Replies to post #507281 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[zab]

Then tell us in trump's first term by did  he handle the covid pandemic so poorly. 

[blackhawks]

Denial of climate change is the junk science driven farce.

Exactly none of the info below is known by you and I'll bet that most of it is incomprehensible to you.

For example words like rigorous scrutiny, multiple lines of evidence and scientific understanding and consensus.

Drill baby drill is the mantra of the ill-informed and the just plain stupid.

Why is climate change not a farce?

Climate change is not a farce due to the overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus supporting its reality and human causation:

Scientific Consensus

97-99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific literature agrees that climate change is real and caused by human activities.

Major scientific organizations worldwide, including national academies of sciences, have issued statements affirming the reality of human-caused climate change.

Multiple Lines of Evidence

Direct temperature measurements show Earth has warmed by about 1.1°C since pre-industrial times9.

Ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, and other paleoclimate evidence reveal current warming is occurring about 10 times faster than historical natural warming periods11.

Observed effects include rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in plant and animal ranges20.

Observable Impacts

Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like heatwaves, droughts, and heavy rainfall18.
Rapid melting of Arctic sea ice and high-elevation glaciers13.
Rising ocean temperatures and acidification, threatening marine ecosystems21.

Scientific Understanding

The heat-trapping properties of greenhouse gases like CO2 have been understood since the mid-19th century11.
Human activities, primarily burning fossil fuels, have increased atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to over 410 ppm in the past 150 years11.

Rigorous Scrutiny

Climate science has undergone extensive peer review and scrutiny, with findings consistently reinforced across multiple studies and methodologies15.

The evidence for human-caused climate change is robust, diverse, and thoroughly examined by the global scientific community. It is not a farce, but a well-established scientific understanding of ongoing changes to our planet's climate system.

[fuagf]

hap0206, Firstly let me change my earlier, prices are not dependent on the amount of oil American companies have access to. Correction to prices are more dependent on how much oil companies are willing make available to the American public. My slip back there. Companies in past have shown more care for shareholders than to customers.

Fact-checking former President Trump's promise to cut U.S. energy costs

September 22, 20247:54 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Sunday

Ayesha Rascoe
5-Minute Listen

Transcript

Former President Trump has vowed to tackle inflation by slashing energy costs by 50% if reelected. NPR's Ayesha Rascoe speaks with energy analyst Patrick De Haan about energy regulation's role as an election issue.

AYESHA RASCOE, HOST:

Former President Donald Trump has set a high goal for himself if he wins the election this fall - slash energy prices in half.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DONALD TRUMP: If you make doughnuts, if you make cars - whatever you make, energy is a big deal, and we're going to get that - it's my ambition to get your energy bill within 12 months down 50%.

RASCOE: It's an idea that appeals to voters still suffering from a rapid rise in prices. But inflation has come down recently, and his plan requires cooperation from U.S. energy companies. They would have to extract more oil and gas than they ever have. Here with a look at the energy policies of both major party candidates is Patrick De Haan. He's the head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks gasoline prices. Welcome to the program.

PATRICK DE HAAN: Thanks for having me.

RASCOE: What do you make of President Trump vowing to cut energy prices in this way? Can he actually do that?

DE HAAN: Well, he can certainly deregulate some of the system, allowing oil companies to potentially drill more at a easier pace. He could open up additional drilling. It was President Biden that had eliminated leases in some areas on federal land. Now, keep in mind, federal land is a very small total of U.S. oil production on federal land, so it wouldn't have a big impact, but ultimately, there are some things that the president can do to incentivize oil companies, but ultimately, it's at oil companies' whims if they'd like to increase production or not. And should oil prices decline to the point the president likes, it would be at a point where many oil companies are losing money on every barrel.

[Insert: Of course Trump would never let that last little fact there slip to his trusting public, would he.]

RASCOE: Oil is also - it's a global commodity. So it's not just based on production in the U.S. If the U.S. increases production, what will other countries do?

DE HAAN: Well, to your point, even if President Trump were to deregulate allowing oil companies to drill more and somehow mandate them to do so, which is a whole nother process, then you have the global market. And oil producers and countries would likely respond to that, as well. So there's multiple kinks in this hose that would deliver this. and countries outside of the U.S. - like OPEC countries, Russia, Saudi Arabia - would likely offset any increase in U.S. production by cutting their own.

RASCOE: Because they don't want the prices to drop too low.

DE HAAN: Exactly. Whether U.S. oil producers or foreign oil producers, nobody's going to be profitable at $35 a barrel, which is roughly half of where oil prices stand today.

RASCOE: Turning to Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump has really gone after her for opposing fracking in the past, which she did. And that's a process to get natural gas out of shale formations. But she switched her position and now supports fracking. Why did she do that?

DE HAAN: The only really thing that I can see is that once a politician becomes educated on the issue, she probably had a better understanding of the amount of jobs, especially in some of the battleground states, that could be impacted, especially Pennsylvania. In addition, it can increase U.S. energy security, especially in light of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Look at the amount of natural gas the U.S. is now exporting to Europe, replacing that Russian supply. So I think there was an about-face here realizing that the U.S. has a very unique role in providing energy security to the global marketplace.

RASCOE: There are some Democrats and definitely a lot of environmentalists who are unhappy that Harris is supporting fracking because they argue that the U.S. needs to be getting off of fossil fuels. Do you see her trying to pursue policies that would address some of these concerns that environmentalists have about fracking and oil and gas drilling?

DE HAAN: It would seem to me that Harris has become a little bit more centrist, and that doesn't mean she can't accommodate some of the environmental concerns. There are areas of investment that can be made, incentives for Americans to purchase EVs. And I think that's the bigger picture here is that while Harris may push the U.S. towards more of an energy transition, she can also raise energy security by having the U.S. produce more, not necessarily for the United States, but to keep our partners and allies well supplied.

RASCOE: Do these two candidates really differ in any meaningful way on energy policy?

DE HAAN: I think if you really go into the weeds on these issues, I think you would still find a lot of differentiating factors between a Trump administration and a Harris administration. A Trump administration arguably could deregulate so significantly, even easing things like the Clean Water Act - that was something that they had thought of even during President Trump's first term to allow oil companies to worry less about the ramifications of drilling - whereas the Harris administration has moved more right. They are still in more of a centrist position on policy like this. They are certainly not rubber-stamping oil industry projects, but I think - come to a sense that the U.S. has an increasing role in providing global energy security.

RASCOE: That's Patrick De Haan from GasBuddy. Thank you so much for joining us.

DE HAAN: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Deregulation now you claim is the key. You obviously have zero care about climate change. As Trump, that figures.

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/22/nx-s1-5118358/fact-checking-former-president-trumps-promise-to-cut-u-s-energy-costs

"It's not just oil prices -- it is the cost of energy -- Trump's policies will remove
the regulatory staightjackets put on all forms of low cost energy to foster
high price renewables -- man-caused climate change is a farce"

It's man-contributing to. All the best science says it is so, it is your denialism .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism ..that is your problem.