Suncor CEO slams climate change deniers, politicians who cater to them

[chuckChuck]

"The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it."

[chuckChuck]

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[15444]

"The head of Canada's largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it."

"Because there is a $200 million pot of money for 'green advancement' in oilsands and Big Papa Suncor Daddy needs a new Ferrari, another Caribbean estate and some new hot bittches."

[jazz]

Oh believe me NASA already knows but got to have something to do with their cries for govt funds.

Using selective evidence just discredits your view point. The chart says historically we are in the lowest period of CO2 on this planet.

But we have real data too. Here is your NOAA friends data. There is no correlation between temp and CO2.

[chuckChuck]

Where is this chart from? Without a link or a reference it is out of context and kind of useless unless you are a meterologist or climate scientist.

400mb is near the upper level of the troposphere and does not represent temperature at the surface which is around the 1000 mb (SEA LEVEL). mb stands for pressure in millibars. 300mb is at 9000 meters. Jet stream level. So you would be dead at that level without enough oxygen.



http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/77/
It is important to have an understanding of the average height of each of these important levels. 1000 mb is near the surface (sea level), 850 mb is near 1,500 meters (5,000 ft), 700 mb is near 3,000 meters (10,000 ft), 500 mb is near 5,500 meters (18,000 ft), 300 mb is near 9,300 meters (30,000 ft). All of these values are in geopotential meters; Zero geopotential meters is near sea level. The height of these pressure levels on any given day depends on the average temperature of the air and whether the air is rising or sinking (caused by convergence / divergence). If a cold air mass is present, heights will be lower since cold air is denser than warm air. Denser air takes up a smaller volume, thus heights lower toward the surface. Rising air also decreases heights. This is because rising air cools. Rising air could be the result of upper level divergence. Upper level divergence lowers pressures and heights because some mass is removed in the upper troposphere from that region. This causes the air to rise from the lower troposphere and results in a cooling of the air. If the average temperature of a vertical column of air lowers, the heights will lower (trough).

[pgluca]

Want to know where Suncor is coming from. They are building 400MW 96 turbine wind farm a few miles from me. It was arranged with the NDP government of the time at very lucrative terms. Talking to one of their security people he said each turbine was costing 10 million. This doesn't exactly agree with the numbers I have seen in print but you get the idea. They will make money where ever they can and of course they are going to milk this cow if they can. Saying the science was bad would be shooting their latest investments in the foot...…….

[jazz]

400mb is near the upper level of the troposphere and does not represent temperature at the surface which is around the 1000 mb (SEA LEVEL). mb stands for pressure in millibars. 300mb is at 9000 meters. Jet stream level. So you would be dead at that level without enough oxygen.

So climate change is just reserved for a few hundred feet at the surface. A localized effect from a global phenomenon. Not likely

Use some logic chuck. CO2 and other pollutants are trapped in the troposphere. The point where energy enters the system from the sun and encounters the captured heat from CO2 should be the point where warming is most evident, not the surface.

And testing at the troposphere level will negate the modelling error that NASA is encountering with low level cloud cover.

Think man, don't just drink koolaid.

[jazz]

Want to know where Suncor is coming from. They are building 400MW 96 turbine wind farm a few miles from me. It was arranged with the NDP government of the time at very lucrative terms. Talking to one of their security people he said each turbine was costing 10 million. This doesn't exactly agree with the numbers I have seen in print but you get the idea. They will make money where ever they can and of course they are going to milk this cow if they can. Saying the science was bad would be shooting their latest investments in the foot...…….

This was exactly what happened in Europe, the socialist green cult became so strong that people and companies just gave into it. Farmers stopped trying to make a profit on family farms and just gave land up for windmills and bio reactors and took the subsidy.

[chuckChuck]

So climate change is just reserved for a few hundred feet at the surface. A localized effect from a global phenomenon. Not likely

Use some logic chuck. CO2 and other pollutants are trapped in the troposphere. The point where energy enters the system from the sun and encounters the captured heat from CO2 should be the point where warming is most evident, not the surface.

And testing at the troposphere level will negate the modelling error that NASA is encountering with low level cloud cover.

Think man, don't just drink koolaid.

Where is the link and reference so we can see what this means. How do we know its not fabricated from a denier site? If you are not able to provide a link or a reference it is garbage.

And you and I have no way to know what it means when you are comparing temperatures at seal level or at 400mb in the troposphere. Let alone to know if this is significant when it comes to climate change.

You credit NOAA but NOAA is certain that humans are causing climate change. So explain the obvious contradiction.

First provide the link or reference so we can put it into context.

[chuckChuck]

Want to know where Suncor is coming from. They are building 400MW 96 turbine wind farm a few miles from me. It was arranged with the NDP government of the time at very lucrative terms. Talking to one of their security people he said each turbine was costing 10 million. This doesn't exactly agree with the numbers I have seen in print but you get the idea. They will make money where ever they can and of course they are going to milk this cow if they can. Saying the science was bad would be shooting their latest investments in the foot...…….

Suncor has total assets of $77 billion. They are investing about 1 billion in wind energy according to your figures. So do you really think they would want to agree with the climate science that proves human caused climate change that puts their $77 billion dollars worth of oil and gas assets at risk just to protect their $1billion of wind assets? Where is the logic from a management point of view?

The simpler explanation is they want to diversify into other forms of energy to plan for the low carbon emission future which is what many investors are doing.