Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"climate change hoax" follow the money

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
    are you triggered by the name Trump , sorry

    this thread is about the climate change hoax and who is profiting from it
    Fun fact of the day: According to Nikki Haley, when Rex Tillerson and John Kelly tried to recruit her to sabotage Trump, one of the issues they were trying to stop Trump on was leaving the Paris Climate Accord. The question for you is, why would Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., support the Paris Climate Accord?

    Why is Exxon lying to you?

    Comment


    • #17
      30 years ago researchers warned us all about the increasing holes in the ozone layers at each Pole.
      Most of the World reacted.
      The holes are closing.

      And for ten years we've been warned about increasingly erratic and violent weather patterns.
      Hello! They're coming!

      And for several years researchers have warned of sea level rises, caused by retreating glaciers and ice reduction at the poles.
      Hello! They're happening!

      Bury yours heads in sand, you deniers!

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by User Name View Post

        Fun fact of the day: According to Nikki Haley, when Rex Tillerson and John Kelly tried to recruit her to sabotage Trump, one of the issues they were trying to stop Trump on was leaving the Paris Climate Accord. The question for you is, why would Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., support the Paris Climate Accord?

        Why is Exxon lying to you?
        Tillerson realizes that mankind's reliance on fossil fuels can't continue indefinitely, if companies like Exxon are to remain economically solvent in the future, they must reposition themselves to take advantage of new energy sources!

        Tillerson understands that in the 21stC Exxon can no longer limit itself to be just an oil and gas company, it needs to embrace a range of future scientific discoveries and reinvent itself as an "energy" company!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by jgarden View Post
          Tillerson realizes that mankind's reliance on fossil fuels can't continue indefinitely, if companies like Exxon are to remain economically solvent in the future, they must reposition themselves to take advantage of new energy sources!

          Tillerson understands that in the 21stC Exxon can no longer limit itself to be just an oil and gas company, it needs to embrace a range of future scientific discoveries and reinvent itself as an "energy" company!
          All of that is true; ExxonMobil is angling for a future which diverges from oil/gas, but it is also true that ExxonMobil admits climate change is real: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Ene...Climate-change

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by User Name View Post

            Fun fact of the day: According to Nikki Haley, when Rex Tillerson and John Kelly tried to recruit her to sabotage Trump, one of the issues they were trying to stop Trump on was leaving the Paris Climate Accord. The question for you is, why would Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., support the Paris Climate Accord?

            Why is Exxon lying to you?
            Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            "If i think it might cost me money, then it can't be true!"

            Not a very good approach if you want to live in the real world. Notice that was Exxon's idea; "just hide the truth, and everything will be O.K."

            And you still can't get your head around that ExxonMobile is pushing for carbon credits. You're being played.



            15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.


            Comment


            • #21
              deleted

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by eider View Post
                30 years ago researchers warned us all about the increasing holes in the ozone layers at each Pole.
                Most of the World reacted.
                The holes are closing.
                no

                1988 looked better than today

                and R12 was not even banned yet


                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by way 2 go View Post






                  15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.

                  like farmers getting paid to NOT grow corn, Exxon-Mobil is looking forward to getting paid to NOT pump oil

                  nice work if you can get it

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
                    15. Paying $100B to the influencers is pocket change, as the Carbon credit commodities market will generate trillions in the end. A great investment.
                    And you still haven't figured out that ExxonMobile is pushing carbon credits. You're being played.

                    Comment


                    • #25

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
                        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c75bf542df45cea3f85b64f52a5afb78ca7443263118ea778c b49d3e3265a442.png?w=600&h=526
                        Once again way 2 go you are buying into someone else's lies. Here is the truth:
                        :
                        A typical wind turbine will have an energy payback of less than 6 months and a carbon dioxide payback of around 6 months. -- https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine

                        In terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online. -- https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0616093317.htm
                        Last edited by User Name; November 21st, 2019, 11:24 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          They cause cancer. Trump said so. And he never lies...

                          “They say the noise causes cancer,” the president remarked of the turbines at the National Republican Congressional Committee fund-raiser in Washington, D.C. “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations—your house just went down 75 percent in value.”
                          https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...-causes-cancer

                          LED lights cause cancer too...

                          https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/...998208?lang=en

                          Rex Tillerson was right.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by User Name View Post

                            Once again way 2 go you are buying into someone else's lies. Here is the truth:

                            A typical wind turbine will have an energy payback of less than 6 months and a carbon dioxide payback of around 6 months. -- https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/...a-wind-turbine

                            In terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online. -- https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0616093317.htm
                            Since wind power no longer gets any subsidies after 2019, any rational person would realize that no energy company would build them, if they didn't provide a good return on investment.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              Since wind power no longer gets any subsidies after 2019.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Earlier today I provided our position on the COP21 climate conference and briefly covered our long-standing support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

                                I thought I would take the opportunity here to reiterate the rationale for our position, as well as to underscore the ways in which we have advocated for it.


                                As I have
                                mentioned on anumber of occasionsin this space, we believe the risks of climate change are real and those risks warrant constructive action by both policymakers and the business community.

                                For our part, we are taking actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our own operations, as well as providing products and supporting initiatives to promote more efficient use of energy by consumers. Meanwhile we are increasing investments in production of lower-carbon natural gas while also sponsoring research into next-generation energy technologies to lower emissions.

                                Sound principles

                                When it comes to policies for putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions, we believe their effectiveness will be determined by how closely they hew to certain core principles. Among these are uniformity of application; global participation; reliance on markets to drive the selection of solutions; minimal regulatory complexity and maximum transparency; and the flexibility to make future adjustments.

                                In our view, a revenue-neutral carbon tax best fulfills those principles.

                                As ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said in a
                                speech before the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington in January 2009:
                                A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers. A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable. This last point is important. Given the global nature of the challenge, and the fact that the economic growth in developing economies will account for a significant portion of future greenhouse-gas emission increases, policy options must encourage and support global engagement.

                                https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/...he-carbon-tax/

                                Tillerson was right about climate change, too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X