Enbridge Inc T.ENB

Alternate Symbol(s): ENB | T.ENB.PF.A | T.ENB.PF.C | T.ENB.PF.E | ENBOF | ENBFF | T.ENB.PF.G | EBBNF | T.ENB.PF.U | T.ENB.PF.V | EBGEF | T.ENB.PR.A | ENBGF | T.ENB.PR.B | EBRGF | T.ENB.PR.D | EBRZF | T.ENB.PR.F | T.ENB.PR.H | ENBHF | T.ENB.PR.J | ENBRF | T.ENB.PR.N | ENNPF | ENBMF | T.ENB.PR.P | T.ENB.PR.T | T.ENB.PR.V | EBBGF | ENBNF | T.ENB.PR.Y | T.ENB.PF.K | T.ENB.PR.G | T.ENB.PR.I | T.ENB.PR.Z

Energy Oil & Gas Midstream

Enbridge Inc. is an energy transportation and distribution company. The Company operates through five business segments: Liquids Pipelines, Gas Transmission and Midstream, Gas Distribution and Storage, Renewable Power Generation, and Energy Services. Liquids Pipelines consists of pipelines and terminals in Canada and the United States that transport and export various grades of crude oil and other liquid hydrocarbons. Gas Transmission and Midstream consists of its investments in natural gas pipelines and gathering and processing facilities in Canada and the United States. Gas Distribution and Storage consists of its natural gas utility operations. Renewable Power Generation consists of investments in wind and solar assets, geothermal, waste heat recovery, and transmission assets. Energy Services provides physical commodity marketing, logistics services, and energy marketing services. The Company owns Aitken Creek Gas Storage facility and Aitken Creek North Gas Storage facility.

TSX:ENB - Post by User

Enbridge Inc > NASA and climate change

<< Previous

Bullboard Posts

Next >>

Comment by Quintessential1on Jan 03, 2021 10:15pm

239 Views

Post# 32213030

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NASA and climate change

Checkmate? Dude you're playing checkers.

NPCexe wrote: What do cosmic ray studies have to do with what I just showed you? It is clear you don't read the articles because you either can't read or won't read. Either way, check mate

Quintessential1 wrote: LOL

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001/meta

NPCexe wrote: Where was it refuted? Did you read the article? Your link doesn't relate to nor refute my cited study. My study just shows how high levels of CO2 relate to global temperatures. What the hell does your NON-scholarly article relate to what I'm talking about? Next time, make sure you link an actual study, not an article about what someone tells you to think about a study. If you can't even read my paper properly and address the issues you have with it, then I can't help you. Citations, citations, citations.

Quintessential1 wrote: The studty you linked to was published in 2003 has been refuted numerous times and is not accepted by the greater scientific community 17 years later.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change/#:~:text=LONDON%20%E2%80%93%20Changes%20in%20solar%20activity,according%20to%20two%20British%20scientists.

NPCexe wrote: I literally gave you the title of the study. If you can't google, that's fine, I'll do all the work for you. Here you go https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236004375_CO2_as_a_primary_driver_of_Phanerozoic_climate

Quintessential1 wrote: The only thing lame around here is you. Can't post a link? The science is settled. If you don't believe NASA. move on.

NPCexe wrote: In case you're wondering what a real study looks like (peer reviewed with more than 3 lame references), here you go: I can't post the PDF but you can google it and download: CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate Dana L. Royer, Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA This is just to get you started. Noe that you know actual evidence exists to the contrary, you can stop pompously pasting NASA documents thinking the science is settled. Happy new year!

Quintessential1 wrote: Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I hadn't read the study. I'm not wrong CO2 emmissions by burning fossil fuels is what is driving climate change. I also never said Enbridge is the big problem here. Neither you or your buddy MAS can read and you have both said that I have said things that I haven't. Back up your accusations by posting my quotes or piss off.

NPCexe wrote:
thank you for admitting that you didn't even bother to read the IPCC study. I'm not here to prove my points, we are here to show how you're wrong (I didn't pompously share any links with 3 measely citations). Keep watching Al Gore's inconvenient truth, who prophecized using "real science models", that we will be underwater by 2013 because all ice caps would melt. And also why don't you join the li