The International Panel on Climate Change released its second report from the latest batch at the end of February. The report, to be followed by a third one because bad things come in threes, contained zero surprises. The sky is still falling and it’s the oil industry’s fault but what’s new is that the sky is falling faster than previously expected. That is, even faster than the last time IPCC said it was falling faster than before… It’s an ever-accelerating apocalypse loop.
Great information and opinions! Well done - there might be some real energy discussions, but I am very leery of any politician that changes direction like the direction of the wind. We can always hope. I am seeing some political leaders in the U.S. try and still force high cost renewables even with all of the examples of financial failure. - Some people won't or can't learn. As always thanks for your opinions.
Presenting simple facts backed by and linked to external reliable data will endure well into the future (and prevent cancel culture along the way). As the "normies" begin to wake up they will need this to help them understand the present and future danger of the climate emergency narrative. I appreciate the ability to send them a link to your posts to help wake them up.
It appears that the billions spent on this climate emergency initiative over the last decade are today driven by fear and panic. In my investigations into their papers and journals, I find it very difficult to find studies performed by engineers, folks that apply science to the real world to realize lasting impact. It appears to be all done by economists who do not understand the laws of physics.
Simple example - when you tell them it takes 10 years on average from first drill hole to fully permitted copper mine they are in shock. Then when you tell them mines are deeper and grades are lower which requires increasingly more oil and gas to extract and refine copper their jaws drop. They also have no clue about the thousands of inputs along the entire life cycle as well as all the risks involved. They think like the federal reserve - need more money well just print it and done.
Thank you very much for this feedback. I agree there is an excessive number of assumptions in the transition camp and challenging these is being slammed as oil shilling or a variation of. For better or worse, reality always wins.
I agree with the article and reinforce the fact that many organizations have a kind of personal agenda that drives their “fact based” conclusions. It seems to me that even the simple request to discuss these conclusions is considered an act of war against these so called “facts”. We are always driven towards “black” or “white” decisions…
Great information and opinions! Well done - there might be some real energy discussions, but I am very leery of any politician that changes direction like the direction of the wind. We can always hope. I am seeing some political leaders in the U.S. try and still force high cost renewables even with all of the examples of financial failure. - Some people won't or can't learn. As always thanks for your opinions.
Thanks, Stu. I'm afraid people really hate to be proven wrong and would rather keep being wrong than admitting they were wrong in the first place.
Really enjoy reading your insights!
Presenting simple facts backed by and linked to external reliable data will endure well into the future (and prevent cancel culture along the way). As the "normies" begin to wake up they will need this to help them understand the present and future danger of the climate emergency narrative. I appreciate the ability to send them a link to your posts to help wake them up.
It appears that the billions spent on this climate emergency initiative over the last decade are today driven by fear and panic. In my investigations into their papers and journals, I find it very difficult to find studies performed by engineers, folks that apply science to the real world to realize lasting impact. It appears to be all done by economists who do not understand the laws of physics.
Simple example - when you tell them it takes 10 years on average from first drill hole to fully permitted copper mine they are in shock. Then when you tell them mines are deeper and grades are lower which requires increasingly more oil and gas to extract and refine copper their jaws drop. They also have no clue about the thousands of inputs along the entire life cycle as well as all the risks involved. They think like the federal reserve - need more money well just print it and done.
Please keep up the great posts.
Thank you very much for this feedback. I agree there is an excessive number of assumptions in the transition camp and challenging these is being slammed as oil shilling or a variation of. For better or worse, reality always wins.
I agree with the article and reinforce the fact that many organizations have a kind of personal agenda that drives their “fact based” conclusions. It seems to me that even the simple request to discuss these conclusions is considered an act of war against these so called “facts”. We are always driven towards “black” or “white” decisions…
Indeed. Monochrome thinking is being encouraged beyond any reasonable limits.