Writer claims Trump raped her

[Ben Dhyan]

And one more link. It tells why oil production dropped in the U.S.. In case you don't want to read it the reason was that oil prices dropped. It was not due to regulation. And the source is Fortune Magazine. Far from being a source that you would call "fake news". It also tells you that production stopped on finishing wells. The good news for those that invested in those wells was that once oil prices rose again it was very easy to finish work that had already been approved. The rise was due to laws that were in effect during Obama's administration and the changing oil prices:

Oil Producers Are Leaving Thousands of U.S. Wells Unfinished

Even the Trump hating NYT gives credit to DJT. Of course a higher price of oil will mean closed marginal sites become profitable again and so are put back into production, but without new drilling rights in new leases, production would soon level out. New leases are running at three times the average offered by Obama during his second term.

Driven by Trump Policy Changes, Fracking Booms on Public Lands

Oct. 27, 2018
CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo. — The parade of trailer trucks rolling through Jay Butler’s dusty ranch is a precursor to a new fracking boom on the vast federal lands of Wyoming and across the West.

Reversing a trend in the final years of the Obama presidency, the Trump administration is auctioning off millions of acres of drilling rights to oil and gas developers, a central component of the White House’s plan to work hand in glove with the industry to promote more domestic energy production.

Seeing growth and profit opportunities at a time of rising oil prices and a pro-business administration, big energy companies like Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, and Anschutz Exploration are seizing on the federal lands free-for-all, as they collectively buy up tens of thousands of acres of new leases and apply for thousands of permits to drill.

In total, more than 12.8 million acres of federally controlled oil and gas parcels were offered for lease in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, triple the average offered during President Barack Obama’s second term, according to an analysis by The New York Times of Interior Department data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that advocates budget discipline.

Driven by Trump Policy Changes, Fracking Booms on Public Lands

 

[metis]

There are many climate who think agw is a hoax, the ones that do not are mostly lefties, they want to think the world is doomed without mitigation action against climate change,that's what I mean by favorite.

It's 97% or 98% of climate scientists who say that the global warming that's taking place is mostly caused by human endeavors, and when we see that kind of overwhelming consensus it would be foolish to believe that it ain't happening. The right-wing politicians and their media, otoh, have convinced their gullible followers otherwise. Even if one had doubts, that's OK since most people are not that much into science, but your previous post on this betrays the fact that you much more would believe the right-wing snow-jobs than the climate scientists.

 

[ecco]

Partly joking, for I suspected it would trigger someone, but seriously, he is at least trying to get the ongoing DPRK military problem resolved.

Since this thread is about rape, I'll not go any further about the love Trump has for Kim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even the Trump hating NYT gives credit to DJT. Of course a higher price of oil will mean closed marginal sites become profitable again and so are put back into production, but without new drilling rights in new leases, production would soon level out. New leases are running at three times the average offered by Obama during his second term.

Driven by Trump Policy Changes, Fracking Booms on Public Lands

Oct. 27, 2018
CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo. — The parade of trailer trucks rolling through Jay Butler’s dusty ranch is a precursor to a new fracking boom on the vast federal lands of Wyoming and across the West.

Reversing a trend in the final years of the Obama presidency, the Trump administration is auctioning off millions of acres of drilling rights to oil and gas developers, a central component of the White House’s plan to work hand in glove with the industry to promote more domestic energy production.

Seeing growth and profit opportunities at a time of rising oil prices and a pro-business administration, big energy companies like Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, and Anschutz Exploration are seizing on the federal lands free-for-all, as they collectively buy up tens of thousands of acres of new leases and apply for thousands of permits to drill.

In total, more than 12.8 million acres of federally controlled oil and gas parcels were offered for lease in the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, triple the average offered during President Barack Obama’s second term, according to an analysis by The New York Times of Interior Department data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that advocates budget discipline.

Driven by Trump Policy Changes, Fracking Booms on Public Lands

Nice attempt to move the goalposts. That may affect future production, but that has had very little effect so far. It can take years to go from lease to well. There are all sorts of steps necessary in between. Seismic exploration, road building, permit application after permit application. That article was a bit alarmist, and could be misleading to those that have not studied the topic at all.

This just gives a slight glimpse of some of the problems involved:

How long do oil and gas producers need to go from drilling to production?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's 97% or 98% of climate scientists who say that the global warming that's taking place is mostly caused by human endeavors, and when we see that kind of overwhelming consensus it would be foolish to believe that it ain't happening. The right-wing politicians and their media, otoh, have convinced their gullible followers otherwise. Even if one had doubts, that's OK since most people are not that much into science, but your previous post on this betrays the fact that you much more would believe the right-wing snow-jobs than the climate scientists.

The 97% claim was shown to be fake from the get go by real climate scientists, and you are still on it..

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#68689e443f9f

The 97 Percent Solution.... Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up.. The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nice attempt to move the goalposts. That may affect future production, but that has had very little effect so far. It can take years to go from lease to well. There are all sorts of steps necessary in between. Seismic exploration, road building, permit application after permit application. That article was a bit alarmist, and could be misleading to those that have not studied the topic at all.

This just gives a slight glimpse of some of the problems involved:

How long do oil and gas producers need to go from drilling to production?

Haha,,,,moving the goal posts is all you've been doing, every time I show a report, a graph, a statistic, an article, anything that shows that the economy has grown underTrump. you move the goal posts....and this one. Oil production has grown under Trump and will continue to grow because Trump is allowing more federal lands to be opened up, three times as much s Obama in his last term...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haha,,,,moving the goal posts is all you've been doing, every time I show a report, a graph, a statistic, an article, anything that shows that the economy has grown underTrump. you move the goal posts....and this one. Oil production has grown under Trump and will continue to grow because Trump is allowing more federal lands to be opened up, three times as much s Obama in his last term...

That is not true. Your original claim was shown to be wrong and now you are trying to change the argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 97% claim was shown to be fake from the get go by real climate scientists, and you are still on it..

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#68689e443f9f

The 97 Percent Solution.... Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up.. The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol

Both of your sites repeated the global warming has stopped lie meaning that they are not reliable. It is still warming right now. The ten hottest years ever occurred since 1998. And the last five years were the five hottest:

The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record


try to find sites that do not immediately shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Both of your sites repeated the global warming has stopped lie meaning that they are not reliable. It is still warming right now. The ten hottest years ever occurred since 1998. And the last five years were the five hottest:

The 10 Hottest Global Years on Record


try to find sites that do not immediately shoot themselves in the foot.

What sites are you referring to, Forbes, National Review, or Guardian, or website of the authors of the articles? In any event, any talk of global warming stopped could be premature, the climate never stops changing, but sometimes there is a period of hiatus, and that is what is meant. So the hiatus is based around the average of the 10 hottest years on record, there is no contradiction. But having said that, there are different data sets, which will show different results, and using different starting points will also show different results. Iow, it may be possible to show a hiatus if you use the data selectively with the intent to show a hiatus, and lots of debate among the pro and con agw crowd ensues.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is not true. Your original claim was shown to be wrong and now you are trying to change the argument.

What is this original claim of mine that you refer to, can you provide a post # number?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What sites are you referring to, Forbes, National Review, or Guardian, or website of the authors of the articles? In any event, any talk of global warming stopped could be premature, the climate never stops changing, but sometimes there is a period of hiatus, and that is what is meant. So the hiatus is based around the average of the 10 hottest years on record, there is no contradiction. But having said that, there are different data sets, which will show different results, and using different starting points will also show different results. Iow, it may be possible to show a hiatus if you use the data selectively with the intent to show a hiatus, and lots of debate among the pro and con agw crowd ensues.

When it comes to the sciences they are far from authorities and will listen to science deniers at times. Those articles in effect refuted themselves by claiming "no warming".

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is this original claim of mine that you refer to, can you provide a post # number?

If you don't remember what you are debating how can you hope to get a point across? Go back to post 347.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

When it comes to the sciences they are far from authorities and will listen to science deniers at times. Those articles in effect refuted themselves by claiming "no warming".

No, the skeptical scientists use the same data as the alarmists, every one is in agreement that the global temperature has warmed by about 1C since records began. When you include context..."no warming" means a pause in the upward trend, a hiatus, no one is denying the measured warming.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you don't remember what you are debating how can you hope to get a point across? Go back to post 347.

Thank you, you mean this...."The US is now the biggest oil gas producer in the world, this would and could not happen without deregulation of EPA environmental and climate change rules established by Obama. The Steel industry has grown tremendously for the same reason, steel companies have been reopening old plants and building new modern ones. New car plants are being built and car manufacturers are returning to the US from Mexico due to renegotiating the old NAFTA trade agreements and using tariffs as appropriate. And so it goes, give credit where credit is due, no IPCC Paris COP is going to stop the Trump MAGA train."

So we have just been through the exercise to show the Trump's policies have contributed to the increase in oil/gas production. What don't you understand?

Best small business economy in 50 years...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the skeptical scientists use the same data as the alarmists, every one is in agreement that the global temperature has warmed by about 1C since records began. When you include context..."no warming" means a pause in the upward trend, a hiatus, no one is denying the measured warming.

Please, you are misusing terminology. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, you mean this...."The US is now the biggest oil gas producer in the world, this would and could not happen without deregulation of EPA environmental and climate change rules established by Obama. The Steel industry has grown tremendously for the same reason, steel companies have been reopening old plants and building new modern ones. New car plants are being built and car manufacturers are returning to the US from Mexico due to renegotiating the old NAFTA trade agreements and using tariffs as appropriate. And so it goes, give credit where credit is due, no IPCC Paris COP is going to stop the Trump MAGA train."

So we have just been through the exercise to show the Trump's policies have contributed to the increase in oil/gas production. What don't you understand?

Best small business economy in 50 years...

No, you failed at that. I am surprised that you do not understand that yet.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Since this thread is about rape, I'll not go any further about the love Trump has for Kim.

I think I'll count this as a trigger scalp...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Please, you are misusing terminology. Try again.

Don't keep us in suspense, please indicate precisely the terminology you believe I am misusing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you failed at that. I am surprised that you do not understand that yet.

Oh I understand alright, you will not admit that the Trump presidency is making America great again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't keep us in suspense, please indicate precisely the terminology you believe I am misusing.

You called science deniers "skeptics". That tells us that you do not know what "skeptic" is. It also appears that you called scientists "alarmists". Though you may simply misunderstand global warming. Like it or not 97% of climate scientists do accept global warming. Perhaps you should try to learn what they are saying will happen:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet