#ClimateChangeAction

no the reason I talk about propaganda is because I have seen the history unfold, from the time when conservatives like Margaret Thatcher supported the science to the present, when it is a matter of theology that the science is wrong. The fossil fuel industry is far richer and more powerful than any "green energy" company, which by the way they are trying to infiltrate, yet their own scientists had the integrity to tell them that fossil fuels were and would continue to cause global warming, back in the 70's and 80's.

I don't what Thunberg's views are: I said her views are irrelevant. so are Gore's. what counts is what every national science organization says, that the science is sound, from governments of different ideologies and economic systems. The US government is on the side of the fossil fuel industry, from oilman Bush jr and Donald Trump on the republican side to Obama and Biden, who pretend to be concerned about global warming yet continue to push drilling. your views are not based in reality.

for the record I often oppose the US government, particularly in foreign policy, and Big Tech, which have become platforms for the CIA and intel community, willingly, with their censorship policies, and the big banks "too big to fail" who have driven the economy down with their financial speculation.

you avoided my question, why has the fossil fuel industry not funded studies disproving the consensus science? the only time they tried, the skeptical scientists they funded came back with a conclusion they didn't like, that the science was well based. this matches what their own scientists told them in internal documents from the 70's and 80's.

you're a true believer, and you ignore facts to continue making assertions that you cannot back up.

Do me a favor and look at the model of these 1970s ExxonMobil scientists, from the number of lines it looks like they had 10 different models, and that's if it's even real.

You say that big oil is bigger than green energy companies, well just from a cursory search, it looks like in 2021 big oil companies made $65,000,000,000 in profit, that same year Biden signed a climate plan, which subsidizes green companies by the amount of $1,700,000,000,000... What a joke...

And to answer your question, regardless of their source of funding there are researchers that disagree with the "consensus" on climate change, it's just you have never seen them or heard about them because every medium of information has an agenda to promote climate change.

If you care about what researchers say, watch "the great global warming swindle" it's a documentary that interviews these researchers, their papers will be easy to find just type their names into yandex

of course they have different models, that's because they have to project based on whether fossil fuels are cut back or not. Biden funds all sorts of swindles, it's like WEF watch what they do, not what they say. as far as researchers who oppose the consensus, I'm sure I've heard of the ones who are or were legitimate scientists; most of them haven't published anything in years, like Lindzen or Curry.

I made $105,000 PROFIT on a $70,000-ish investment in VDE over the last few years.

Yes kiddos, $105,000 profit.

haha and boo hoo at the same time.

also, Western SPY agencies blew up Nordstream to deny EU Russian gas. It was the greatest environmental terrorism EVER, perpetrated by the pro-UKie west. But I'm not crying, because although I strongly disagree with the action, it did make me even richer, so there is that.

@AntiLiteracyActivist said in #21:
> And yet you associate us with, and vilify energy companies, which you call "the fossil fuel industry"

Is there any more neutral or innocuous term for an industry that extracts fossil fuels from the ground, processes them in refineries and sells them??? None come to mind. Their product plus the term "industry" is right there in the name, as it is with every other industry (like the clothing industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, the aviation industry or the toilet paper industry). The fossil fuel industry is part of a broader energy industry (which also includes the electrical power industry, which itself is subdivided into different industries all named after the kind of energy generation they use).

If you had taken issue with "Big Oil" (a term that can be used derogatorily) or something along those lines, I would have been able to see where you're coming from (although I couldn't help but notice that you yourself use terms like Big Tech or Big Banks). But "the fossil fuel industry"? That's just how it's called, it's as neutral as can be.

Maybe the fact that you perceive it as a derogatory (or even vilifying) term should give you some pause.

> Bro these energy companies are all in with the global warming insanity, they have invested billions of dollars into fake green energy and get billions in subsidies from the government.

***
TL;DR: Only very recently, only on a small scale and they mostly stick to their fossil fuels (because they make crazy profits with those). Most fossil fuel companies have only recently stopped publicly denying climate change itself and the majority of those are still not explicitly acknowledging that human activities are the cause. They've put in motion a dedicated misinformation campaign for decades (≈1989 to ≈2014), funding think tanks to influence policy making delaying effective climate policies. They tried to divert blame to consumers (oil giant BP popularised the concept of the personal carbon footprint using an Ogilvy designed ad campaign in 2005). By now they cannot publicly deny it any longer, but they continue to lobby politicians to do nothing that would hurt their current business. Sounds outrageous? It is. But I can prove it to you:
***

Longer version:
No, fossil fuel companies are not yet "all-in" on global warming. As is evident from the fact that most of them show no signs of stopping or significantly reducing their production. Sure, they might acquire an offshore wind farm or two for plausible deniability. They might paint their corporate websites green and even allege that the gas you pump at their gas station is actually "carbon neutral" because of some shady "carbon offsets" they bought in bulk from "forest conservation" projects somewhere in the global south that may or may not prevent the emission of carbon dioxide (they usually don't, because they are often National parks to begin with and/or wouldn't have been chopped down either way).

An example: Shell (the second largest of the "supermajors" behind ExxonMobile) is the 15th largest company in the world by both revenue and profits. It pales in comparison to state-owned Saudi Aramco though, another oil and gas company. The latter is the most profitable company in the entire world with an annual profit (!) of US$105.37 BILLION (ten and a half billion dollars more profit than Tech giant Apple on number 2). Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue

But back to Shell: If you go to their website right now, the first thing you see (after some bit about a new CEO) is a story about how they are helping industry create "lower-carbon ways to produce the cement, steel and chemicals that help build the modern world". They also acknowledge the existence of climate change and have an entire section of their website dedicated to it (and it's been that way for several years now). Shell professes to be willing to help in keeping the 1.5ºC goal laid out in the Paris Agreement.

Are they serious though? No. They absolutely are not. A quick look through their "FOURTH QUARTER 2021 RESULTS" report (to be found here: www.shell.com/investors/results-and-reporting/quarterly-results/2021/q4-2021/_jcr_content/root/main/section/simple/call_to_action_copy__1706629523/links/item0.stream/1663142400751/9c895d814c2540cf227c2d9d35da0992fa4c0c29/q4-2021-slides.pdf) is quite disillusioning: On page 18, section "Capital allocation – Next phase: 2021 delivery and outlook" they report a planned (for 2022) capital expenditure (cash capex) of $8 billion (34.8% of their total capex) allocated to their "Upstream pillar". That's oil-lingo for "acquiring new drilling rights, building more (offshore) oil platforms, etc."
$4-5 billion (17.4% of total capex) are allocated to "Integrated gas" and "Chemicals and products" respectively (together 34.8% of total capex). This they call the "Transition pillar" which doesn't make any sense. According to their website their "Integrated Gas segment includes liquefied natural gas (LNG) activities and the conversion of natural gas into gas-to-liquids (GTL) fuels and other products". So another fossil fuel (implying they are "transitioning" from one fossil fuel, oil, to another, natural gas??!). Their "Chemicals and products" segment includes:

Acetone, Aromatics, Ethylene oxide, Ethylene glycols, Gas to Fluid Drilling Fluids (yes, they manufacture a product that helps them drill for more oil, surprise!), Higher olefins and derivatives, Lower olefins, Nonene, Phenol, Polyethylene, Polyols, Propylene glycols, Propylene oxide, hydrocarbon solvents, Styrene monomer, etc.
In summary, they produce chemicals (many of them very useful mind you) derived from oil and natural gas.

Only $3 billion (13.0% of total capex) are allocated to "Renewables and Energy solutions". That's the smallest share of total capex. Whereas $5-6 billion (21.7% of total capex) are allocated to marketing. To making you believe they are somehow a green company. To fool you. Together they brand them as the "Growth pillar". Yuck.

In short, Shell's investments (according to their annual report) are as follows:
13% Renewables
17.4% Chemicals derived from natural gas and oil
17.4% LGN and natural gas (both are fossil fuels)
21.7% Marketing to convince you they are going green
34.8% Oil, buying more drilling rights, building more oil rigs and oil platforms

Shell is not the exception here. It's the rule. They systematically make empty promises:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263596

As to whether or not fossil fuel companies are all IN on a (nonexistent) conspiracy of global warming you imagine, again no. They are not. They have tried their very best, they've lobbied and they've financed large scale misinformation campaigns for decades (1990s and 2000s). All for the sole purpose of delaying climate action (and it worked really well). Why? Because they've known that their products is extremely harmful to Earth's climate since at least the 70s (just one example, it's very similar for the other ones: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial). But they didn't care. They only care for their massive profits.

Wow I did not know that so many people actually cared!!
(PS: Should I start a team for #ClimateChangeAction or not, please let me know in private inbox and if you do I'll send you the link once I create it)
And I might as well say it.

#ISupportClimateChangeAction

@AntiLiteracyActivist
Can you not read or something??? Because I said if you don't support #ClimateChangeAction, then click on the articles and READ THEM. And that was on the FIRST PAGE. At the FIRST COMMENT. Which is the FIRST COMMENT YOU SEE WHEN YOU CLICK THE POST. How could you not see that???
I think it's clear though that you can't read since your name literally is AntiLiteracyActivist...

Oh and one more thing: I do have a 22000 word essay I wrote on this topic (unfinished though...). If you want, I can send the link to you either here or privately. (Although please don't make fun of it.... I'm still working on it and it is a bit messy...)

people who are concerned about green energy companies being manipulative or doing bad things in order to make profits should be advocating for socialism. my advice also to people like boris would be to not be so absorbed in identity politics. it seems that it is driving all of your analysis

@lilyhollow said in #30:
> people who are concerned about green energy companies being manipulative or doing bad things in order to make profits should be advocating for socialism. my advice also to people like boris would be to not be so absorbed in identity politics. it seems that it is driving all of your analysis
Ok I'm a little confused... Could you please explain what you're saying in more detail??