The fossil
fuel industries really are beginning to turn on each other.
«Exploding oil - trains running through my town are just a reminder of how out of control the fossil
fuel industry really is,» said Jackie Minchew an Everett resident and retired educator locked to one of the tripod's poles.
Not exact matches
SiS chief executive Stephen Moon said: «Science underpins everything we do and we're
really proud to be
fuelling British Cycling with our
industry - leading products in the lead up to Tokyo 2020.
But that's irrelevant to the spirit of the question, since (1) Democratic politicians in fossil
fuel states pretty much do the same thing (See West Virginia's Democrat Manchin); and (2) Such behavior is
really industry agnostic, and every politician of every party whose constituents are over-represented in a particular
industry will of course behave the same way about competing disruptive
industry; and (3) The main opposition is not on alternative energy per se, but on measures to tax / disrupt fossil
fuel one.
That's not nearly enough to
fuel the entire global airline
industry, but, as Morgan explains, «it's
really an important step because it gets us out of the experimental phase and gets
industries into large quantities at cost - competitive prices.»
But looking beyond the immediate crisis, it has also raised doubts about whether plutonium
really is what the
industry has always dreamt it to be-the
fuel of the future.
«The timber
industries are
really not set up to do that,» says Range
Fuels» Mandich.
«CO2 emissions from fossil
fuels and
industry did not
really change from 2014 to 2016,» says climate scientist Pierre Friedlingstein at the University of Exeter in England, and an author of the 2017 carbon budget report released by the Global Carbon Project in November.
It
really points to very serious widespread problems in the U.S. academic and journalistic professions — you can't do research on renewable energy in the U.S. academic system, because of fossil
fuel influence, and you can't get honest coverage of renewable energy initiatives in the U.S. press, also because of undue influence by vested interests — and more often than not these days, those vested interests are in finance, not in
industry.
I read the NY Times online and tend not to pay much attention to the ads so I don't
really experience the effect of full Exxon page «advertorials,» and I totally tune out TV ads and rarely watch TV news, but this barrage of full page ads and the fossil
fuel industry's command of policy, media and political resources is an incredible misallocation of funds, a market failure of monumental scale.
Follow - up from that suggested there's a lot of money coming from the fossil
fuel industry - kind of obviously,
really.
Man for thousands of years has tried to find ways of «roping the wind», and it wasn't until the 1970's that science and
industry really got going, when the emergence of wind farms as a viable alternative to fossil
fuel power began to gain momentum.
something that will
really decimate the fossil
fuel industry and destroy the economy altogether.
Hobby sites like «WattsUpWithThat» are a start to effective opposition, but to be honest it
really is time that the fossil
fuel industry who so many believers think are funding the sceptics, got off their backsides, put their hands in their pockets and did the decent thing to fund the professional science «opposition» which is needed to force the climategate forecasters to stop feeding this monster with their PR and start to try to justify the existence of their monster based on real science in the face of real decently financed opposition and not part - time unpaid people like us here.
After one final ad hominem, he makes a
really ludicrous statement: «And I call upon the DE and the SIUC community to make our Voices page a place for OUR voices — not reprints of shills for the fossil
fuel industry.»
R Gates Yeah I do trust my own evaluation»cause apparently I'm an «individualist» not a «communitarian» Also I read Tonyb, Judith Curry, the Pielkes and many others who aren't part of the «consensus» but
really, reading damn near everything on Sks and Real Climate turned me into a «denier» plus, my weak mind was warped by the Koch bros. and fossil
fuel industry propaganda... and don't forget Limbaugh perhaps if I audit John Cook's class on the «science of climate change denialism» I can rehabilitate myself
It's
really not speculation that the same tactics that were used for the tobacco
industry that are now being used for the fossil
fuel industry.
But, as he claimed in only a few instances, he discovered the letter - writers were not
really concerned private citizens but instead were people working in the PR departments of the fossil
fuel industry lobby.
Most people who throw insults at disbelievers aren't being dishonest either, there
really is a campaign of disinformation funded by the fossil
fuel industry.
Here's my concern over the specific accusation narrative that skeptics were on the payroll of the fossil
fuel industry — as I implied in both my March 17, 2014 blog post and my post just three weeks ago, there
really has only been one solitary bit of core evidence keeping this accusation alive the whole time.
What it
really does is streamline access to oil, gas, and coal under public lands and federally - controlled ocean waters for the fossil
fuel industry — and condemns Americans to more spills, climate - polluting emissions, and health problems.
If climate science was
really fatally flawed, the fossil
fuel industry could easily afford to pay for a definitive study that would overturn the alleged fraud.
Liquid hydrogen is not nearly as common as it is
really only used in the space
industry as a component of rocket
fuel.
Violators of the ban face the Bulgarian equivalent of a $ 65 million fine — which in the scheme of the fossil
fuel industry's cash flow
really isn't that much.
We don't
really know how much money the fossil
fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us.