Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers gone by 2020

[Stormspellz]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/1805232001/



Not sure what your point is.

his point? well obviously a half ass'd study and its projection over a decade ago is obviously absolute fact, and since its not accurate it means all of climate change is a china hoax like king Trump said so.

[GreenJesus]

But the experts were not wrong when they talked about peak oil. Oil companies, especially fracking oil companies, have been operating at loss for a decade. The market is finally catching up to the fact that these companies will never make money for their investors. Lets take a look at the stock value of some of the largest oil companies in the US.

Halliburton - one-third of its peak in 2014.
Schulmberger - also one-third of its peak in 2014.
Exxon - two-third of its peak in 2014.
EOG - two-third of its peak.
Continental Resources - less than half.

How about US Silica Holdings which was making tons of money supplying sand for fracking? The stock went down from a peak of $71.81 per share in 2014 to $5.73. Seventy three cents away from becoming penny stock.

Then there was Gasfrac Energy that was supposedly on the cusp of developing a breakthrough technology of waterless fracking. One word - “bankrupt.”

How about we look at QQQ ETF which is based on Nasdaq 100. No energy sector at all. That's pretty bad.

We could go on if you need more examples.

Just for emphasis. Aramco stock, the most profitable oil company in the world, one month after listing.

Although I agree with what you said in general, emphasizing your point with a graph of a company that went down like 8% in a month isn't exactly THAT revolutionary. It could have just been slightly overvalued at launch. However, I do find the rest of what you said pretty interesting. I would imagine the extraordinary costs of fracking make the output not worth the time. However, I guess they already invested the capital on infrastructure and equipment... I wonder what the procedure is for recovering your losses on such a huge investment like that would be... Especially if the industry as a whole isn't profitable, then the equipment wouldn't really be salvegable. If they are operating at a loss, then I am not sure what the point of continuing operations is if there is no profitability in sight.

[PC2]

How do you know people will adapt to those changes?

Because there's no other choice other than to adapt to environmental changes. We can always dream of a utopia where the environment is sustainable, but in reality our environment and way of life is never sustainable. It always requires constant changes and improvements based on new and unpredictable problems.

[Elegiac]

Because there's no other choice other than to adapt to environmental changes. We can always dream of a utopia where the environment is sustainable, but in reality our environment and way of life is never sustainable.

Pfft. The caucasity.

Like, let's ignore the fact that in both Australia and California the vastly more sustainable land management practices conducted by indigenous people were uprooted and replaced wholesale with European style agriculture and West Asian crops and livestock - or that there are different levels of sustainable practice which are differentiated mostly by their expense. /s

The reality is that there is a choice - you are making a choice and deeming climate change a non-issue because you personally will be less impacted. That isn't possible for a lot of poorer people who are already disproportionately being affected by climate change.

Check your climate privilege, Boomer.

[Rasulis]

Although I agree with what you said in general, emphasizing your point with a graph of a company that went down like 8% in a month isn't exactly THAT revolutionary. It could have just been slightly overvalued at launch. However, I do find the rest of what you said pretty interesting. I would imagine the extraordinary costs of fracking make the output not worth the time. However, I guess they already invested the capital on infrastructure and equipment... I wonder what the procedure is for recovering your losses on such a huge investment like that would be... Especially if the industry as a whole isn't profitable, then the equipment wouldn't really be salvegable. If they are operating at a loss, then I am not sure what the point of continuing operations is if there is no profitability in sight.

I don't have the answer. Here are some more graphs.

Global oil discoveries per Rystad.



OPEC monthly oil production.

[Darkeon]

This more quickly shows that there is an abuse on how people are profiting on alarmism and catastrophes and that it has been happening for a long while, than it shows that Global Warming, or whatever description you would rather use, is fake or not.

[Ivanstone]

Because there's no other choice other than to adapt to environmental changes. We can always dream of a utopia where the environment is sustainable, but in reality our environment and way of life is never sustainable. It always requires constant changes and improvements based on new and unpredictable problems.

We adapt to environmental change by changing ourselves. That means doing more with less and eschewing wasteful practices like constantly burning a limited perpetually harder to extract resource. The only people who benefit from climate denial are rich assholes who didn't feel like re-investing their ill-gotten money into something more useful.

[s_bushido]

This more quickly shows that there is an abuse on how people are profiting on alarmism and catastrophes and that it has been happening for a long while, than it shows that Global Warming, or whatever description you would rather use, is fake or not.

lol

Profiting? This literally only happened because the park couldn't get the funding to replace the signs. So profit. Much wow.

[PC2]

Pfft. The caucasity.

I have never heard of that until right now, but yeah caucasity sounds badass.

Like, let's ignore the fact that in both Australia and California the vastly more sustainable land management practices conducted by indigenous people were uprooted and replaced wholesale with European style agriculture and West Asian crops and livestock - or that there are different levels of sustainable practice which are differentiated mostly by their expense. /s

That was only an illusion that indigenous lifestyles were sustainable. Eventually they would have failed if they didn't make new advancements such as those experienced during the industrial revolution. As well as the inevitable side effects that come from industrialized societies.

The reality is that there is a choice - you are making a choice and deeming climate change a non-issue because you personally will be less impacted. That isn't possible for a lot of poorer people who are already disproportionately being affected by climate change.

Check your climate privilege, Boomer.

I'm a Millennial and I'm talking about what society at large has to do, how it effects any one of us as an individual is irrelevant.

[Darkeon]

lol

Profiting? This literally only happened because the park couldn't get the funding to replace the signs. So profit. Much wow.

Reading my post again to check if I did point out who was profiting... hmm, oddly enough I don't see a mention of said park. How awkward.

Must have touched a reality check nerve. Doesn't suit your narrative? How dare you.

[Sliske]

Reminds me a lot of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predic...ming_of_Christ

"but thats a religion, this is real!"

Religious people think their nonsense is real too. Lets just face it - whilst humans have a pretty big impact on local environments, the fact that you eat McDonalds isn't going to result in glaciers melting. I know, i know. Humans love to act like they're some almighty creation that is capable of massively harming celestial bodies, but no, sorry. Thats just not reality.

Stop marching. Stop sending teenagers round the world on some pilgrimage for your religious cause. Stop pretending that the Australian bushfires were somehow caused by climate change. Just stop. Its pathetic.

[Elegiac]

That was only an illusion that indigenous lifestyles were sustainable. Eventually they would have failed if they didn't make new advancements such as those experienced during the industrial revolution. As well as the inevitable side effects that come from industrialized societies.

Citation needed.

I'm a Millennial and I'm talking about what society at large has to do, how it effects any one of us as an individual is irrelevant.

Cool, and I'm stating a fact that different classes of people will experience climate change in varying degree of severity and your opinion is to be expected for someone of a class largely insulated from its immediate effects.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminds me a lot of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predic...ming_of_Christ

"but thats a religion, this is real!"

Religious people think their nonsense is real too. Lets just face it - whilst humans have a pretty big impact on local environments, the fact that you eat McDonalds isn't going to result in glaciers melting. I know, i know. Humans love to act like they're some almighty creation that is capable of massively harming celestial bodies, but no, sorry. Thats just not reality.

Stop marching. Stop sending teenagers round the world on some pilgrimage for your religious cause. Stop pretending that the Australian bushfires were somehow caused by climate change. Just stop. Its pathetic.

Man it's almost as if science is a thing.

[Rasulis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
"Hubbert's original prediction that US peak oil would occur in about 1970 appeared accurate for a time, as US average annual production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day and mostly declined for more than three decades after.[17] However, the use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling caused US production to rebound starting in about 2005.[18] The U.S. became a net exporter of both oil and gas in 2018.[19] In addition, Hubbert's original predictions for world peak oil production proved premature.[9] Nevertheless, the rate of discovery of new petroleum deposits peaked worldwide during the 1960s and has never approached these levels since.[20]"

They weren't wrong. We're just in a phase where a lot of money needs to be expended to extract more oil from already discovered supplies. Shall we discuss how fracking companies can't seem to make any money? Its still a finite resource that will get progressively more expensive to get while still creating pollution and further exacerbating climate change.

Science is science, its all interconnected. Not all of the connections are known but remember "uncredible" science is the thing that brought you that computer you're using to whine about science.

This is what most people do not understand. On top of the increasing cost of extraction, the cost of finding the oil reserve is also increasing. The low-hanging fruits have all been picked clean and now the world is left with the hard to find and extract reserves. Developing new technology also cost money. Money that will need to be somehow recouped.

Some cost perspective. Statoil in 2014 estimated that the cost of drilling a single exploratory boring in the Arctic to be as much as $500 million. Exxon spent $700 million in 2014 on a single Russian Arctic oil well as part of a joint venture with Rosneff. In 2015 Shell spent $1.4 billion for a single exploratory deep water boring off the shore of Alaska. The drilling was halted because, in Shell’s words, “the results were disappointing.” Translation, they did not find any oil.

The costs of developing new technologies, explorations and extracting oil reserves are rising exponentially. The price of oil and gas on the other hand has not budged much in the last 5 years.

[PC2]

This is what most people do not understand. On top of the increasing cost of extraction, the cost of finding the oil reserve is also increasing. The low-hanging fruits have all been picked clean and now the world is left with the hard to find and extract reserves. Developing new technology also cost money. Money that will need to be somehow recouped.

Some cost perspective. Statoil in 2014 estimated that the cost of drilling a single exploratory boring in the Arctic to be as much as $500 million. Exxon spent $700 million in 2014 on a single Russian Arctic oil well as part of a joint venture with Rosneff. In 2015 Shell spent $1.4 billion for a single exploratory deep water boring off the shore of Alaska. The drilling was halted because, in Shell’s words, “the results were disappointing.” Translation, they did not find any oil.

The costs of developing new technologies, explorations and extracting oil reserves are rising exponentially. The price of oil and gas on the other hand has not budged much in the last 5 years.

Okay but that's why we'll be transitioning to non-fossil fuel energies over the next century.

[JohnBrown1917]

Because there's no other choice other than to adapt to environmental changes. We can always dream of a utopia where the environment is sustainable, but in reality our environment and way of life is never sustainable. It always requires constant changes and improvements based on new and unpredictable problems.

We do have another choice or do you have any other ideas that don't involve either 'eco-fascism' or your 'lol we'll adapt because I say so'?
It can be stopped, just because you don't like that because it affects the capitalist class is on you.

[Yadryonych]

I like the second image more, honestly.

[breadisfunny]

i find it highly amusing how the op just basically posted some irrelevant piece of news to try and justify his continued denial of climate change and then up and abandoned the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what most people do not understand. On top of the increasing cost of extraction, the cost of finding the oil reserve is also increasing. The low-hanging fruits have all been picked clean and now the world is left with the hard to find and extract reserves. Developing new technology also cost money. Money that will need to be somehow recouped.

Some cost perspective. Statoil in 2014 estimated that the cost of drilling a single exploratory boring in the Arctic to be as much as $500 million. Exxon spent $700 million in 2014 on a single Russian Arctic oil well as part of a joint venture with Rosneff. In 2015 Shell spent $1.4 billion for a single exploratory deep water boring off the shore of Alaska. The drilling was halted because, in Shell’s words, “the results were disappointing.” Translation, they did not find any oil.

The costs of developing new technologies, explorations and extracting oil reserves are rising exponentially. The price of oil and gas on the other hand has not budged much in the last 5 years.

didn't iran just find a new oil field not long ago?

- - - Updated - - -

How do you know people will adapt to those changes?

he doesn't he's just using it to avoid taking responsibility for sticking his head in the sand. he does this in EVERY SINGLE THREAD HE POSTS IN ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.
he then proceeds to spout the usual bs of "SCIENCE WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING!" and handwaves away any enviromental consequences as trivial when someone calls him out on it. or he goes on about making an artificial enviroment conveniently IGNORING the fact that such technologies are at least 50-100yrs or more from being remotely realized.

[PC2]

We do have another choice or do you have any other ideas that don't involve either 'eco-fascism' or your 'lol we'll adapt because I say so'?

Right the other choice is geo-engineering, which is probably the best solution.

It can be stopped, just because you don't like that because it affects the capitalist class is on you.

Of course climate change can be stopped but the soonest that it could be stopped is in maybe a hundred or a couple hundred years. Because even after we invent superior alternatives to fossil fuels, it will still take quite some time for the CO2 to leave the atmosphere. That is if people even want to return to a pre-industrial CO2 PPM at that point. Future people probably won't even want to go back to the older historical values.

[Yadryonych]

Okay but that's why we'll be transitioning to non-fossil fuel energies over the next century.

I only hope we'll be transitioning to nuclear fusion power instead of power of tree hugging

[Shadowferal]

If it isn't happening now when it needs to, it won't happen later. Because too many will still be claiming climate change isn't happening.

Rural America says we're fucked

Fallout from the trade war has hit America’s farms hard, with bankruptcies soaring nationally in September to their highest level since 2011, even as the stock market has punched higher on optimism about a limited U.S.-China trade pact, including on Friday when stocks extended a push into record territory and the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, -0.46% briefly topped a 29,000 milestone.

But severe weather has compounded problems in agriculture-heavy parts of the Fed’s Ninth District, which covers Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, including an early frost that has made it difficult to gauge 2019 crop yields.

“We haven’t been able to get a good number,” Ford said of the harvest, due to the frost and a propane shortage that meant “a lot didn’t get out of the field.”