Big Oil spends $115 Million per year to obstruct Climate Change policy

MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
captain morgan said:
The real beauty of that $115MM is that it is all tax deductible for those companies.

... Too bad they didn't expense even more
Click to expand...
How much did they actually pay in taxes, it could have been less than $115M. Big Oil is not the top of the Totem Pole, they are manipulated just as much as any Government is.
It certainly looks like money for nothing and by getting the weather predictions 'wrong' it becomes a lot more expensive when the adjustments have to be made to fit the reality on the ground at the moment. That money would not just vaporize it would be put to more useful things and that would start with elevating the living conditions for the ones considered to be 'poor'. If 2/3 of the world is barefoot it would seem that there is a market for shoes to be produced (and the streets fixed). The reason that is avoided is the 'elite' have decided the time and expense is not worth it.
The Bankers will keep that trait to themselves and North America will be circulation money just withing that area so there could be lots of money but the shelves are empty of foreign good so the residents will be 'tinkers' as well as doctors and lawyers. That is still a service in exchange for money. Usury on the 'poor' is part of the 'money for nothing' racket.

 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
Nick Danger said:
The idea that we can pump pollutants into the atmosphere at the rate we have and for the time we have without effecting some measure of change is completely inconceivable to me. It's also as plain as the nose on my face that media manipulation with the aim to steer public perception has become a huge tool in the hands both government and the corporate world. People don't argue for truth anymore, they argue to support a preconceived bias that is more often than not totally self-serving in nature. You just don't know who to trust any more. It does make sense to me that we're screwing up the planet, and that we should change our way of doing things, so that tends to form the basis of my bias in the matter, a bias arrived at through objective evaluation of everything I heard/read on the subject to date.
Click to expand...
You have no idea how big or dynamic the Earth is.

MHz said:
How much did they actually pay in taxes, it could have been less than $115M. Big Oil is not the top of the Totem Pole, they are manipulated just as much as any Government is.
It certainly looks like money for nothing and by getting the weather predictions 'wrong' it becomes a lot more expensive when the adjustments have to be made to fit the reality on the ground at the moment. That money would not just vaporize it would be put to more useful things and that would start with elevating the living conditions for the ones considered to be 'poor'. If 2/3 of the world is barefoot it would seem that there is a market for shoes to be produced (and the streets fixed). The reason that is avoided is the 'elite' have decided the time and expense is not worth it.
The Bankers will keep that trait to themselves and North America will be circulation money just withing that area so there could be lots of money but the shelves are empty of foreign good so the residents will be 'tinkers' as well as doctors and lawyers. That is still a service in exchange for money. Usury on the 'poor' is part of the 'money for nothing' racket.

Click to expand...
Businesses don't pay tax, they just collect it for the gubmint.
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
Nick Danger said:
That's one school of thought. Another would be that you have no appreciation for what a finely balanced and sensitive system the planet is.
Click to expand...
If there was a fine balance we'd have been dead thousands of years ago.
 
Nick Danger

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,807
471
83
Penticton, BC
So there is no distinction to be made between natural change and man-made change? Mother nature will just shrug it all off? There is no danger that the man-made changes will have some adverse affect on the way we live?
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,629
9,644
113
Washington DC
Nick Danger said:
So there is no distinction to be made between natural change and man-made change?
Click to expand...
Nope. Change is change. Do you really think anything humans can do would affect the planet as profoundly as the asteroid that caused the K-T Event?

Mother nature will just shrug it all off?
Click to expand...
She has so far.

There is no danger that the man-made changes will have some adverse affect on the way we live?
Click to expand...
Oh, I see now. This isn't about the planet, it's about hockey, poutine, and the Trailer Park Boys.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,629
9,644
113
Washington DC
Nick Danger said:
Has she? That seems to be the crux of this dispute, are the changes we are seeing already just the natural course of things?
Click to expand...
Define "natural." Is a beaver dam "natural?" Is the Hoover Dam "natural?"

All life changes the environment, and vice versa. You know what probably the biggest, most dramatic change ever was? When life on earth began consuming carbon dioxide and emitting (or "sh*tting," if you prefer) an incredibly corrosive, toxic substance that built up and built up until it was 21% of the atmosphere.

Namely oxygen.
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
Nick Danger said:
From your link:

"Climate scientists, science journalists, environmental groups and science advocacy organisations dispute Crichton's views on the science as being error-filled and distorted,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and it was described as "pure porn for global warming deniers" by journalist Chris Mooney."

That says it much better than I ever could.
Click to expand...
You expected these parties to agree with someone who disagrees with them? You should read the book and judge for yourself.
 
Nick Danger

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,807
471
83
Penticton, BC
Walter said:
You expected these parties to agree with someone who disagrees with them? You should read the book and judge for yourself.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have much to do with what I expect. I see a professional novelist who used questionable facts to support his work of fiction. Are you telling me that this book should form the basis of a credible argument against man-made climate change?
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,892
129
63
Nick Danger said:
It doesn't have much to do with what I expect. I see a professional novelist who used questionable facts to support his work of fiction. Are you telling me that this book should form the basis of a credible argument against man-made climate change?
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Tecumsehsbones

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,629
9,644
113
Washington DC
Nick Danger said:
Okay, I get it. So humans, as part of the natural biosystem, should be expected to change the environment and need not govern their actions to ensure that those changes are not harmful?
Click to expand...
They can govern their actions as they choose. If the changes are harmful to humans, Mama Gaea will let them know. Mercilessly.

Mama Gaea is a child abuser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom