Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@hada, I'd also like to see the data. Thanks.

@hada, people on each side of the argument may have their own science to reference, but that doesn't mean both sides are right. It's important to use the best available science to drive decision making. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that GHG emissions drive global warming. It's foolish to pretend that's not the case, and just claim it's not the case without presenting data and models to show why the world's climate science experts are wrong.

Can't you global warming, greenhouse gasses understand that we just don't care about your so-called science? We have our own science and it is different. Get over it.

The working poor and indigent will do fine either way (Obama or Ryan care), as they can just go to the ER when sick ... it costs tax payers more, but you can't get blood out of a stone after the fact. The well off will keep their current health care (mostly employer paid ... it will be a taxed benifit under Ryan, but you get a tax rebate that will offset that). It's an open question if insurance rates for this group will go down, as currently if anything government injection of moneys by way of the subsidies you complain about are helping lower rates (not real costs) for everyone. The lower middle will get squeezed under Ryan care...too poor to a buy "good" insurance but with some net worth that they would have to lose before they were qualified for public assistance (so for them, any illness is also bankruptcy ). The retired are in for the biggest shock as they will need to pay a lot more year to year and with a fixed pay as you go benefit end of life care might take all your saving (best practice would be not to out live your spouse!).

@hjwe, I very much agree with your thoughts. The U.S. is the wealthiest country in the world and we are the most responsible for creating the climate crisis by our large per-capita GHG emissions over the past 100 years. We have the opportunity to lead on this issue, creating new economic opportunities and a better world, rather than electing a bunch of irresponsible politicians who deny basic science and prioritize short-term profits over the long-term viability of the climate for billions of people and all other species.

Again, the U.S. is the only OECD country without universal access to healthcare. By tying one's insurance to their employer, it reduces liquidity in the labor market. Other countries do not do that. Why do we spend far more per capita on healthcare and get much poorer health outcomes than other countries? The system needs reform and the ACA was an attempt to do that. It will be repealed, and taxes will be cut for the wealthy with the repeal (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/obamacare-repeal-tax-cut-wealthy-232379). There's no plan for replacement that will increase coverage, improve service and reduce costs. A single payer system with rice controls would be the most efficient one, but there's too much lobbying of Congress to allow that to happen.

I have to wonder why the trumpeters can not simply express an opinion without adding all those insults and unpleasantness.

@L370Drz-hjwe, the ACA only actually benefits those whom are below average or indigent and receive subsidies and those who have figured out that it's easy to game the system by declaring low or no income in retirement prior to Medicare. Those people scream the loudest, not surprisingly, about how great it is. The middle class workers you reference are the ones footing the bill and suffering through higher premiums., some hikes still due yet in 2017. You need to come up with a better argument.

@L370Drz-ggga , You're a self proclaimed naïve idiot by your own references and insults toward others and your pseudo-intellectual liberal drivel isn't impressing anyone. Give it a rest before you embarrass yourself any further.

The overall level of discourse here is disappointing. Hard to believe folks are still arguing "if" man made climate change, when the focus now needs to be what to do about it within a reasonable assessment of costs today for benifits tomorrow. Despite what some implied below, the USA can't be considered a sacrifical leader on this by any stretch... more like the spoiled brat pouting in the back of the bus. The same can be said about health care. Most first world countries have agreed on an at least somewhat reasonable system that recognizes everyone needs some level of care and there are limits to the costs any society can endure .... so there must be trade offs and, at some point, limits beyond which costs become greater than benefits. I am no saying it needs to be one size fits all, but the worst case is the one where everyone put their head in a hole while their pockets are emptied. Currently we spend 25% of health dollars on paperwork and nearly 50% on people who are about to die (i.e., last year of life)... killing ACA only directly impacts the rest (middle aged workers) and that is the worst way to restrict spending.

At this point, what difference does it make? Now excuse me while I look for Huma.

@L370Drz-gxcu, what are the costs of inaction? Some major ones include the impacts of extreme weather, sea level rise, social instability and conflict. There's also the economic opportunity associated with clean energy technology: jobs, exports, and electric grid resiliency to name a few. BTW, China is pursuing clean energy very seriously, though they have a lot of work ahead. In terms of global participation, the Paris climate agreement has been ratified by most major nations: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php

@L370Drz-gysm , Good luck to your party & advocates getting China and other Eastern nations to agree to your notions of science, predictions of the future of the climate of the planet, and performing any actions to counteract it, if it's at all possible. Meanwhile, one thing is certain. The US will suffer due to any self-imposed disadvantages and handicaps. And I am not a "science denier", but I do have an open mind and don't believe everything that I read, especially here including the highly opinionated references people present.

Unfortunately both topics have been politicized so much that it's difficult to have a rational discussion across the political spectrum. To me climate science is an easier one to discuss because it is chemistry and physics that drive the science, not politics and economic forces. So that we should be able to debate rationally, but on this site that's definitely not happening. It's unfortunate because it will have a big impact on Chevron's business and employees should be well informed on the topic.

I see the same problem with the discussions of ACA on this site. There are a lot of issues concerning details of ACA that could be improved, but the people on this site who are against it don't seem to want or be able to understand the details. They just want to shout about what a disaster they think it is. The level of discourse from the right on this site is really disheartening, especially since you would think that Chevron employees would be better informed than the general public. As a retiree I find it a bit embarrassing.

Here's an interesting article on what a real climate science debate looks like (not like the phony debates referenced on this site): https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/what-a-real-debate-looks-like-in-climate-science/512444/?utm_source=hpsynfb

@gsvs, you are obviously a Trump supporter, given your irrelevant/useless comments and insults. The comments of @gwmn had nothing to do with supporting ACA or talking about the role that it had in containing costs. But since you're such a genius, how did the ACA affect healthcare inflation and overall coverage of Americans? Please enlighten us with your wisdom.

@gxit, I see the quote you referenced at this site: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

It appears that you completely missed the point of that quote. If the seas were 100 ft higher than they are today, how many coastal cities and towns would be flooded out. What would be the cost of that to society? Humans have thrived in certain climactic environments. Severe disruption to that climate will cause species extinction, mass migration, conflict, deaths and large economic losses. Current climate models show that the business as usual case will result in a global average warming of ~ 7-10 degF by 2100. Is that the type of future we want to go towards?

Also your disdain for climate scientists suggests that we should listen to non-experts to guide our path forward because the experts are biased. By this logic, should we go to our mechanic or accountant for brain surgery because neurosurgeons are biased and have a vested interest in doing brain surgery?

@L370Drz-gwmn, you poor pathetic little Butthurt Baby!!!! I tell you what, loser, we will let you read the bill after we pass it, like Nancy Peloosie recommends!! LOL!! I take it you are one of the few crying wailing snoflakes who made out like bandits because of the ACA and get a low premium because of subsidies paid for by others!!! Nothing's free, cupcake. You remember that. The price of health care didn't "magically decrease" because of Obummer's magic wand. Think about it, if you have half a brain.

On repeal and replacement of Obamacare, Congressional Republicans have been talking about taking up to several years to replace because they don't have a replacement plan ready. Now Trump says they will repeal and replace in quick succession, perhaps on the same day. He has no plan though. In his campaign he said "We have to come up, and we can come up with many different plans. In fact, plans you don’t even know about will be devised because we’re going to come up with plans, — health care plans — that will be so good. And so much less expensive both for the country and for the people. And so much better. With Obamacare, the deductible I don’t know if you’ve seen what’s gone on with the deductible. The deductible’s so high that unless you die a very vicious, horrible, catastrophic death, and it lasts a long time, you’re not going to get to use it because it’s crazy. It’s so high. Again, such a high barrier. We have to come up with a plan, a private plan other than for those that can’t do that."

This guy has no clue what he's doing, but he just committed to something that the Congress doesn't want to do. Elections have consequences and we're all going to pay dearly for the election of this guy.

After the actual educated scientists and engineers make a valid proposition, The liberal nut-job(s) has taken over the thread. They, without citing any valid evidence or sources, have convinced each other ( or one nut-job responding to himself) that he is right, and everyone else is wrong, by huring insults at the opposition. How stereotypically liberal - LOL. There's one thing you can be certain of about these "Climate Scientists" spoken of. They study climate change. Their business, is essentially, "global warming". If there is no alleged so-called hypothetical "global warming", they're basically out of a job. They all agree with one another, for the most part, and they are all directly or indirectly, government funded, for the most part. They have a common belief, the climate is changing, and man is responsible. And if they do not come up with that conclusion, they no longer have funding.

After all "The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now." Just a hint. Use your own judgement.

-fkrl Yes, thank you, now please get back to kindergarten. When you graduate you could be a Trumplador inductee with clear executive branch potential.

-fxdg. You did not really think you were going to have an informed rational discussion with a Trumplador about science did you? That is really not what they are about. Now about that moon landing hoax ....

@fxdg, amen to that. It's just empty words, no genuine interest in learning anything or having any serious discussion.

@fdxi, you got no substance, why? If your points are so clear in your mind, then back them up with data or rational argument. Or are you only able to criticize others and not form a coherent argument of your own?

Don't you worry, if it gets too hot there is always Trump's golden shower.... again.

So some avid Googler's below have found some evidence to reinforce their own beliefs after searching frantically for evidence to reinforce their own beliefs? Imagine that!

Ya and it is completely dark outside here in Houston right now so the sun might have gone out anyway... and, if so, it could start getting very very cold and you will wish you had more global warming.

Show me your papers. Your rolling papers.

Party on the Titanic ... and the band plays on!

Human activity causing global warming is a joke and a hoax. Chevron employees who believe it are a joke and a hoax. PMP reviews and rankings are a joke and a hoax. The ACA is a joke and a hoax. Why does any of it matter and who really cares? What matters are pretty girls with skimpy clothes, good weed, happy hour drinks and free buffets.

There is still an opportunity to avoid the worst effects of climate change, but the window of opportunity is closing the more we delay. Some good work on deep decarbonization pathways for the United States are described in this report: http://usddpp.org/downloads/2014-technical-report.pdf

I'm not real interested in problems beyond my control. Focus on things you can control.

The references provides are a good opportunity to learn about an important issue.

The story of Richard Muller's 'conversion' is important, because he is a serious scientist who analyzed the data to draw his own conclusions. A recent paper entitled 'Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming' confirms that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activities are driving global warming. The paper is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

@egav, the 'conversion' of Richard Muller is significant, because he is a serious scientist who studied the data and came to his own conclusion. There are very few scientists who don't believe in GHG emissions causing global warming. Here is a recent paper that confirms the consensus among 97% of climate scientists that human-caused climate change is happening (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf).

The original consensus figure was reported 16 years earlier.

@eere, here is data from the National Academy of Sciences for CO2 vs. Temperature: https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/evidence-impacts-and-choices-figure-gallery/figure-14/

The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is ~ 405 ppm.

If you have reliable science to dispute these findings, then we'd be all ears. The National Academy is the top science organization in the world.

Well, from what you guys are implying the ACA has (sort of) tackled one aspect of the universal health care concept , but not the other. They have opened the door to those without insurance, who cannot afford it, to get health care/insurance, but they have not lowered the overall costs/charges by the industry of providers. Good luck with that. It was easy to get the first part done, Just get the people who made the proper decisions in life, prepared for their future, and understand that nothing is free and everyone has to contribute and work for a living, to pay for the ones who do not and did not. In other words, get the haves to pay for the have-nots.

I would be perfectly happy if everyone has to pay their own way, or they simply do not receive the services that they do not pay for, but that's just me. And that's apparently not the definition of "Universal Health Care" that the libs always tout that is supposed to be so great. I think these programs fall into the same category as Unions. They are great for the below average and bottom level workers, but bad for the above average and those who want to excel and do more with themselves. It's exactly the difference between America and a communist country and the reason that our ancestors fought world wars. To maintain our freedoms of choice and all that is America. I'm willing to pay more for that. I have lived in Denmark for many years, with universal heath care, and like the USA version better. You guys don't know how good you've got it. Thanks for reading.

@dnsd, Please cite only your non-partisan, non-left-wing nutjob, non agenda-driven, and non-government sponsored sources on your alleged hypothesis of GHG emission's effect on the climate and feel free to toss in some actual statistics of the levels today vs the levels during previous warming periods like the end of the Pleistocene. We're all ears and I'm sure many would like to entertain your hypotheses.

The Ryan plan would "give" everyone the same amount: about $2750, or the typical co-pay spent by workers that already have employer provided health care. He suggests that this would be enough to buy catastrophic coverage, and then individuals could add to that start for more complete coverage (if they had the money). He hints that maybe old folks (those who currently enjoy nearly completed medicare coverage) might get a bit bigger amount (I think anticipating the sh** storm from AARP and the like). He suggest that any price restriction would go against free enterprise (although he does not specifically address re-importing of drugs). He would leave it to the states to provide indigent care (poor who topped out their savings). The whole thing would be paid for by taxing coverage currently provided by employers (moneys that are currently paid to workers pre-tax). So basically for those with employer provided health care, the new federal subsidy would more or less just offset the new tax. Read it for your self http://paulryan.house.gov/healthcare/ The word on the street is the Ryan plan is the starting point for the new Trump plan, although I doubt he has the balls hold that hard of a line.