"Science be damned!" Let's have Oil rule our lives!

[westwall]

Trump set to gut US climate change policy and environmental regulations: White House official​

WASHINGTON February 10, 2026 (AP) — The Trump administration is expected this week to revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, according to a White House official.

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

Here is the percentage of scientists that say that climate change is caused by humans

Between 97% and 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. Multiple studies confirm this overwhelming consensus, with research analyzing scientific literature indicating that more than 99% of peer-reviewed papers support human-caused climate change.

The Causes of Climate Change​

Over the last century, burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This increase happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2.

Who benefits from cutting these regulations:

• Key beneficiaries of removing carbon emission regulations include:
  • Fossil Fuel Industry: Oil, gas, and coal companies benefit from lower compliance expenditures, such as the elimination of reporting requirements (e.g., the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program) and reduced costs for upgrading equipment to meet emissions standards.
  • Manufacturing Sector: Industries with high energy consumption, such as steel and cement manufacturers, may face lower operating costs, allowing them to compete more effectively with foreign, higher-carbon products.
  • Transportation and Automobile Industry: Automakers, particularly those focusing on internal combustion engines, may see lower manufacturing costs and fewer fines, while the trucking industry expects reduced logistical costs, according to the American Trucking Association.
  • Small Businesses: Supporters argue that removing "burdensome" regulations will save small businesses billions in compliance costs.
  • Consumers (Short-Term): Proponents argue that reducing energy regulations will lead to cheaper, more reliable, and more affordable energy for heating and transportation.
  
  While there are some short-term economic benefits to Americans and American companies by taking down these regulations, such as tangible cost reductions, the removal of these regulations is heavily criticized by environmental and health advocates. As such, this is more about short-term political goals of Trump than it is about helping the future of our world.
• View attachment 1217533
• View attachment 1217535

What "science". All you idiots present is computer derived fiction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Science be damned!" Let's have Oil rule our lives!​

Sounds like the MAGA cry:

"Science be dammed!" Let's have religion, superstition and priests rule our education system and lives.

Darn those poor people and their need for cheap, reliable energy.

 

[Bitterhook]

No that would be e.g. Shanghai, a city with more then 25 million inhabitants.

View attachment 1217656

Compared to e.g. Huston Texas - "the Space city"

View attachment 1217666

Well, none of those places really look green at all, so y'all must really suck.
Stay where you are though.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Good. This should have been done years ago. It's about time the orange miscreant do something productive.

 

[Meister]

No that would be e.g. Shanghai, a city with more then 25 million inhabitants.

View attachment 1217656

Compared to e.g. Huston Texas - "the Space city"

View attachment 1217666

Oh my, Shanghai has slums? Tell me it ain't so Krus

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No that would be e.g. Shanghai, a city with more then 25 million inhabitants.

View attachment 1217656

Compared to e.g. Amarillo Texas - "a MAGA city"

View attachment 1217684

Shanghai uses a lot of coal.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The AI buildout is providing a HUGE opportunity for a wide variety of companies to improve power generation and capacity. Improvements are constant now. It's already being applied to car/truck technology, and ultimately that will bring prices down and choices up.

Regardless of the climate issue, clean and renewable energy is definitely on its way. It's a shame that so many hate the idea simply because their simplistic, hyperpartisan ideology makes them do so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with clean, intelligent and cheap. For a change.

Except, renewable "clean energy" is even worse and more toxic for the environment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Except, renewable "clean energy" is even worse and more toxic for the environment.

Mac just sees the "rainbow", ignorant of the damage it's causing

 

[Kruska]

Well, none of those places really look green at all, so y'all must really suck.
Stay where you are though.

View attachment 1217683

Get rid of it !!! can't you guys smell all the oil there??

 

[Meister]

Get rid of it !!! can't you guys smell all the oil there??

Oh stop with your BS. You are not for green with all that coal
you burn. So, just stop with your BS.

 

[Mac-7]

Why would they ALL do that? Have they ALL invested in green energy? Why haven’t the Oil companies tried to BUY them out? I mean, the Oil companies have more money than the green energy companies do. In addition Trump would help them out. If their opinion on Climate Change can be bought, why wouldn’t they sell it to Trump and the Billionaire Oil company’s czars?

They all want to get published, and funded. Only the ones that conform are accepted

 

[Robert W]

WASHINGTON February 10, 2026 (AP) — The Trump administration is expected this week to revoke a scientific finding that long has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, according to a White House official.

We have man-made climate cooling.

 

[Bitterhook]

Get rid of it !!! can't you guys smell all the oil there??

Yeah, you cannot smell it, but what is sitting under the ground where that picture was taken is the Haynesville Shale, and where I live is about 35 miles down the road from there. My place has less water and more trees, but I get paid at the end of every month for any well within five miles of my land.

Why the **** would i want to get rid of it?



Edit:
But don't feel too bad about it, because I was making more money off it when President Biden was in office. Policies under President Trump have dropped the price (again), and when that happens, big oil will cap half the wells and leave it there like money in a bank. Then they run a few wells, enough to pay everyone and for operating expenses and well maintenance in the area.

 

[Robert W]

They all want to get published, and funded. Only the ones that conform are accepted

Professor Lindzen explains how that works.

 

[Luckyone]

They all want to get published, and funded. Only the ones that conform are accepted

You mean the Trump would not be willing to fund them and publicize them if they weren’t willing to say what he wanted them to say? After all, you already stated that they are lying about Climate change! If they are lying, why not lie for Trump and get paid for it and NOT get humiliated by him!

 

[Robert W]

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. That Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

This comes to us from the premier classical physicist expert on climate on this planet.

Dr Richard Lindzen who has eclipsed other scientists on this topic publishing over 250 scientific papers (3 is more normal) on climate issues, says the tropics are where the CO2 matters the most. But he also says CO2 is a red herring. Watch his entire video to understand it.

 

[Mac-7]

You mean the Trump would not be willing to fund them and publicize them if they weren’t willing to say what he wanted them to say? After all, you already stated that they are lying about Climate change! If they are lying, why not lie for Trump and get paid for it and NOT get humiliated by him!

They wont get hired either by the universities or research labs

To not accept the man-made global warming doomsday hoax makes them a pariah in their chosen field

 

[Missouri_Mike]

We have been running out of oil soon for over 45 years

We were supposed to be out of oil by the time I got my license. That really pissed me off. Yet somehow 44 years later I’ve been able to drive a couple million miles.

Never trust these alarmist retards.

 

[Bitterhook]

You mean the Trump would not be willing to fund them and publicize them if they weren’t willing to say what he wanted them to say?

It's more like what the climate activist, scientists and experts had to say when Senator Kennedy questioned them about the climate budget and expected results.

He basically asked them if they had any expectation we would see any measurable benefit from the 50 trillion we were supposed to spend over the next 35 years, and their answer was "No".

 

[BluesLegend]

How much should we "invest" in green energy to reduce temperatures in 2100?

How will we know if we spent enough?

Well actual SCIENCE determined with mathematics that it would take over 260,000 nuclear bombs just to lower the temperature in Antarctica 1 degree.