Peyto Exploration & Development Corp T.PEY

RE:RE:RE:RE:Pssssst.......... Be Very Quiet and Nobody Tell Yasch:

[nukester]

"But even if that 90% or 97% constitutes a faulty certainty, when the numbers should in fact be closer to, say, 66% or lower, does it even matter? Even the CEOs of the biggest energy companies are planning transitions to wind, solar, nuclear etc. Or at the very least they're talking about being carbon net zero by 2040 or 2050. All the biggest utilities, even the ones most heavily invested in deployment of fossil fuels, are making long-term plans to switch over to renewables."

I disagree with your logic:
Yes (percent scientists agreeing) matters, but the number is closer to half (52%) when one asks the questions correctly from a scientist who does not rely upon publishing under his own name for income.  The green movement is not altruistic, it is driven by powerful financial interests that profit from the resultant carbon paper markets etc. These supposed green actors have large bank accounts and  can destroy careers very easily. If you work in climate science and do not agree with AGW, you WILL keep your mouth shut in terms of publishing.  (If you have a family to feed etc)

The Medical community is no different than climate research community.
My god...  look at the number of medical doctors that are afraid to speak out against Pfizer or Moderna, as the number of deaths and adverse reactions from Covid vaccines go parabolic.  It does not take a genious to see that something is not right with Covid vaccines, and doctors are afraid to speak out, but I digress :-)


Look at a survey from American Meterological Society:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/95/7/bams-d-13-00091.1.xml#i1520-0477-95-7-1029-b22

While the numbers tend to favor your argument among those who publish data (70 ish %), look at the stark contrast among climate scientists that do not publish data. (35 ish %)
Then look at the total survey results of all respondents (n=1821)  Only 52% believe AGW is happening and is "Mostly human".

That my friend is not good enough to decide public policy upon, especially given the countless millions lifted from poverty by the energy density of fossil fuel.
Maybe I read the table incorrectly, but that is my opinion tonight.


Regarding CEO's, they are under extreme duress from dishonest political actors exploiting a mis-informed electorate. In addition to the usual political pandering of (non scientific politicians), CEO's also have to contend with activist investors, demanding board seats, who also represent participants in the resultant carbon credit market.  You think "Engine No. 1" is some kind of honest actor who will hold Exxon's evil CEO to account????  Even the most naive liberal would have to admit Engine No. 1 and other activist investors are not trying to save humanity, they are trying to cash in on a growing paper trade in various types of carbon trading. 

The green movement among most CEO's is a smoke screen designed for numerous short and long term goals.  The CEO's are trying to buy time and appear green, much the same as the FED creates the illusion of monetary tightening. The only long term plans CEO's are serious about are retirement plans and golden parachutes. 

All IMO,

Nukester