Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

That's just self-hating BS.
". . . China is leading the world in new coal power plants, building more than three times as much new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020. It isn’t alone in its reliance on coal, however. China and four other countries, India, Indonesia, Japan and Vietnam, account for more than 80% of the coal power stations planned across the world, according to a June report by the think-tank Carbon Tracker. . . . "

 

I especially like the one where each new well drilled gets the tax status of a brand new business - no matter how huge the corporation.

 

I stand by what I said.

And, I like America a whole lot.

 

Oil is a risky business.

 

If you say so.

 

This might help you. Climatologists began serious study of climate around 70 years ago. An expected cool down did not happen and they wanted to know why. Over the past 70 years hundreds of peer reviewed studies were done and now, most rational people accept the data. The issue with science deniers stems partly from the fact that climate is devilishly complex and not everything is developing quite as first predicted, and every time one facet or the other doesn't quite prove out, deniers latch onto it and cry that the whole thing is trash. That's nonsense, of course, and as the tools continue to improve we are getting a finer grained picture of how climate is changing.

 

And sometimes their assumptions are challenged by new research.
Study: Strong Association Between Solar Variation and Century Scale Climate Shifts
Eric Worrall
An international team of scientists, including Dr. Willie Soon, has produced a solar model which does a skilful job of reproducing past climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age…

The abstract of the study:

Role of the Radiation Factor in Global Climatic Events of the Late Holocene

V. M. Fedorov , D. M. Frolov Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia
V. M. N. Velasco Herrera Instituto de Geofisica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, 04510 México
W. W.-H. Soon Harvard and Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Division of Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, 02138 USA d Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Sopron, 9400 Hungary
R. G. Cionco Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Grupo de Estudios Ambientales, Buenos Aires, 2900 Argentina

Received April 30, 2021; revised July 16, 2021; accepted July 19, 2021

Abstract—On the basis of calculations of insolation and insolation characteristics, taking into account changes in solar activity, the causes of global climatic events in the late Holocene have been determined. The main reasons for the Little Ice Age (LIA) are the long and deep minimum of summer insolation and insolation seasonality (IS) in the Northern Hemisphere. The values of the minimums are fixed in the range of approximately 1400–1750. The depth of the minimum over the past 5000 years, taking into account the change in solar activity, is about 8.0 W/m2 for summer insolation and about 13.3 W/m2 for IS in the Northern Hemisphere. The medieval climatic optimum is associated with the winter maximum of insolation contrast (IC) in the Northern Hemisphere, reflecting an increase in the meridional heat transfer in the winter half of the year from the equatorial region to the polar regions, as well as with a maximum of interhemispheric heat transfer. The increase in winter IC at maximum (111 relative to 3000 BC is 28.4 W/m2. The difference between the hemispheric radiative heat transfer at the maximums (881, 940, and 976) increases by 5.0 W/m2 relative to 3000 BC. Thus, global events of the late Holocene are associated with extremes of insolation characteristics (incoming radiation, IC, and IS of the Earth), but the temporal structure of the extrema themselves is determined by variations in solar activity. It follows from the above that, when reconstructing and predicting global climatic events, it is important to take into account not only variations in the incoming radiation, but also the associated changes in insolation characteristics (IC and IS of the Earth), reflecting the mechanisms of heat transfer. The IC regulates the meridional transfer of radiation heat; its cause is a change in the tilt of the axis and precession. The IS of the Earth determines the intensity of interhemispheric heat transfer. The noted characteristics of insolation, reflecting not only variations in the arrival of solar radiation, but also variations in the mechanisms of heat transfer, are not taken into account in the general astronomical theory of climate. Taking these indicators into account will help obtain more complete information about climate changes in past eras and will allow the more accurate forecasting of the future climate.

Read more: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0001433821100030
It will be fascinating to see how this new paper is received.

 

That doesn't mean that my taxes should pay for it.

There is plenty of money in oil to be an incentive.

 

Which is why the oil companies pay taxes.
Your taxes support subsidies for EV's. Is that OK?

 

Yes, Temperature change v. watts per sqft of solar irradiance is something to keep in mind.

What you need to do is find real scientists who can explain why Earth's temperature keeps steadily going up even though we've experienced a downturn in solar irradiance.



Post your papers AFTER they have been received and evaluated by the world of climatology.

I know. That's tougher!

 

Drilling oil wells is not a new emerging business. It's not some guy creating a startup company. Treating them as if they ARE is ridiculous. And, it's worse than that when MY tax dollars go to that kind of nonsense.

Clean energy is a new emerging sector. There are a good number of new companies forming around clean energy generation. It is an emerging energy sector.

As for transportation, we need electric transportation as a significant solution to cleaning up our cities that are being so seriously polluted by Big Oil transportation.

Plus, cutting oil imports would be good for our balance of trade.

 

In oil, we are a net exporter.
Each oil well is a new endeavor.
In my view EV's are a technological dead end and a waste of money.
How much petroleum does the United States import and export?
https://www.eia.gov › tools › faqs › faq

Sep 20, 2021 — In 2020, the United States exported about 8.50 MMb/d of petroleum to about 174 countries and 4 U.S. territories. Crude oil exports of about ...

 

Our balance of trade changes when we reduce imports without reducing exports.

Did you think your case was made stronger by noting only our exports and ignoring that we import almost as much as we export?

Or, was that an accident?

 

That's why I was specific that we are a net exporter. Are you a mercantilist?

 

I do not know of even ONE car company that isn't betting heavily on EVs.

We're getting an electric F-150. It's specs look pretty darn good, too. It's going to be a real asset at a job site, providing 120v power wherever it goes, with sockets in the bed, on the sides, pretty much everywhere. Porsche is going electric. EVs have way better acceleration. Everybody is going electric.

Do you think they all just don't know their business?

Or, what?

 

Come on! Importing less changes the balance of trade.

 

Ford created the Edsel. GM and Chrysler had near-death experiences they survived only with federal aid. I do not consider them infallible. We are waiting to take delivery on our new Lexus RX350. One large reason I prefer It is because it has a conventionally aspirated six cylinder motor.

 

Sure. I don't think it matters.

 

It's all the governments and the captive scientists they pay to produce data that gives them an excuse to usurp even more power from the people.

One last thing the notion that the average temperature of a planet, where the difference between the temperature of the hotest and coldest placest at any given time can easily exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, is meaningful data is ludicrous in and of itself.

 

And China leads the world in "slave labor". Those slaves don't drive cars. They ride bicycles at best. So what are you trying to prove? America bad and China good?

 

And they use slave labor to mine the materials for their batteries. What is the resource for charging those batteries? How do they dispose of spent batteries? How much battery life is lost with each charge? So who is going to provide the common worker with an electric car? Are there batteries powerful enough to propel a Commercial Jet to it's destination? How much petroleum does it take to produce a carbon windmill blade? How much petro grease to maintain a windmill?

 

So, was #1 the wiser path ( the policy makers need something to go with) ?

 

When you make a scientific prediction, state it as fact and it does not pan out....that was not science. That is why you cannot rule our lives with faulty predictions. The elite can always find excuses.

In days of old, if a man portrayed himself a prophet and made a false prediction.....he was stoned to death. Too bad our so-called scientists don't have similar accountability!

 

Sorry - there is NO CHANCE this is a world wide conspiracy.

There are far too many branches of science involved - there is no possibility that the results from each could be coordinated. There are too many countries involved. There is just plain zero chance of there being a conspiracy.

Besides, such a conspiracy has no chance of paying off those involved.

You're running on empty.

 

What's THAT supposed to mean?

Not that it matters, but the air pollution in Chinese cities is not coming from bicycles!