you act like you care whether the actions I listed “help the working man.” You’re trying to make a qualification after the fact. Also, policies derived from atrocious and unfounded stances on the environment like yours have hurt the working man in catastrophic proportions. See the irony?

Louisiana’s economy is driven by energy. Trump’s policies on energy and regulation are good for the people of Louisiana. Also, LSU Law an excellent energy law program. LSU also has arguably the best Petroleum Engineering program in the nation. Energy is big business in Louisiana and at LSU. I’ve taken quite a few courses on the subject matter. Further, you simply asked for accomplishments. Appointing federal judges, including a Supreme Court judge, is an accomplishment. ISIS, what cities have fallen since Trump became president?  Nonetheless, it’s not good enough for YOU. Again, you’re not actually interested in what I think. 

I guess you don’t want to address the other matters. 

Should I list ten more??? Let’s start with unemployment. What’s your BS excuse for that?

Let’s play in the sacred forum sometime. Maybe discuss fracking????

AGW is not hotly contested or debated by scientists, only deniers.  Ironic that you identify with New Orleans - of all cities - with such a view. 

If we burn remaining, known oil reserves it will have catestrophic consequences:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/23/world-could-warm-by-massive-10c-if-all-fossil-fuels-are-burned

 

[homersapien 11,386]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

" Good Grief" you think and your editors think the man is God. No wonder you are so obsessed and what is your deal with Nola and his age?

A Running List of How Trump Is Changing the Environment

  Are you suggesting Trump's policies cannot possibly affect the environment?

Do you agree with halting NASA's earth monitoring programs?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

AGW is not hotly contested or debated by scientists, only deniers.  Ironic that you identify with New Orleans - of all cities - with such a view. 

If we burn remaining, known oil reserves it will have catestrophic consequences:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/23/world-could-warm-by-massive-10c-if-all-fossil-fuels-are-burned

 

How can you say that with absolute certainty though re future consequences? Even the article you posted doesn’t go that far. Natural gas extraction has been the major factor in decreasing CO2 emissions. 

More importantly, what solution do you propose? Oil and gas cannot be immediately supplemented without catastrophic economic impacts. As extraction increases, the average residential gas bill decreases. Investments in energy infrastructure alone SURPASS $Millions per years. It’s financially more feasible and cheaper than wind and solar. What about all of the blue collar upstream employees - what do you tell them (the working man)?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How can you say that with absolute certainty though re future consequences? Even the article you posted doesn’t go that far. Natural gas extraction has been the major factor in decreasing CO2 emissions. 

More importantly, what solution do you propose? Oil and gas cannot be immediately supplemented without catastrophic economic impacts. As extraction increases, the average residential gas bill decreases. Investments in energy infrastructure alone SURPASS $Millions per years. It’s financially more feasible and cheaper than wind and solar. What about all of the blue collar upstream employees - what do you tell them (the working man)?

Technology and businesses evolve.  Adjust your skill-set to adapt to new technologies/industries.  It's not up to the business to make sure that you have a job.  It's up to you to make sure that you have a skill-set that businesses want.

People who were proficient in MS DOS but didn't learn about new coding/software were left in the dust too.  I don't feel bad for them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Technology and businesses evolve.  Adjust your skill-set to adapt to new technologies/industries.  It's not up to the business to make sure that you have a job.  It's up to you to make sure that you have a skill-set that businesses want.

People who were proficient in MS DOS but didn't learn about new coding/software were left in the dust too.  I don't feel bad for them.

Huh? My statement was in the context of a prior reference he made about “the working man.”

Furthermore, I don’t know how your comment really “fits” into the equation. We’re not discussing innovation in fracking and horizontal drilling, which by the way is fairly new and workers have adapted quite well. We’re discussing extraction vs some non-fossil fuel alternative. I’ve made no argument re innovation and adjusting skill-sets. Natural gas extraction is more feasible in nearly every aspect than other means, including the amount of people employed becuase of it. Innovation is a good thing for energy, specifically in subterranean work. It allows us to produce more barrels per day and is economically beneficial, commercially and residentially.

Again, I think your comment is displaced. No harm no foul though.

And the difference with your example is that something more feasible came along. It’s distinguishable. If we put a cap on production today, do you have any idea what would happen?

[homersapien 11,386]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How can you say that with absolute certainty though re future consequences? Even the article you posted doesn’t go that far. Natural gas extraction has been the major factor in decreasing CO2 emissions. 

More importantly, what solution do you propose? Oil and gas cannot be immediately supplemented without catastrophic economic impacts. As extraction increases, the average residential gas bill decreases. Investments in energy infrastructure alone SURPASS $Millions per years. It’s financially more feasible and cheaper than wind and solar. What about all of the blue collar upstream employees - what do you tell them (the working man)?

There is no scientific doubt about what will happen if we continue on the same course of injecting more and more CO2 in our atmosphere:

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate 

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-temperature-rise-climate-change-end-century-science-a8095591.html

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

Again, this is only a sampling.  I suggest the following site if you are not inclined to spend a lot of time doing the research. Skeptical science does a good job of describing the issue for the layman, yet provides the supporting references for those who want to focus on the supporting research.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

As for solutions:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-can-we-do-about-global-warming-2/?src=eoa-blogs

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/what-you-can-do/ten-personal-solutions-to.html#.WwWMD-4vyM8

https://environmentamerica.org/programs/ame/global-warming-solutions

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-solutions/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/

I could go on for pages.  This is only a representative sampling.  The solutions to global warming will ultimately come from the creative dynamics of a free enterprise economy.  The US is perfectly positioned to profit from the transition if we only pull our head out of our ass. 

Switching from coal and oil to natural gas is certainly a positive in terms of reducing the amount of carbon emitted, but it's not a solution.

The transition from carbon-based energy to renewable energy is going to be the next big thing.  It represents an opportunity as much as a threat. 

Humans have been through other "big things" in our past (agriculture, the industrial age), so such a transition is not without precedent. But the longer we avoid the inevitable,  the more difficult it will be to avoid the more severe consequences of continued warming, some of which we are already starting to experience.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

There is no scientific doubt about what will happen if we continue on the same course of injecting more and more CO2 in our atmosphere:

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate 

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-temperature-rise-climate-change-end-century-science-a8095591.html

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

Again, this is only a sampling.  I suggest the following site if you are not inclined to spend a lot of time doing the research. Skeptical science does a good job of describing the issue for the layman, yet provides the supporting references for those who want to focus on the supporting research.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

As for solutions:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-can-we-do-about-global-warming-2/?src=eoa-blogs

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/what-you-can-do/ten-personal-solutions-to.html#.WwWMD-4vyM8

https://environmentamerica.org/programs/ame/global-warming-solutions

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-solutions/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/10-solutions-for-climate-change/

I could go on for pages.  This is only a representative sampling.  The solutions to global warming will ultimately come from dynamics of a free enterprise economy.  The US is perfectly position to profit from the transition if we only pull our head out of our ass. 

Switching from coal and oil to natural gas is certainly a positive in terms of reducing the amount of carbon emitted, but it's not a solution.

The transition from carbon based energy to renewable energy is going to be the next big thing.  It represents an opportunity as much as a threat. 

Humans have been through other "big things" in our past (agriculture, the industrial age), so such a transition is not without precedent. But the longer we avoid the inevitable,  the more difficult it will be to avoid the more severe consequences of continued warming, some of which we are already starting to experience.

Hey, I don’t deny climate change. I believe in it. I also understand that there are other ways to reduce emissions without completely doing away with production. Your earlier statement insinuated that unless we stop drilling, catastrophic ecological consequences will occur. That’s simply not absolute. It frustrating that many of my counterparts aren’t willing to acknowledge the collateral damage of prematurely turning to new energy. Again, nothing can supplement the numerous benefits of oil and gas extraction.

Also, counterparts tend to ignore carbon capture innovations as well. 

Will the transition occur? Yes, when it’s feasible. Right now, it’s not. When something as reliable, cheap, and economically sufficient comes along, I’ll jump on board.

[homersapien 11,386]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How can you say that with absolute certainty though re future consequences? Even the article you posted doesn’t go that far. Natural gas extraction has been the major factor in decreasing CO2 emissions. 

More importantly, what solution do you propose? Oil and gas cannot be immediately supplemented without catastrophic economic impacts. As extraction increases, the average residential gas bill decreases. Investments in energy infrastructure alone SURPASS $Millions per years. It’s financially more feasible and cheaper than wind and solar. What about all of the blue collar upstream employees - what do you tell them (the working man)?

This is rapidly changing.

 

https://about.bnef.com/clean-energy-investment/

1. Overall investment is up by 3%.

New investment in clean energy reached $333.5 billion last year, up 3% from a revised $324.6 billion in 2016, and only 7% short of the record figure of $360.3 billion, reached in 2015.

2. Solar costs continue to fall sharply.

Typical utility-scale PV systems were about 25% cheaper per megawatt last year than they were two years earlier. Solar investment globally amounted to $160.8 billion in 2017, up 18% on the previous year despite these cost reductions.

3. China sets new record for clean energy investment.

Overall, Chinese investment in 2017 across all the clean energy technologies was $132.6 billion, up 24%, setting a new all-time record. The next biggest investing country was the U.S., at $56.9 billion, up 1% on 2016. In third place, Japan saw investment decline by 16% in 2017, to $23.4 billion.

4. More clean energy commissioned than ever before.

Preliminary estimates show that a record 160GW of clean energy generating capacity (excluding large hydro) were commissioned globally in 2017, with solar providing 98GW of that capacity, and wind 56GW.

5. VC and PE investments cool down.

Venture capital and private equity investment in clean energy amounted to $4.1 billion in 2017, down 38% on the previous year and the lowest figure since 2005.

6. Clean energy acquisition activity at highest level ever.

This totaled $127.9 billion in 2017, up 4% on the previous year and the highest ever. Behind this surge were a rise in renewable energy project acquisitions and refinancing to $87.2bn, and a sixfold leap in private equity buy-outs to $15.8bn.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is rapidly changing.

 

https://about.bnef.com/clean-energy-investment/

1. Overall investment is up by 3%.

New investment in clean energy reached $333.5 billion last year, up 3% from a revised $324.6 billion in 2016, and only 7% short of the record figure of $360.3 billion, reached in 2015.

2. Solar costs continue to fall sharply.

Typical utility-scale PV systems were about 25% cheaper per megawatt last year than they were two years earlier. Solar investment globally amounted to $160.8 billion in 2017, up 18% on the previous year despite these cost reductions.

3. China sets new record for clean energy investment.

Overall, Chinese investment in 2017 across all the clean energy technologies was $132.6 billion, up 24%, setting a new all-time record. The next biggest investing country was the U.S., at $56.9 billion, up 1% on 2016. In third place, Japan saw investment decline by 16% in 2017, to $23.4 billion.

4. More clean energy commissioned than ever before.

Preliminary estimates show that a record 160GW of clean energy generating capacity (excluding large hydro) were commissioned globally in 2017, with solar providing 98GW of that capacity, and wind 56GW.

5. VC and PE investments cool down.

Venture capital and private equity investment in clean energy amounted to $4.1 billion in 2017, down 38% on the previous year and the lowest figure since 2005.

6. Clean energy acquisition activity at highest level ever.

This totaled $127.9 billion in 2017, up 4% on the previous year and the highest ever. Behind this surge were a rise in renewable energy project acquisitions and refinancing to $87.2bn, and a sixfold leap in private equity buy-outs to $15.8bn.

 

 

No doubt clean investment energy is increasing, but I’m not sure I understand the point. Oil and gas capital investment, in America alone, is poised to increase 15% this year. Renewables are still nowhere close in terms feasibility or reliability. 

Also, I’m sure you’re aware that many of these investors are putting money in both.

[homersapien 11,386]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Hey, I don’t deny climate change. I believe in it. I also understand that there are other ways to reduce emissions without completely doing away with production. Your earlier statement insinuated that unless we stop drilling, catastrophic ecological consequences will occur. That’s simply not absolute. It frustrating that many of my counterparts aren’t willing to acknowledge the collateral damage of prematurely turning to new energy. Again, nothing can supplement the numerous benefits of oil and gas extraction.

Also, counterparts tend to ignore carbon capture innovations as well. 

Will the transition occur? Yes, when it’s feasible. Right now, it’s not. When something as reliable, cheap, and economically sufficient comes along, I’ll jump on board.

I stated that we cannot continue to introduce CO2 in the atmosphere at high rates without suffering the physical consequences.  If we continue on the present course, catastrophic ecological change will occur.  A 2 degree increase in global temperature is already locked in and a  3 degree increase is likely.  And if you extrapolate the current rates, you will keep increasing the temperature until we live on a completely different planet, one that is much less accommodating to human life.

Transition is already occuring.  It is feasible.   Protesting that it cannot happen 100% overnight is not the same as saying it cannot happen. 

There is no value in deliberately delaying the transition - much less denying there is a problem at all.   Your statement about "premature transition" does not reflect the urgency of the problem.  We - as a species - don't have the luxury of stretching out the transition of carbon based energy.  It's already late:

 

The Most Accurate Climate Models Predict Greater Warming, Study Shows

In the range of climate models, those that most successfully simulate the past predict some of the worst-case scenarios for the future, researchers found.

New research says we should pay more attention to climate models that point to a hotter future and toss out projections that point to less warming.  

The findings, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, suggest that international policy makers and authorities are relying on projections that underestimate how much the planet will warm—and, by extension, underestimate the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions needed to stave off catastrophic impacts of climate change.

"The basic idea is that we have a range of projections on future warming that came from these climate models, and for scientific interest and political interest, we wanted to narrow this range," said Patrick Brown, co-author of the study. "We find that the models that do the best at simulating the recent past project more warming."

Using that smaller group of models, the study found that if countries stay on a high-emissions trajectory, there's a 93 percent chance the planet will warm more than 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Previous studies placed those odds at 62 percent. 

Four degrees of warming would bring many severe impacts, drowning small islands, eliminating coral reefs and creating prolonged heat waves around the world, scientists say. 

In a worst-case scenario, the study finds that global temperatures could rise 15 percent more than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—about half a degree Celsius more—in the same time period. 

In the world of climate modeling, researchers rely on three dozen or so prominent models to understand how the planet will warm in the future. Those models say the planet will get warmer, but they vary in their projections of just how much. The IPCC puts the top range for warming at 3.2 to 5.9 degrees Celsius by 2100 over pre-industrial levels by essentially weighing each model equally.

These variances have long been the targets of climate change deniers and foes of carbon regulation who say they mean models are unreliable or inaccurate.

But Brown and his co-author, the prominent climate scientist Ken Caldeira—both at the Carnegie Institution for Science—wanted to see if there was a way to narrow the uncertainty by determining which models were better. To do this, they looked at how the models predict recent climate conditions and compared that to what actually happened.

"The IPCC uses a model democracy—one model, one vote—and that's what they're saying is the range, " Brown explained. "We're saying we can do one better. We can try to discriminate between well- and poor-performing models. We're narrowing the range of uncertainty."

"You'll hear arguments in front of Congress: The models all project warming, but they don't do well at simulating the past," he said. "But if you take the best models, those are the ones projecting the most warming in the future."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06122017/climate-change-warming-forecast-worst-case-best-models-ipcc-study

 

In other words, even with an 80 year transition, we will experience effects of a 3-4 degree temperature increase.  

[homersapien 11,386]

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No doubt clean investment energy is increasing, but I’m not sure I understand the point. Oil and gas capital investment, in America alone, is poised to increase 15% this year. Renewables are still nowhere close in terms feasibility or reliability. 

Also, I’m sure you’re aware that many of these investors are putting money in both.

How does that 15 % break down?

What part of it is devoted to - or has the effect of - reducing carbon emissions?  Those investments might make sense, at least for the short term.

But whatever investments are being made to recover more oil - thus increasing carbon emissions beyond what would exist without said investment - falls under the category of digging ourselves deeper into a hole we have to climb out of.  Soon.

That's exactly why Anwar exploration and increasing off-shore drilling is a bad idea.  When you are digging yourself into a hole, take away the shovels.  If carbon-based fuels increase in price - for whatever reason - that will only help with the transition out of them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I stated that we cannot continue to introduce CO2 in the atmosphere at high rates without suffering the physical consequences.  If we continue on the present course, catastropic ecological change will occur.  A 2 degree increase in global temperature is already locked in and a  3 degree increase is likely.  And if you extrapolate the current rates, you will keep increasing the temperature until we live on a completely different planet, one that is much less accommodating to human life.

Transition is already occuring.  It is feasible.   Protesting that it cannot happen 100% overnight is not the same as saying it cannot happen. 

There is no value in deliberately delaying the transition - much less denying there is a problem at all.   Your statement about "premature transition" does not reflect the urgency of the problem.  We - as a species - don't have the luxury of stretching out the transition of carbon based energy.  It's already late.

 

The Most Accurate Climate Models Predict Greater Warming, Study Shows

In the range of climate models, those that most successfully simulate the past predict some of the worst-case scenarios for the future, researchers found.

New research says we should pay more attention to climate models that point to a hotter future and toss out projections that point to less warming.  

The findings, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, suggest that international policy makers and authorities are relying on projections that underestimate how much the planet will warm—and, by extension, underestimate the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions needed to stave off catastrophic impacts of climate change.

"The basic idea is that we have a range of projections on future warming that came from these climate models, and for scientific interest and political interest, we wanted to narrow this range," said Patrick Brown, co-author of the study. "We find that the models that do the best at simulating the recent past project more warming."

Using that smaller group of models, the study found that if countries stay on a high-emissions trajectory, there's a 93 percent chance the planet will warm more than 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Previous studies placed those odds at 62 percent. 

Four degrees of warming would bring many severe impacts, drowning small islands, eliminating coral reefs and creating prolonged heat waves around the world, scientists say. 

In a worst-case scenario, the study finds that global temperatures could rise 15 percent more than projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—about half a degree Celsius more—in the same time period. 

In the world of climate modeling, researchers rely on three dozen or so prominent models to understand how the planet will warm in the future. Those models say the planet will get warmer, but they vary in their projections of just how much. The IPCC puts the top range for warming at 3.2 to 5.9 degrees Celsius by 2100 over pre-industrial levels by essentially weighing each model equally.

These variances have long been the targets of climate change deniers and foes of carbon regulation who say they mean models are unreliable or inaccurate.

But Brown and his co-author, the prominent climate scientist Ken Caldeira—both at the Carnegie Institution for Science—wanted to see if there was a way to narrow the uncertainty by determining which models were better. To do this, they looked at how the models predict recent climate conditions and compared that to what actually happened.

"The IPCC uses a model democracy—one model, one vote—and that's what they're saying is the range, " Brown explained. "We're saying we can do one better. We can try to discriminate between well- and poor-performing models. We're narrowing the range of uncertainty."

"You'll hear arguments in front of Congress: The models all project warming, but they don't do well at simulating the past," he said. "But if you take the best models, those are the ones projecting the most warming in the future."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06122017/climate-change-warming-forecast-worst-case-best-models-ipcc-study

 

In other words, even with an 80 year transition, we will experience effects of a 3-4 degree temperature increase.  

This is what you said.

As your third paragraph indicates, You would have us transition immediately and that is not practical nor smart. Furthermore, it appears that you’re ignorant of the collateral economic damage of ceasing natural gas production. You’re simply an alarmist. 

[homersapien 11,386]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This is what you said.

As your third paragraph indicates, You would have us transition immediately and that is not practical nor smart. Furthermore, it appears that you’re ignorant of the collateral economic damage of ceasing natural gas production. You’re simply an alarmist. 

That is true.  We cannot burn known reserves of oil without suffering severe ecological consequences.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3036

 

I am fully aware of the "collateral economic damage" of ceasing or reducing any petroleum production.  My contention that short term damage pales in comparison to the damage caused in the longer term by avoiding transition.

I am not an alarmist.  I am simply relaying the science regarding the matter.  You appear to be anti-science. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

How does that 15 % break down?

What part of it is devoted to - or has the effect of - reducing carbon emissions?  Those investments might make sense, at least for the short term.

But whatever investments are being made to recover more oil - thus increasing carbon emissions beyond what would exist without said investment - falls under the category of digging ourselves deeper into a hole we have to climb out of.  Soon.

That's exactly why Anwar exploration and increasing off-shore drilling is a bad idea.  When you are digging yourself into a hole, take away the shovels.  If carbon-based fuels increase in price - for whatever reason - that will only help with the transition out of them.

Well, the investments are increasing because of demand. We exceeded 10M barreles per day this year. Renewables are not as financially and reliably feasible as natural gas.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

That is true.  We cannot burn known reserves of oil without suffering severe ecological consequences.

I am fully aware of the "collateral economic damage" of ceasing or reducing any petroleum production.  My contention that short term damage pales in comparison to the damage caused in the longer term by avoiding transition.

I am not an alarmist.  I am simply relaying the science regarding the matter.  You appear to be anti-science. 

That’s not an absolute truth.

So what supplements natural gas in the economy? Why wouldn’t the ENTIRE financial market crash?

[homersapien 11,386]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This is what you said.

As your third paragraph indicates, You would have us transition immediately and that is not practical nor smart. Furthermore, it appears that you’re ignorant of the collateral economic damage of ceasing natural gas production. You’re simply an alarmist. 

No you misinterpreted what I said.  I stated there is no value in delaying our transition.  That's not the same as saying the transition should or will occur immediately.  I reckon it may take as much as 50 years, depending on how you define it.

But the longer we wait, the more difficult and less effective it will be to have the desired outcome (avoidance of catastrophic effects)

At the very least, we need to stop digging ourselves deeper into the hole by efforts to find more oil we cannot afford to burn.

[homersapien 11,386]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Well, the investments are increasing because of demand. We exceeded 10M barreles per day this year. Renewables are not as financially and reliably feasible as natural gas.

 

Not yet but they will be.

And from a scientific/economic  standpoint, we need to start weighting the costs of carbon compared to renewables.  Sooner we do so, the better (regarding economic disruption).

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No you misinterpreted what I said.  I stated there is no value in delaying our transition.  That's not the same as saying the transition should or will occur immediately.  I reckon it may take as much as 50 years, depending on how you define it.

But longer we wait the more difficult and less effective it will be to have the desired outcome (avoidance of catastrophic effects)

At the very least, we need to stop digging ourselves deeper into the hole by efforts to find more oil we cannot afford to burn.

Time will tell. 

Appreciate the exchange. 

 

[homersapien 11,386]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That’s not an absolute truth.

So what supplements natural gas in the economy? Why wouldn’t the ENTIRE financial market crash?

It is absolutely, physically true that we cannot burn all the known carbon  without suffering catastrophic ecological effects.  

Natural gas may be the last carbon-based fuel we use.  I don't know. 

The entire financial market won't collapse if there is a orderly, controlled transition to renewables.  In fact, the transition - the next big thing - will likely fuel future financial markets. (no pun intended)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It is absolutely, physically true that we cannot burn all the known carbon  without suffering catastrophic ecological effects.  

Natural gas may be the last carbon-based fuel we use.  I don't know. 

The entire financial market won't collapse if there is a orderly, controlled transition to renewables.  In fact, the transition - the next big thing - will likely fuel future financial markets. (no pun intended)

Ok, you changed what you said (“all known” reserves). But that’s an irrelevant point becuase it would never be necessary to do that in the first place. It’s physcially impossible to tap all known reserves.

[homersapien 11,386]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok, you changed what you said (“all known” reserves). But that’s an irrelevant point becuase it would never be necessary to do that in the first place. It’s physcially impossible to tap all known reserves.

And I don't know what you think I said, but I have always meant the amount of coal and or oil we know about - known reserves.  After all you cannot call such carbon in the ground reserves unless you know its there.

And it's hardly irrelevent.  Doesn't matter if we cannot recover every drop of known reserves.  The amount we can recover is sufficient to increase temperature to critical levels.  Bottom line, there is more oil available in known reserves than we can afford to burn.  

So, why should we be searching for more if we cannot afford to burn all we already know about?