Let's not devolve this discussion into Liberal vs Conservative. Stick to the facts, okay?
I’m well aware that with Paris looming it’s time to be hopeful, and I’m willing to try. Even amid the record heat and flooding of the present, there are good signs for the future in the rising climate movement and the falling cost of solar.
But before we get to past and present there’s some past to be reckoned with, and before we get to hope there’s some deep, blood-red anger.
In the last three weeks, two separate teams of journalists — the Pulitzer-prize winning reporters at the website Inside Climate News and another crew composed of Los Angeles Times veterans and up-and-comers at the Columbia Journalism School — have begun publishing the results of a pair of independent investigations into ExxonMobil.
Though they draw on completely different archives, leaked documents, and interviews with ex-employees, they reach the same damning conclusion: Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.
To be specific:
By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”
But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.
They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.
To understand the treachery – the sheer, profound, and I think unparalleled evil – of Exxon, one must remember the timing. Global warming became a public topic in 1988, thanks to Nasa scientist James Hansen – it’s taken a quarter-century and counting for the world to take effective action. If at any point in that journey Exxon – largest oil company on Earth, most profitable enterprise in human history – had said: “Our own research shows that these scientists are right and that we are in a dangerous place,” the faux debate would effectively have ended. That’s all it would have taken; stripped of the cover provided by doubt, humanity would have gotten to work.
Instead, knowingly, they helped organise the most consequential lie in human history, and kept that lie going past the point where we can protect the poles, prevent the acidification of the oceans, or slow sea level rise enough to save the most vulnerable regions and cultures. Businesses misbehave all the time, but VW is the flea to Exxon’s elephant. No corporation has ever done anything this big and this bad.
I’m aware that anger at this point does little good. I’m aware that all clever people will say “of course they did” or “we all use fossil fuels”, as if either claim is meaningful. I’m aware that nothing much will happen to Exxon – I doubt they’ll be tried in court, or their executives sent to jail.
But nonetheless it seems crucial simply to say, for the record, the truth: this company had the singular capacity to change the course of world history for the better and instead it changed that course for the infinitely worse. In its greed Exxon helped — more than any other institution — to kill our planet.
So an oil companies own scientist knew that man made climate change was real.
It'll be interesting reading people on the board (read: Erik and Arch) attempt to spin this one.
Sounds a lot like the tobacco companies before the big exposé on them, and also the same thing with lead based paint; learned about the lead thing from Cosmos.
I was genuinely interested in this before I saw the "source" was the Guardian- likely the most bias enviro-rag that has ever been printed. They cherry pick quotes, don;t cite sources properly and sometimes just outright lie.
While I'd be interested in the actual case, I take anything printed from the Guardian with a grain of salt. I'll do a little googling on this for sure and try to find info presented from a less bias outlet.
*Sigh*
Scientific studies by Exxon, an actual huge oil company, projected what is now happening.
it pretty much boils down to this.
companies know the real, but it's about the bottom line. people so concerned with jobs, but don't even realize there won't be anything to work for if we keep going down this path of destroying our environment. instead of transitioning people into new jobs for alternative energy, so there's minimum to no job loss, they instead just whine about the job loss as if there's no alternatives out there. at all. none.
we fight wars over oil. we enter religious wars over the thought of getting more oil.
cause you know. jobs. sorry dude i'm baked, just ranting.
Here's a more balanced piece. Still slams Exxon pretty good but from a far more objective outlet.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.
Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.
In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.
But ExxonMobil disagrees that any of its early statements were so stark, let alone conclusive at all. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”
One thing is certain: in June 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming, Exxon remained publicly convinced that the science was still controversial. Furthermore, experts agree that Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.
But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”
see also:
Health: General Anesthesia Causes No Cognitive Deficit in Infants | Mind: Rise of the Microglia | Tech: Back to the Future, Part II Predicted Techno-Marvels of October 21, 2015 | The Sciences: Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”
Experts agree that the damage is huge, which is why they are likening Exxon’s deception to the lies spread by the tobacco industry. “I think there are a lot of parallels,” Kimmell says. Both sowed doubt about the science for their own means, and both worked with the same consultants to help develop a communications strategy. He notes, however, that the two diverge in the type of harm done. Tobacco companies threatened human health, but the oil companies threatened the planet’s health. “It’s a harm that is global in its reach,” Kimmel says.
To prove this, Bob Ward—who on behalf of the U.K.’s Royal Academy sent a letter to Exxon in 2006 claiming its science was “inaccurate and misleading”—thinks a thorough investigation is necessary. “Because frankly the episode with tobacco was probably the most disgraceful episode one could ever imagine,” Ward says. Kimmell agrees. These reasons “really highlight the responsibility that these companies have to come clean, acknowledge this, and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost we're going to bear as soon as possible,” Kimmell says.
It doesn’t appear, however, that Kimmell will get his retribution. Jeffers claims the investigation’s finds are “just patently untrue, misleading, and we reject them completely”—words that match Ward’s claims against them nearly a decade ago.
I posted the scientific american article. Not sure what you mean by "classic line"
How does this article address the fact that, according to science, the earth has warmed and cooled constantly over the millions of years? Oh - it doesn't address that.
The first paragraph says it all. Let me highlight the key: " and the falling cost of solar".
I'll have to look into solar energy again. Last time I did, the payback period was about what wind power was: Never.
lol see what i mean? dude tried spinning this so hard.
we already know the earth has cool and heated millions of years ago. you're not enlightening anybody, you're stating the obvious.
but you're pretty much going "eh, it's already happening so we might as well make it worse"
"girl is already drunk, might as well bring her back to my place"
"everybody jumped off the bridge, i might as well too"
"already got flashed by the cam, might as well keep speeding past the next one".
you understand how ridiculous your argument is, right?
I'm not saying that oil companies haven't potentially acted unethically. I'm just saying that the Guardian is so rampantly bias that I never depend on them as sole source.
Oil companies (and more importantly their products) emit a load of CO2....makes sense that they'd study the levels of it. Now the question is do they have a moral obligation to tell people that CO2 may contribute to global warming? I'm not really sure....I could definitely say that the data available in the 80s was nowhere as near as advanced as it is now. But could Exxon have made an impact by advancing an environmental argument 10 to 15 years before it really started to land on the radar. Absolutely. They are certainly not our enviro-knights in white armor.
Exxon scientists flat out said "this rate of drilling and using petroleum products could rise the global temperature". Lo and behold what they predicted, based on forecast predictions of petroleum use and drilling, actually happened.
What you're saying Arch is kind of like Tobacco companies saying "We've always had cancer. Our products, despite a prevalent use over the past decades, by no way shape or form contribute to growing cancer rates."
People impact the environment through burning fossil fuels. No doubt about that.
However, if we're looking to blame people, let's blame ourselves first and foremost. We're the ones looking for cheap energy and consumer goods and global trade etc etc etc.
By the by, using solar as an argument against oil is ridiculous. Solar is used almost exclusively for power generation whereas oil's primary purpose is transportation fuels. Solar advancements don't do a freaking lick of good when talking about oil dependency.
This is an interesting piece on it as well. Talking about where the government could legally go after Exxon. Super interesting.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-investigation-exxonmobil-20151015-story.htmlMembers of Congress are asking for a federal investigation into Exxon Mobil.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Los Angeles) and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Walnut Creek) wrote a letter Wednesday to Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch asking the Department of Justice whether the company violated the law by “failing to disclose truthful information” regarding climate change.
The letter cites recent investigations by the Los Angeles Times, Columbia University’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project, and Inside Climate News, which showed the company incorporated climate change research into its operations while publicly casting doubt on that very same science.
“When I read the Times investigation it occurred to me that it is very similar to what the tobacco companies were doing decades ago,” Lieu said. “Evidence showed that what they were saying was incorrect and they kept spreading this disinformation campaign.”
“We unequivocally reject allegations contained in the letter to Atty. Gen. Lynch from Reps. Lieu and DeSaulnier,” said Richard Keil, a spokesman for Exxon. “Suggestions that ExxonMobil suppressed its climate research are completely without merit.”
What Exxon knew about global warming's impact on the Arctic
What Exxon knew about global warming's impact on the Arctic
The congressmen are asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether Exxon violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, as well as consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection or other laws.
RICO was the same law used to prosecute tobacco companies, which allows a company’s higher-ups to be held responsible for the actions of those they supervise.
“Exxon’s situation is even worse,” said Lieu, comparing the company’s behavior with the tobacco industry. “It was taking advantage of the science … while denying the facts to the public.”
See the most-read stories this hour >>
David Levy, a management and marketing professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, agreed. “What has come out now is the clear evidence that they [Exxon] knew about it.”
“If these allegations against Exxon are true, then Exxon’s actions were immoral,” Lieu and DeSaulnier wrote in the letter. “We request the [Department of Justice] investigate whether ExxonMobil’s actions were also illegal.”
Representatives for the Department of Justice could not be reached for comment.
they should. and that's my problem when it comes to politics. we act like companies shouldn't be regulated, but this one of the top damning reasons for regulation.
companies should have a moral obligation to release information that can impact humanity greatly. the fact that this should even be a question shows how pathetic our ethics are as a nation.
and what's worse, any company that broke this news first, then tried to be the white knight and be the leader in alternative energy could've potentially make billions more than what they're doing now, as they would have a lock down on both sides of energy sources.
but it's all about the status quo. nobody wants to be innovative anymore.
People impact the environment through burning fossil fuels. No doubt about that.
However, if we're looking to blame people, let's blame ourselves first and foremost. We're the ones looking for cheap energy and consumer goods and global trade etc etc etc.
By the by, using solar as an argument against oil is ridiculous. Solar is used almost exclusively for power generation whereas oil's primary purpose is transportation fuels. Solar advancements don't do a freaking lick of good when talking about oil dependency.
i agree. everybody is at fault here. companies provide what the consumer demands. its a vicious circle.
but like anything else, eventually the new tech and different companies would've found a way to make the equipment cheaper.
look at Tesla. The electric cars weren't really affordable when they first dropped. now, it's cheaper because they've been in the game a while to figure out how to get cheaper cost without sacrificing performance.
No, I don't understand, nor do I think my statements are ridiculous. If you feel that way, get off the internet until you have your own power production system in place.
Turn your a/c off. Deal with the heat. Turn your heat off, deal with the cold.
Yeah, like I said, and you agreed - the earth has warmed and cooled over millions of years. What we are doing is not affecting other than a minor percentage.
I'm not saying "waste", but I damn sure am saying we don't (humans) affect the global warming OR cooling like some people think.
I eagerly await Tesla's dominance over the auto industry.
we shouldn't be affecting it at all. that's kinda the entire point, Arch.
but continue on with your extreme post.
People impact the environment through burning fossil fuels. No doubt about that.
However, if we're looking to blame people, let's blame ourselves first and foremost. We're the ones looking for cheap energy and consumer goods and global trade etc etc etc.
By the by, using solar as an argument against oil is ridiculous. Solar is used almost exclusively for power generation whereas oil's primary purpose is transportation fuels. Solar advancements don't do a freaking lick of good when talking about oil dependency.
i agree. everybody is at fault here. companies provide what the consumer demands. its a vicious circle.
but like anything else, eventually the new tech and different companies would've found a way to make the equipment cheaper.
look at Tesla. The electric cars weren't really affordable when they first dropped. now, it's cheaper because they've been in the game a while to figure out how to get cheaper cost without sacrificing performance.
Love what Tesla is doing but the tech still isn't there to be affordable by many. Just looked on the Tesla site and the Model S- which looks to be their new sedan model- comes in a 93K (granted thats Canadian- so more like 70K US). Not many folks can afford that easily.
More concerning is that lack of infrastructure available to support it. Anyone have a fast charging station near them? Anyone?
It's the way of the future but the world still needs to run in the meantime.
How exactly are we affecting it? Every doom and gloom global warming alarmist prediction has never happened.
we shouldn't be affecting it at all. that's kinda the entire point, Arch.
but continue on with your extreme post.
Humans will always affect things. There is no action without reaction.
did you not read the article. like...at all?
electric pumps are being built more and more. hell even Walmart has them here in clevland (South Euclid suburb)
stuff like this takes time. people wanna complain about this generation wanting instant gratification, yet somehow expect this stuff to be instant.
sure, we affect things, but a 2-3C swing is ridiculous.
Their new consumer model will be 32k with a write off that will bring it down to around 25-29k. That should come out around 2018.
Exactly the point dear Swisher.... we need to realize that the switch away from carbon based fuels will NOT be instant. So let's put some equal energy into making carbon based energy LESS impactful while also driving towards making renewable energies more efficient.
thats cool. i guess my point is bro is that...if we started 40 years ago when we knew about it, i wonder where we would be right now.
we shouldn't be affecting it at all. that's kinda the entire point, Arch.
but continue on with your extreme post.
My "extreme" post. ??? Really?
Their new consumer model will be 32k with a write off that will bring it down to around 25-29k. That should come out around 2018.
Good to know and I'd certainly be interested. But still unattainable for many. It will be a generation before we get rid of gasoline for private vehicles and even more before we do away with diesel and other fuels for commerical and industrial transport.
thats cool. i guess my point is bro is that...if we started 40 years ago when we knew about it, i wonder where we would be right now.
Impossible to know....although I'd like to think that legislation in different countries would at least be a little farther along.
thats cool. i guess my point is bro is that...if we started 40 years ago when we knew about it, i wonder where we would be right now.
40 years ago this year, catalytic converters were made mandatory on all cars. They were designed to reduce pollution, acid rain, and improve air quality, while reducing threats to the ozone layer.
This resulted in a reduction in CO, VOCs, and NOx, but caused an increase in CO2 and H2O. (each now determined to be a greenhouse gas)
We are going to perpetually have to balance the needs of people against environmental concerns for as long as we generate power and operate transportation. Everything has a cost as well as a benefit. Wind turbines kill tons of birds. Solar panels have huge environmental concerns as far as their manufacture and transportation. Batteries used in electric vehicles have disposal concerns. We use compact fluorescent bulbs, and they contain mercury and much never be thrown into the trash. All advances have concerns that go along with them.We need to balance the cost/benefit, and also continue to look for new solution as we find problems with the current and developing technologies.
Unfortunately, many time a solution that looks perfectly fine on a limited deployment winds up causing unforeseen damages to the environment when rolled out in massive numbers.
I have often wondered why, if H2O is such a huge concern with regards to automobiles, why we cannot capture that water vapor and simply pour it down the drain instead of allowing it to escape into the atmosphere. Why can't we find an extra catalyst that breaks CO2 into carbon and O2, that could safely be released into the atmosphere along with nitrogen. Must not be a big enough market for it, even with billions of cars on roads worldwide.
So an oil companies own scientist knew that man made climate change was real.
It'll be interesting reading people on the board (read: Erik and Arch) attempt to spin this one.
No need to spin, as I have history on my side. Climate change has happened since the earth was formed. The 'man made' part is complete conjecture, as climate science is relatively new.
The satellite that measures sea ice has only been in orbit for 35 years. Sea ice has been growing since 2012, and will continue for many years.
Arctic ice The Antarctic ice sheet reached all time highs, since we started recording it, this year.
Antarctic ice All of the AGW 'scientists' will tell you that glaciers are shrinking all over the world, but here's a site that lists those that are growing.
Glaciers Temperatures have been warmer in the past 10,000 years than today.
Let's also not forget that during the last warm period, about 1100AD, exploration of the world increased, Vikings were able to farm in Greenland (hence the green name), and populations grew the world over. In the 1300s, when the world got colder, there were great pestilences like the Black Death and Plague, crops failed, and war became more frequent.
I'd rater have warm. People thrive in warmth and die in cold. History shows that time and time again.
The other thing to think about is if we stop drilling for oil, what will we use to replace everything that is made of plastic?
The other thing to think about is if we stop drilling for oil, what will we use to replace everything that is made of plastic?
We should be growing hemp.
The other thing to think about is if we stop drilling for oil, what will we use to replace everything that is made of plastic?
We should be growing hemp.
Hemp can be made into plastic? Will I fail a drug test if my PS3 controller is made of it?
People impact the environment through burning fossil fuels. No doubt about that.
However, if we're looking to blame people, let's blame ourselves first and foremost. We're the ones looking for cheap energy and consumer goods and global trade etc etc etc.
By the by, using solar as an argument against oil is ridiculous. Solar is used almost exclusively for power generation whereas oil's primary purpose is transportation fuels. Solar advancements don't do a freaking lick of good when talking about oil dependency.
Bingo!!!
People want to blame oil companies, and other sources, but never want to look at themselves and realize THEY are the reason those companies exist.
So what if Exxon knew. We've all known for years, yet most of us continue doing the same thing we always have, using the same energy, buying the same oil based products we always have.
yup...
yup...
What does that even mean?
Most of those kayakers probably brought them to the demonstration in their trucks and SUVs.
The other thing to think about is if we stop drilling for oil, what will we use to replace everything that is made of plastic?
We should be growing hemp.
Hemp can be made into plastic? Will I fail a drug test if my PS3 controller is made of it?
Really? My hope was that you made this comment in jest.
Yes. Hemp oil can be used to make plastics. It can also be used as cooking oil. Hemp can be made into cosmetics, clothing, paper, and other useful products. And no none of it will get you high. Nor could the hemp plant itself.
The other thing to think about is if we stop drilling for oil, what will we use to replace everything that is made of plastic?
The real question to ask is who profits from this agw nonsense. If you recall, Gore and one if his partners, who I believe is named Blood, started the Carbon Credit Exchange in Chicago (in elpresidente`s home town, no less). Blood and Gore were the biggest owners in both carbon credits, and hedges against carbon credits. Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that the guy pushing agw is the one that stands to make the most profit from it?
Blood and Gore
The other thing to think about is if we stop drilling for oil, what will we use to replace everything that is made of plastic?
We should be growing hemp.
Hemp can be made into plastic? Will I fail a drug test if my PS3 controller is made of it?
Really? My hope was that you made this comment in jest.
Yes. Hemp oil can be used to make plastics. It can also be cooked with. hemp can be made into clothing, paper, and other useful products. And no none of it will get you high. Nor could the hemp plant itself.
The first half was a genuine question, I'm not a chemist! Of course the second half was in jest! Hence the damn smiley face! jeez!
I'm assuming he's showing this as they are protesting the oil rig while kayaking to it using their oil based byproduct kayaks and paddles.
I'm assuming he's showing this as they are protesting the oil rig while kayaking to it using their oil based byproduct kayaks and paddles.
The real question to ask is who profits from this agw nonsense. If you recall, Gore and one if his partners, who I believe is named Blood, started the Carbon Credit Exchange in Chicago (in elpresidente`s home town, no less). Blood and Gore were the biggest owners in both carbon credits, and hedges against carbon credits. Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that the guy pushing agw is the one that stands to make the most profit from it?
Blood and Gore Carbon credits is trying to lose weight by having your best friend skip a meal after you ate a six pack of donuts.
Let's not devolve this discussion into Liberal vs Conservative. Stick to the facts, okay?
I’m well aware that with Paris looming it’s time to be hopeful, and I’m willing to try. Even amid the record heat and flooding of the present, there are good signs for the future in the rising climate movement and the falling cost of solar.
But before we get to past and present there’s some past to be reckoned with, and before we get to hope there’s some deep, blood-red anger.
In the last three weeks, two separate teams of journalists — the Pulitzer-prize winning reporters at the website Inside Climate News and another crew composed of Los Angeles Times veterans and up-and-comers at the Columbia Journalism School — have begun publishing the results of a pair of independent investigations into ExxonMobil.
Though they draw on completely different archives, leaked documents, and interviews with ex-employees, they reach the same damning conclusion: Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.
To be specific:
By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”
But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.
They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.
To understand the treachery – the sheer, profound, and I think unparalleled evil – of Exxon, one must remember the timing. Global warming became a public topic in 1988, thanks to Nasa scientist James Hansen – it’s taken a quarter-century and counting for the world to take effective action. If at any point in that journey Exxon – largest oil company on Earth, most profitable enterprise in human history – had said: “Our own research shows that these scientists are right and that we are in a dangerous place,” the faux debate would effectively have ended. That’s all it would have taken; stripped of the cover provided by doubt, humanity would have gotten to work.
Instead, knowingly, they helped organise the most consequential lie in human history, and kept that lie going past the point where we can protect the poles, prevent the acidification of the oceans, or slow sea level rise enough to save the most vulnerable regions and cultures. Businesses misbehave all the time, but VW is the flea to Exxon’s elephant. No corporation has ever done anything this big and this bad.
I’m aware that anger at this point does little good. I’m aware that all clever people will say “of course they did” or “we all use fossil fuels”, as if either claim is meaningful. I’m aware that nothing much will happen to Exxon – I doubt they’ll be tried in court, or their executives sent to jail.
But nonetheless it seems crucial simply to say, for the record, the truth: this company had the singular capacity to change the course of world history for the better and instead it changed that course for the infinitely worse. In its greed Exxon helped — more than any other institution — to kill our planet.
Before I read any further, what does it look like today?
Isn't it essentially saying the same thing?
Exxon knew and denied it and still denies it. Isn't it really that simple?
We had cars that got 80 miles per gallon almost 60-80 years ago. We have engines right now that use magnetic engines that use zero fuel. The problem has never been the tech but the fact that the oil companies assassinate anyone who threatens their cash cow.
Let's not devolve this discussion into Liberal vs Conservative. Stick to the facts, okay?
I’m well aware that with Paris looming it’s time to be hopeful, and I’m willing to try. Even amid the record heat and flooding of the present, there are good signs for the future in the rising climate movement and the falling cost of solar.
But before we get to past and present there’s some past to be reckoned with, and before we get to hope there’s some deep, blood-red anger.
In the last three weeks, two separate teams of journalists — the Pulitzer-prize winning reporters at the website Inside Climate News and another crew composed of Los Angeles Times veterans and up-and-comers at the Columbia Journalism School — have begun publishing the results of a pair of independent investigations into ExxonMobil.
Though they draw on completely different archives, leaked documents, and interviews with ex-employees, they reach the same damning conclusion: Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.
To be specific:
By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”
But of course Exxon did dispute that fact. Not inside the company, where they used their knowledge to buy oil leases in the areas they knew would melt, but outside, where they used their political and financial might to make sure no one took climate change seriously.
They helped organise campaigns designed to instil doubt, borrowing tactics and personnel from the tobacco industry’s similar fight. They funded “institutes” devoted to outright climate denial. And at the highest levels they did all they could to spread their lies.
To understand the treachery – the sheer, profound, and I think unparalleled evil – of Exxon, one must remember the timing. Global warming became a public topic in 1988, thanks to Nasa scientist James Hansen – it’s taken a quarter-century and counting for the world to take effective action. If at any point in that journey Exxon – largest oil company on Earth, most profitable enterprise in human history – had said: “Our own research shows that these scientists are right and that we are in a dangerous place,” the faux debate would effectively have ended. That’s all it would have taken; stripped of the cover provided by doubt, humanity would have gotten to work.
Instead, knowingly, they helped organise the most consequential lie in human history, and kept that lie going past the point where we can protect the poles, prevent the acidification of the oceans, or slow sea level rise enough to save the most vulnerable regions and cultures. Businesses misbehave all the time, but VW is the flea to Exxon’s elephant. No corporation has ever done anything this big and this bad.
I’m aware that anger at this point does little good. I’m aware that all clever people will say “of course they did” or “we all use fossil fuels”, as if either claim is meaningful. I’m aware that nothing much will happen to Exxon – I doubt they’ll be tried in court, or their executives sent to jail.
But nonetheless it seems crucial simply to say, for the record, the truth: this company had the singular capacity to change the course of world history for the better and instead it changed that course for the infinitely worse. In its greed Exxon helped — more than any other institution — to kill our planet.
Before I read any further, what does it look like today?
it's actually grown back a lot. Seems like 2012 was the worst year but that in the last few years it is growing back rapidly.
http://opentheword.org/2015/06/02/arctic-ice-cap-is-roaring-back/http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It's another ICE AGE! Run for the hills...
Maybe that should be caves..
Man has trashed this planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They use the word "capitalism" as an excuse to do this. All the while, try to use claims that man isn't contributing to the mess of our water, air and climate.
It saddens me that people uphold raw capitalism as an excuse to mistreat workers and our environment, while trying to ignore any responsibility for it.
You can't keep throwing trash in your back yard then claim you have no responsibility for the stench that will surely ensue.
Well once again we have what I would call a Rant by RocketOptimist.
Once again the Rant is full of holes.
So, lets ask Exxon about all this...
More climate history distortion
Once again, the Los Angeles Times has published a story by a team from Columbia University distorting ExxonMobil’s history of climate research by the paper’s selective, out-of-context use of publicly available company documents.
Before getting to the blatant misstatements – and errors – included in this latest offering, a few important points. First, our company continues to recognize that climate risks are real and responsible actions are warranted. In view of the monumental scale of the world’s need for energy, solutions are not easy – they will require time, huge investments, and thoughtful policies. This is what should have been the focus of the Columbia/Los Angeles Times team and by InsideClimate News, which has produced similar stories recently.
Read it all at...
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/26/more-climate-history-distortion/
Man has trashed this planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution. They use the word "capitalism" as an excuse to do this. All the while, try to use claims that man isn't contributing to the mess of our water, air and climate.
It saddens me that people uphold raw capitalism as an excuse to mistreat workers and our environment, while trying to ignore any responsibility for it.
You can't keep throwing trash in your back yard then claim you have no responsibility for the stench that will surely ensue.
And the commies never polluted, huh?
http://www1.american.edu/ted/URAL.HTM I think you'd find the soviet and chicom pollution of their part of the planet is far worse, as they don't answer to their people.
Glad to know I can always rely on throwing you into a fit of cognitive dissonance, 40.
My job, as evidenced by all the arguing over small semantics in this thread, is accomplished. We're talking about actual facts, and not mudslinging liberal vs. conservative tomfoolery.
Good work to y'all!
My advice is for you to rant less and fact more.
This is why no one can truly figure out what is going on with Global Warming, to much Politics.
My advice is for you to rant less and fact more.
This is why no one can truly figure out what is going on with Global Warming, to much Politics.
Actually there are a whole lot of people who know what is going on with global warming. The politics comes from those who disagree with what the scientists know.
My advice is for you to rant less and fact more.
This is why no one can truly figure out what is going on with Global Warming, to much Politics.
Actually there are a whole lot of people who know what is going on with global warming. The politics comes from those who disagree with what the scientists know.
Wrong. The politics are everything. If they weren't, then why is almost the whole democrat party behind agw? It has been shown many times that numbers have been manipulated by 'scientists' that want to believe agw. Even the creator of Greenpeace left his organization, as he said it was infiltrated by former communists that were pushing a climate agenda. This is an investment scam, or do you believe that al gore is pushing his climate change stuff for humanitarian purposes. He is one of the largest owners of carbon credits. They are going to screw everyone so the can sell air.
What about the study by Exxon's own scientists as shown in the first post of this very thread. Their predictions are proven right by cold hard measured facts.
There was little political brouhaha about this back in the 70s.
I actually never try to use the excuse that just because someone else is doing the wrong thing, it makes it perfectly fine for me to do it as well.
My advice is for you to rant less and fact more.
This is why no one can truly figure out what is going on with Global Warming, to much Politics.
Actually there are a whole lot of people who know what is going on with global warming. The politics comes from those who disagree with what the scientists know.
You have not investigated how our Government fudges the numbers by supporting those scientists who agree with the agenda and cutting off those who disagree. Each time they poll the scientists that are still working, they get a higher percentage of supporters.
The Truth will set you free.
I actually never try to use the excuse that just because someone else is doing the wrong thing, it makes it perfectly fine for me to do it as well.
Replying to you and rocket.
Temps have not gone up 2-3 degrees C since 1900. It's only been about .8 degrees F. 2-3 degrees C would be 4-7 degrees F.
Check out the weather station audit, which shows how the data was collected for agw studies.
Link 1 http://www.surfacestations.org/ Doing the wrong thing means your data is incorrect, and you are selling people a lie. Data has been manipulated, weather stations have been proven to be located next to AC systems, on concrete, and in metal shacks.
To top it off, ice is growing in both the north and south poles, glaciers are growing all over the world. Yes, some recede, but others grow. The climate is changing because that is what it does.
What about other predictions? Have we had more violent and more storms? We haven't had a hurricane make landfall in the US since 2005. The ice caps are not gone, as had been predicted. The temps have not risen 2 degrees C as predicted. The computer models have never matched up with the real weather. The 'science' is faulty.
What about the study by Exxon's own scientists as shown in the first post of this very thread. Their predictions are proven right by cold hard measured facts.
There was little political brouhaha about this back in the 70s.
I do believe if you check the cold hard measured facts from the early 70's, most scientists were warning of Global Cooling! Some were suggesting the spreading of coal dust on the poles to help warm the earth!
Exxon's scientists were saying hold on a minute, lets check this further.
You have me confused with others. I'm not really on a side here in regards to climate change.
My point is man can't keep using greed as an excuse to keep polluting our planet. We all know that for each reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
We simply can't keep up constantly polluting our air, water and environment and expect that there will be no consequences. There most certainly will be.
Beyond that, I really have no opinion on the topic. To claim you can just continue trashing the planet and nothing will happen seems an absurd idea to me.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
You have me confused with others. I'm not really on a side here in regards to climate change.
My point is man can't keep using greed as an excuse to keep polluting our planet. We all know that for each reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
We simply can't keep up constantly polluting our air, water and environment and expect that there will be no consequences. There most certainly will be.
Beyond that, I really have no opinion on the topic. To claim you can just continue trashing the planet and nothing will happen seems an absurd idea to me.
I have said many times that we should be good stewards of the planet, but I do not want to sit in a dark, cold room because the government taxes energy out of affordability. You know, like they're doing with health care.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
Good luck. Obstructionist politics, along with a faulty SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United, keep us in our current mess.
Good luck. Obstructionist politics, along with a faulty SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United, keep us in our current mess.
I'm not going to argue your point, but as long as we keep pointing fingers at each other instead of start looking for some middle ground in this country, nothing will ever get better.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
?? What? We're cleaner now than we've ever been.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
We got rid of chloral floral carbons what more do the tree huggers want?
More cars on the road=more overall pollution in the atmosphere.
More cars=more natural gas production.
More natural gas production=more harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere.
More harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere=heat trapped in the atmosphere
Heat trapped in atmosphere=changing ocean current, permafrost melting at alarming rates in the arctic, etc
Changing ocean current, permafrost melting at alarming rates in the arctic, historic levels of change=man made climate change.
Man made climate change=humans polluting the world.
I'm not really on a side here in regards to climate change.
Beyond that, I really have no opinion on the topic.
My Man!
And it's been fighting and scratching all the way to make that happen.
I'm not as left leaning as many are. I'm not for suddenly trying to make a change from fossil fuels. But solar is getting cheaper and wind power makes sense.
We need to make a change to those energy sources in a way that works over time that works economically for everyone.
Fighting that change is going nowhere and keeps us dependent on the middle east. I'm tired of watching kids die over there because we fight amongst ourselves about moving forward without a solid energy plan.
I'm not surprised you take the guts out of a post to try and make a point that isn't there. People can plainly see what you do.
I'm not surprised you take the guts out of a post to try and make a point that isn't there. People can plainly see what you do.
Ahh, relax already.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
We got rid of chloral floral carbons what more do the tree huggers want?
For all of us to live in sod huts with thatched roof, and to farm for our masters.
You know. Serfing.
And it's been fighting and scratching all the way to make that happen.
I'm not as left leaning as many are. I'm not for suddenly trying to make a change from fossil fuels. But solar is getting cheaper and wind power makes sense.
We need to make a change to those energy sources in a way that works over time that works economically for everyone.
Fighting that change is going nowhere and keeps us dependent on the middle east. I'm tired of watching kids die over there because we fight amongst ourselves about moving forward without a solid energy plan.
No alternative fuel, none, give the same bang for the buck as fossil fuels. The electric batteries they put in cars are some of the most toxic things ever created. No oil, no plastics. Most medical devices that make things safer would have to go away. No solar panels without oil. No new carbon based materials for lighter, cheaper, safer cars.
Someone had better hurry up and invent that fairy dust, or we all will eventually be in those sod houses if the agw believers win this battle.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
We got rid of chloral floral carbons what more do the tree huggers want?
For all of us to live in sod huts with thatched roof, and to farm for our masters.
You know. Serfing.
If things were left to the left, the terrorists would have crashed them planes into the Twin Teepee's!
And it's been fighting and scratching all the way to make that happen.
Yup. And rightly so. Glad for the progress we're making though.
I'm not as left leaning as many are. I'm not for suddenly trying to make a change from fossil fuels. But solar is getting cheaper and wind power makes sense.
Yup. If you're a gov't. agency it makes sense. After all, they don't pay for the panels and wind turbines. I do understand, that's part of making progress, though.
We need to make a change to those energy sources in a way that works over time that works economically for everyone.
Care to spend a day with me? From my house, I can see 2 wind turbines. One is at the school. Paid for by? Us.
The other is basically in my back yard. Couple hundred of yards away, paid for by the guy that owns the company (and partly by the state). When that guy put the turbine in, he was told it would pay for itself within 3-4 years. It's been there about 7 years, and he hasn't recouped his money yet. Truthfully, he probably never will due to the scheduled "re-builds" of the generator. Oh well, he only spent about $400,000 of his own money on it.
Let's take a drive about 40 miles south of me. There, we'll see a wind turbine "farm". 150? 200 wind turbines. They look wonderful. Half of them even work.
Bowling Green Ohio, they have 5, maybe 6 wind turbines. Enough to generate enough electricity for the city - they were told. Nope.
Let's drive north. North of Alma, Michigan. I don't have a clue as to how many wind turbines they have there - it's a lot. Half of them work.
And you know what? The cost of power hasn't gone down, it's gone up. All this "free" power, and the cost goes up.
Electric companies are able to raise their rates due to reduced usage........well, they have to pay their employees, right?
All the money gov't. spends on solar and wind (ever hear about the solar companies that got millions from the federal gov't, then went out of business?), yet the costs go up?
And while we're doing all this, China, India, many countries, are just polluting away.
I suppose I should just pay Al Gore to plant a tree for me, so he can give me a carbon credit. And he can pocket the money.
We had cars that got 80 miles per gallon almost 60-80 years ago. We have engines right now that use magnetic engines that use zero fuel. The problem has never been the tech but the fact that the oil companies assassinate anyone who threatens their cash cow.
This, right here.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
But the problem is Pit, none of the environmentalist cultists (and yes I believe environmentalism is a gov't sponsored religion) believe there is a "middle ground".
And I'm sorry, but we don't live in the days of the Ohio River catching fire anymore so I don't see a need to act like we are.
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
But the problem is Pit, none of the environmentalist cultists (and yes I believe environmentalism is a gov't sponsored religion) believe there is a "middle ground".
And I'm sorry, but we don't live in the days of the Ohio River catching fire anymore so I don't see a need to act like we are.
you're right, we live in the days of massive oil spills in the ocean and tons of plastic in the waters that are killing off marine life.
sooo much better, right?
Do your part: quit using oil or products made from oil.
once again, your extreme post are comical.
nobody is saying end it all. we're saying we need to use more alternative energy sources.
you say you're for taking care of the environment, yet pretty much your position is anything but.
stop lying.
once again, your extreme post are comical.
nobody is saying end it all. we're saying we need to use more alternative energy sources.
you say you're for taking care of the environment, yet pretty much your position is anything but.
stop lying.
He's not lying. Just a few posts ago rockoptimist was saying how there are too many cars. Why don't all the climate change alarmists lead from the front and get rid of your cars and anything else that contributes to climate change?
no. he's lying.
there are cars out there that are hybrids. also all electric. eventually, thats going to be the norm.
but this is what i'm taking about. y'all use these extreme ass points to try and counter us simply saying we need to take care of the planet.
marine life is dying from oil spills and plastic. the response? "zomg!!! dont take my jerb!! why don't we just get rid of oil!!"
i mean seriously, what the hell? y'all talk all the time about people needing to take responsibility for their actions.
we're asking that corporations take some responsibility, be more aware of situations and such, and y'all act like we just asked you to sacrifice a lamb for Satan.
no. he's lying.
there are cars out there that are hybrids. also all electric. eventually, thats going to be the norm.
but this is what i'm taking about. y'all use these extreme ass points to try and counter us simply saying we need to take care of the planet.
marine life is dying from oil spills and plastic. the response? "zomg!!! dont take my jerb!! why don't we just get rid of oil!!"
i mean seriously, what the hell? y'all talk all the time about people needing to take responsibility for their actions.
we're asking that corporations take some responsibility, be more aware of situations and such, and y'all act like we just asked you to sacrifice a lamb for Satan.
No, I wasn't lying, and your stating that I was is pathetic.
Here: instead of asking corporations to take more responsibility (here in the u.s. they all act under the epa that can come in and shut them down in a heart beat), why don't YOU take responsibility and quit buying things with plastic?
Why don't YOU turn your thermostat down to 64 in the winter? I do.
Why don't you keep your house at 78 in the summer? I do.
If half the country did those things, imagine how much better off we'd be.
Oh, I forgot. You'd better get China on board. And India, and Russia, and all the South American countries.
Dude, why don't you feel you need to suffer, yet others should?
Take a ride with me. I can show you wind farms and solar farms out the wazoo.....but the cost of energy is rising. Hell, my electric company charges me MORE per kilowatt hour in the winter because I'm not all electric. So, I use less electric, and they want to charge me MORE for the lower usage?
Why don't YOU suck it up, use less, pay more for using less. Set the example Swish.
I have. Are you game, or do you just want others to do it for you?
no. he's lying.
there are cars out there that are hybrids. also all electric. eventually, thats going to be the norm.
but this is what i'm taking about. y'all use these extreme ass points to try and counter us simply saying we need to take care of the planet.
marine life is dying from oil spills and plastic. the response? "zomg!!! dont take my jerb!! why don't we just get rid of oil!!"
i mean seriously, what the hell? y'all talk all the time about people needing to take responsibility for their actions.
we're asking that corporations take some responsibility, be more aware of situations and such, and y'all act like we just asked you to sacrifice a lamb for Satan.
What about the government being responsible? There have been 2 spills in Colorado this year that contaminated water that were the fault of the EPA. Yet, the environmentalists have been dead silent on that.
there you go lying again. you just made a claim of stuff that i don't do.
which i do. so you're lying out the side of your neck again.
but i expect nothing less at this point.
I've lived in a country where there was no AC in the buildings. So i didn't turn the AC on in a LONG time. We're used to it.
and this is what i'm talking about. you ignored EVERYTHING i said about just acting responsible, and instead yet AGAIN, went of some craptastic rant about "stop buying plastic".
why is it SO HARD for you and others to understand that all we want is corporations AND the people to be held accountable. stop letting all these plastics into the ocean.
why is that such a bad thing!!! THATS whats pathetic about you, Arch.
all we want is to leave less of a carbon footprint. use more alternative sources. why is that such a bad thing? that's whats pathetic about you Arch.
but once again, you have selective reading. you're gonna read what you want to read, and make some stupid rant in response.
I do suck it up. i pay more for clothes because my wife does research to do OUR best to not buy clothes made in sweat shops, for example.
we don't buy gas guzzlers.
once again, we DON'T run the AC. And i'm not saying others shouldn't run the AC, but my family doesn't. if we lived in Texas, that be a different story.
So stop making crap up, cause i'm losing more and more respect for you by the post. stop your blatant lying cause you don't know a damn thing about my lifestyle.
So yes, i do cut back. i'm wiling to put my money where my mouth is.
stop being a freaking baby. swear to god you're the softest dude i associate with.
no. he's lying.
there are cars out there that are hybrids. also all electric. eventually, thats going to be the norm.
but this is what i'm taking about. y'all use these extreme ass points to try and counter us simply saying we need to take care of the planet.
marine life is dying from oil spills and plastic. the response? "zomg!!! dont take my jerb!! why don't we just get rid of oil!!"
i mean seriously, what the hell? y'all talk all the time about people needing to take responsibility for their actions.
we're asking that corporations take some responsibility, be more aware of situations and such, and y'all act like we just asked you to sacrifice a lamb for Satan.
What about the government being responsible? There have been 2 spills in Colorado this year that contaminated water that were the fault of the EPA. Yet, the environmentalists have been dead silent on that.
and they shouldn't be bro. The government should absolutely be getting blasted for that.
There's no double standards my way. if you're wrong, you're wrong.
there you go lying again. you just made a claim of stuff that i don't do.
which i do. so you're lying out the side of your neck again.
huh?
First of all, I'm not lying. Secondly........i just don't understand the "you made a claim of stuff that I don't do, which I do." ?
I've lived in a country where there was no AC in the buildings. So i didn't turn the AC on in a LONG time. We're used to it.
Well, if you lived in a country where there wasn't a/c, I wouldn't expect you to turn it on.
and this is what i'm talking about. you ignored EVERYTHING i said about just acting responsible, and instead yet AGAIN, went of some craptastic rant about "stop buying plastic".
Get off it bud, I didn't ignore ANYTHING. Sorry you're having trouble following along.
What I DID say is you need to start saving energy.
why is it SO HARD for you and others to understand that all we want is corporations AND the people to be held accountable. stop letting all these plastics into the ocean.
Reading comprehension is crucial here. Nowhere have I said "use all you want and throw the garbage in the ocean". No where. I DID ask you to be accountable. I don't care, nor does the earth care, what you did when you lived in a country that didn't have a/c.
What I DID say is YOU are part of "the people", so quit using plastic. Period. Wow, you twist things, a lot.
why is that such a bad thing!!! THATS whats pathetic about you, Arch.
Interesting. On facebook, you threatened to bash my skull in. Now, you're calling me pathetic? I'll keep that in mind.
all we want is to leave less of a carbon footprint. use more alternative sources. why is that such a bad thing? that's whats pathetic about you Arch.
Again with the "pathetic" thing?
Perhaps you don't understand. Perhaps I haven't made it clear. I don't have a problem with being "green", but when being green costs ME money, and not YOU (not you, but others), sure, I have a problem with it.
but once again, you have selective reading. you're gonna read what you want to read, and make some stupid rant in response.
Uh oh, sounds like a pre-emptive "try to make someone look bad" statement.
So stop making crap up, cause i'm losing more and more respect for you by the post. stop your blatant lying cause you don't know a damn thing about my lifestyle.
I'm not lying. Sorry you're losing respect for me. That seems to be your problem, not mine.
Oh, hey, why don't you quit calling me a liar? Cause, like, I'm not lying. I guess that makes you a liar?
And you also don't know a damn thing about me and my lifestyle, thanks. Respect is earned, not given. If you don't respect me, that's on you, not me, and I'm fine with it either way.
So yes, i do cut back. i'm wiling to put my money where my mouth is.
stop being a freaking baby. swear to god you're the softest dude i associate with.
I'm a "baby"? Not sure where you get that from. And "....the softest dude I associate with"???????? What's that even mean?
j/c
Whenever I think about this global pollution topic, I always default to History. It gives me a sense of perspective that I wouldn't have if I simply reacted to the 'story of the day.'
History has always proven that change is inevitable. As man finds newer, better ways to do things, the old ways get replaced. Every single time. We no longer light our houses with coal oil lamps. We no longer get from point A to point B in horse-drawn carts (unless we're Amish). And we are rapidly approaching the point when we no longer need internal combustion engines to power our personal'professional transportation.
Electric cars are now powerful enough to be used on interstate roads, with performance on par with their gas-powered cousins. The cost of producing and buying them is rapidly becoming less prohibitive. They've moved past the "Ed Begly Jr. oddity" status- and are now becoming mainstream.
In other words, the threshold has already been crossed.
This thing is going to happen. New technology is constantly being applied to this movement, despite Exxon's and BP's best efforts to hamper and forestall its momentum.
Because change is inevitable.
Here's my point: there will still be a need for petrochemical products for some time to come. Too much of our current tech is based upon it. Too much of our global economy is dependent upon it. As things change, the refinery products will, too. Less volume will be dedicated to the production of diesel, gasoline and kerosene. More will be dedicated to polymers and other petrochem offspring until man finds a better alternatiive for those products, as well.
I foresee a time not to long from now, when 'Big Oil' becomes 'Less Big Oil' simply because their role on the world stage will change with the times. They will no longer be able to control the pace of progress to suit their short-term goals. We'll see fewer and fewer gas stations, and more and more charging stations. And only some of that change will be fueled by today's environmental activism. The impetus of the change may have started there, but the momentum will always be fueled by commerce. As it becomes more feasible to gain profit from the new tech, more will enter the field. Competition drives down price, and the new tech becomes mainstream in a big,
fast hurry.
Don't believe me? Try to find a working public phone booth these days.
The first working handheld telephone was unveiled in 1973.
In just 2 generations, we went from 'a phone booth on every other corner' to a society that now carries a supercomputer with worldwide connectivity in their pockets and purses. Syrian refugees with almost nothing on their backs are using these devices to navigate their migration all the way to Europe!
Think about that for a minute.
Let it really sink in.
We've been burrowing under the earth for thousands of years to power our inexorable march to the future. Oil. Coal. Rare Earths. Diamonds. Radioactive materials. That's never going to change.
What will change is the nature and amount of these resources we harvest.
One thing is certain: Whatever we harvest, process and refine...
...for whatever purpose/product....
...our processing of said product will always impact the environment in which we live.
This cannot be disputed. Cause & effect are immutable physical laws.
So... that takes us to my final point.
Exxon (and their like) will eventually occupy a smaller global footprint, simply because they've based their entire raison d'être upon the extraction of a resource that is not feasibly self-sustaining.
This is a win/win for The People, because:
1. As more countries see fewer carbon emissions from their BILLIONS of daily car polluters, fewer hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere
2. 'big Oil' is still around to provide the products we need, until Big Hemp takes over.
3. Other techs/markets will open up, providing investment opportunity, mining/manufacturing, and jobs.... on a worldwide scale.
__________________
Without the petrochemical infrastructure, the solar economy could never happen.
Without the solar/battery initiative, Tesla Motors would not have the traction necessary to have one of their cars sitting next to me at a stop light on the intersection of Monroe & Bancroft in Toledo, Ohio.
This is how Human Progress works. A little at a time. Sometimes, against resistance- fueled by those who think they have something to lose.
___________________
"Modern societies are too often run by those with too much 'focus'- and not enough 'vision.' "
-Clemdawg, 2015
Who's in favor of trashing the planet? Who said that?
It's something we've been doing for decades now and anyone who brings up regulations to help stop it is instantly labeled as a tree hugger.
We have to find a middle ground.
But the problem is Pit, none of the environmentalist cultists (and yes I believe environmentalism is a gov't sponsored religion) believe there is a "middle ground".
And I'm sorry, but we don't live in the days of the Ohio River catching fire anymore so I don't see a need to act like we are.
you're right, we live in the days of massive oil spills in the ocean and tons of plastic in the waters that are killing off marine life.
sooo much better, right?
This is the type of alarmism I'm talking about Swish.
How many Dawgs took their family to the beach, the lake, the river, local pond, etc... and found out "Oops! There's oil in the water. Can't go kids
?"
How many oil spills have we had since the Gulf spill? How long before that one? Were there any between that and the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska waaay back?? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what your saying, but from my end you're making it sound like there's a constant layer of oil along our coasts.
You have not investigated how our Government fudges the numbers by supporting those scientists who agree with the agenda and cutting off those who disagree. Each time they poll the scientists that are still working, they get a higher percentage of supporters.
The Truth will set you free.
I don't believe you.
Where are the facts and data that show your truth IS the truth?
3% to 3.1% is a higher percentage of supporters, but since the claim is that all GW science is paid for by the government, which oddly enough doesn't account for all the data recorded by scientists in other countries, then who's paying for the 3%?
Science denial is a pundit driven "cult of contrary". The only consistent arguments come from radio and tv "personalities" who work(?) to gain sponsors. They pander to the paranoids who hate to agree with anyone who doesn't believe the world is out to get them.
Now there's an energy company that states their belief in the inevitability of climate change/global warming/man made screw up of the atmosphere and ultra-radical, extremist conservatives are still believing humans have caused no damage to the planet.
Weirdly enough they rage against big government, but kiss the butts of big businesses.
What's up with that?
Here's a good one for you to ignore. The 97% nonsense. Make sure you read page 2.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/ One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”
This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.
But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.
[url=http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong][/url] How climate change deniers got it right — but very wrong
It turns out the climate change deniers were right: There isn’t 97% agreement among climate scientists. The real figure? It’s not lower, but actually higher.
The scientific “consensus” on climate change has gotten stronger, surging past the famous — and controversial — figure of 97% to more than 99.9%, according to a new study reviewed by msnbc.
James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.
RELATED: Pope Francis may drop political bombshell on climate change
“It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”
Powell, a member of the National Science Board under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, decided to share an exclusive draft of his research on Tuesday — just days before Pope Francis is set to deliver a major address on climate change — because he doesn’t want his holiness to reference outdated numbers.
“I don’t want the Pope to say 97%,” Powell said by phone, arguing that accuracy now is more important than ever. “It’s wrong, and it’s not trivial.”
Pope Francis is preparing to charge into the political debate over climate change, citing “a very consistent scientific consensus” and the risk of “unprecedented destruction,” according to a leaked draft of Thursday’s papal encyclical.
The notion of 97% agreement among climate scientists started with studies in 2009 and 2010. It wasn’t until a 2013 study, however, that the figure went viral. President Barack Obama tweeted it. The comedian John Oliver set up a slapstick debate between a climate change denier and 97 of his peers.
But Powell argues that acceptance of man-made global warming has grown. The author of a new Columbia University Press book on scientific revolutions used an online database to compile a mountain of global warming papers published in the last two years.
He also tried a different approach than the earlier studies. Rather than search for explicit acceptance of anthropomorphic global warming, Powell searched for explicit rejection. All the papers in the middle, he figured, weren’t neutral on the subject — they were settled on it.
RELATED: Santorum to Pope Francis: ‘Leave science to the scientists’
The results include work from nearly the entire population of working climate scientists — close to 70,000 scientists, often sharing their byline with three or four other authors. They also include a dwindling opposition: Powell could find only four solitary authors who challenged the evidence for human-caused global warming.
That’s a rate of one dissenting voice for every 17,000 agreeing scientists, and it’s not a strong voice. Powell called the four dissents “known deniers and crackpots,” and noted that their work had been cited only once by the wider academic community.
“I don’t want the Pope to say 97%. It’s wrong, and it’s not trivial.”
JAMES L. POWELL, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL SCIENCES CONSORTIUM
Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard, hasn’t read the Powell paper but she doesn’t doubt the general direction of the findings.
Back in 2004, she became the first researcher to claim a “consensus” on climate change, finding a roughly 75% agreement within the literature.
“Scientists have done so much more work since then,” she said. For me, as a historian of science, it really feels like overkill. One starts to think, how many more times do we need to say this before we really get it and start to act on it?”
One reason for inaction of course is politics. Many of the world’s leaders still doubt the science of climate change, assuming incorrectly that it’s unsettled or exploratory. The view is especially prevalent among the current crop of Republican presidential candidates.
Earlier this month, for example, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told Fox News that the pope would be “better off leaving science to the scientists.” Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, meanwhile, claim that the science remains vague or is made up entirely.
RELATED: Santorum to Pope Francis: ‘Leave science to the scientists’
That raises a second reason for inaction, according to Oreskes: intentional deception. Oreskes is the co-author of the “Merchants of Doubt,” a book that demonstrated how interest groups had undermined the science on tobacco, ozone depletion, acid rain and now climate change.
Many self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” no longer deny that the globe is warming, and some even acknowledge a human role in the new heat wave. Instead, they now say, warming is real — it just isn’t dangerous. They also attack the idea of a consensus, whatever the percentage.
“Nothing has really changed there,” said Oreskes. “The details shift but the overall picture remains the same. It’s a bit like Monet’s water lilies; it can look different at different at different times of day but it’s the same picture.”
Powell, however, hopes his work can finally close the debate, end the notion of doubt, move the frame ahead.
“There isn’t any evidence against global warming and there isn’t any alternative theory,” he said. “We’ve been looking for negative feedbacks and we’ve never found one that amounts to anything. It’s not impossible that we will, but I wouldn’t bet my grandchildren’s future on it.”
____________________________________________________________
This survey was 24,000 peer-reviewed papers yours is only 122 eligible papers.
“There isn’t any evidence against global warming and there isn’t any alternative theory,” he said. “We’ve been looking for negative feedbacks and we’ve never found one that amounts to anything. It’s not impossible that we will, but I wouldn’t bet my grandchildren’s future on it.”
Did you read the one on the weather stations I posted previously. The only read 'man made' part in all of this is the locations of weather instruments.
I also love the "I wouldn't bet my grandchildren's future on it", as you are no matter if you believe it or not.
Also, the study with the 122 papers is where the 97% number came from in the first place, because they made up the stat. Now, what made the papers in your story 'eligible'? I bet it's that they agreed with agw.
J/C ......
Unfortunately, it appears that science has become big business and politics, as much as exploration. Scientists who take a view contrary to the politically popular view are likely to see funding to dry up and go away, or to have to take funding from companies that want to prove the opposing view. (which has its own conflict of interests)
Take a look at FEMA ......
They are supposed to help people in need. However, look at how the federal government punishes states who elect Governors who deny climate change. What does climate change have to do with disaster preparedness? Now $1 billion is only a drop in the bucket for the federal government, but to states, some of these funds can be important. This is nothing but the federal government deciding what is right, and doing its best to silence opponents.
FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.htmlThe Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that address climate change.
This may put several Republican governors who maintain that the Earth isn't warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their position may block their states' access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the last five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.
"If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics," said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state" because of his climate beliefs.
The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood, or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard-mitigation plans. While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven't because FEMA's 2008 guidelines didn't require it.
"This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors," said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. "We aren't just talking about coastal states."
Climate change affects droughts, rainfall, and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. "This could affect state leaders across the country."
Among those who could face a difficult decision are New Jersey's Gov. Christie and fellow Republican Govs. Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Greg Abbott of Texas, and Pat McCrory of North Carolina - all of whom have denied man-made climate change or refused to take action. The states they lead face immediate threats from climate change.
The five governors' offices did not return requests for comment by press time.
Environmentalists have been pressing FEMA to include global warming in its hazard-mitigation guidelines for almost three years. FEMA told the Natural Resources Defense Council in early 2014 that it would revise the guidelines. It issued draft rules in October and officially released the new procedures last week as partisan politics around climate change have been intensifying.
On March 8, the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting said Scott instituted an unwritten ban on the use of the phrases climate change or global warming" by Florida officials. Also this month, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.) took a snowball to the Senate floor as evidence against warming, highlighting GOP leaders' climate views.
"The challenges posed by climate change, such as more intense storms, frequent heavy precipitation, heat waves, drought, extreme flooding, and higher sea levels, could significantly alter the types and magnitudes of hazards impacting states in the future," FEMA wrote in its new procedures.
FEMA's disaster-preparedness program has been granting money to states since the 1980s for projects as diverse as raising buildings out of floodplains and building safe rooms. States are required to update their plans every five years to be eligible for the agency's mitigation funding. Since 2010, FEMA has doled out more than $4.6 billion to states and territories as part of this program.
Republican-led regions constitute eight of the top 10 recipients of this category of FEMA money between 2010 and 2014. Louisiana was No. 1, having received almost $1.1 billion from FEMA for hazard mitigation. New Jersey was third with nearly $379 million, and Texas fourth with almost $343 million.
The gubernatorial approval clause was included in the new guidelines to "raise awareness and support for implementing the actions in the mitigation strategy and increasing statewide resilience to natural hazards," FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick said.
The new federal rules don't require public involvement in the creation of states' disaster-preparedness plans, eliminating the opportunity for environmental groups and concerned citizens to submit comments or concerns about the assessments.
no. he's lying.
there are cars out there that are hybrids. also all electric. eventually, thats going to be the norm.
Still takes alot of energy (IE: fossil fuels) to produce those cars and, currently the electricity to charge them is mostly from fossil fuels.
Doesn't mean we should not move forward, but they are not void of fossil fuels in their current state either.
marine life is dying from oil spills and plastic. the response? "zomg!!! dont take my jerb!! why don't we just get rid of oil!!"
The plastic is from the pathetic people who are too damn lazy to look for a trash can, not from government or corporations.
we're asking that corporations take some responsibility, be more aware of situations and such, and y'all act like we just asked you to sacrifice a lamb for Satan.
We have made many demands on corps for this stuff, which in turn caused an increase in their cost to produce goods, and eventually found a cheaper location to do business.
At some point we should work together to find a solution that will benefit everyone, without putting all the burden on one. You can't demand something of just one group and never compromise elsewhere.
You have not investigated how our Government fudges the numbers by supporting those scientists who agree with the agenda and cutting off those who disagree. Each time they poll the scientists that are still working, they get a higher percentage of supporters.
The Truth will set you free.
I don't believe you.
Where are the facts and data that show your truth IS the truth?
Let us begin here...
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.
Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”
RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/extremi...rming-skeptics/
[quote=40YEARSWAITING]
You have not investigated how our Government fudges the numbers by supporting those scientists who agree with the agenda and cutting off those who disagree. Each time they poll the scientists that are still working, they get a higher percentage of supporters.
The Truth will set you free.
I don't believe you.
Where are the facts and data that show your truth IS the truth?
Just getting warmed up, so let us look at this...
Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’
by ElmerB on August 31, 2015 in Opinion, Science
By Christopher Booker, telegraph.co.uk
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/science/rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told
You have not investigated how our Government fudges the numbers by supporting those scientists who agree with the agenda and cutting off those who disagree. Each time they poll the scientists that are still working, they get a higher percentage of supporters.
The Truth will set you free.
I don't believe you.
Where are the facts and data that show your truth IS the truth?
Now you can read this from Forbes...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/
by ElmerB on August 31, 2015 in Opinion, Science
What we are doing is not affecting other than a minor percentage.
That's the minimization of our forcasted climate outlook... 10% percent chance of denial.... 90% chance of greed.....with a certainty of 100% stupidity.
Now now, I can't bring you around to critical thinking about Climate Change in just one post.
Now, if you are still serious I want to introduce you to
Mark Steyn...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
What we are doing is not affecting other than a minor percentage.
That's the minimization of our forcasted climate outlook... 10% percent chance of denial.... 90% chance of greed.....with a certainty of 100% stupidity.
Look, I've stated several times that the earth warms and cools. It does it all on its own, too. It has done this since man can determine.
I've been called out to an extent, for stating that fact.
Here's a quote from swish, from page 1:
we already know the earth has cool and heated millions of years ago. you're not enlightening anybody, you're stating the obvious.
Yet somehow the earth warming right now is man made? Please.
Most of the time I'm of the opinion that following the money leads to answers. In this case, there's just too much money to be made by stating "man made global warming".....there's too many scare tactics involved.
Is the earth warming? yeah, just look at the climate stations positioned by a/c's, or on blacktop.
I'm all for not polluting. I'm all for being responsible.
Exxon's own scientists looked at "will our drilling, production, and overall consumption of oil contribute to a global temperature rise?" Their scientists, way back in the 70s, determined it could end up happening. Multiple peer reviewed studies and sources now confirm the fact that Exxon's own predictions of their impact proved true.
How is any of this hard to understand?
Exxon's own scientists looked at "will our drilling, production, and overall consumption of oil contribute to a global temperature rise?" Their scientists, way back in the 70s, determined it could end up happening. Multiple peer reviewed studies and sources now confirm the fact that Exxon's own predictions of their impact proved true.
How is any of this hard to understand?
Because it's supposition that the problem is man made. They also said a 2-3 degree C rise in temperatures, when it's only warmed .8 F. That is a natural rise, not a man made one. Their predictions were just as wrong as the rest of the global warming crowd, as we still have ice on the poles, the sea levels haven't risen, and we are entering a cooling stage right now. It's the sun, not man.
Because it's supposition that the problem is man made.
Backed up by a ton of documentation that proves the existence of man made chemicals in the atmosphere.
Because it's supposition that the problem is man made.
But AGW deniers don't provide a reasonable replacement for rising CO2 emissions. It's real easy to link CO2 rises to man made emissions even doing engineering style back of the envelope calculations. Once you get into real data collection the finger pointer just gets red hot. If mankind is not causing rising CO2 emissions, then what is? Unless you can provide an alternative then we must go with the most likely suspect.
Where is the smoking gun? Are there invisible aliens? Do blue whales produce all of the CO2 emissions in almost the exact same amount that cars would? Who is doing it then?
They also said a 2-3 degree C rise in temperatures, when it's only warmed .8 F. That is a natural rise, not a man made one. Their predictions were just as wrong as the rest of the global warming crowd, as we still have ice on the poles, the sea levels haven't risen, and we are entering a cooling stage right now. It's the sun, not man.
Can I get a source on this? I've never read anywhere that temps rose only 0.8 Degrees Fahrenheit, or even the 2-3 degree Celsius rise claim. Plus most scientists use Celsius or Kelvin and not F anyway...
Because it's supposition that the problem is man made.
Backed up by a ton of documentation that proves the existence of man made chemicals in the atmosphere.
And the ton of documents that have been falsified should by agw supporters should be upheld? What about all the documents that show CO2 does not coincide with temperature increases? Should we ignore that the planet was hotter just 1000 years ago, before we started industrializing?
Yet somehow the earth warming right now is man made? Please.
Claiming AGW is about temperatures is like saying you win football games by getting more scrimmage yards than the opponent. For sure there is some correlation there. Yet it's not how you actually win in football, just as CO2, not temperature, is the measure of concern with AGW.
Most of the time I'm of the opinion that following the money leads to answers. In this case, there's just too much money to be made by stating "man made global warming".....there's too many scare tactics involved.
So Anti-AGW groups get a ton of funding as well, what's your point? The Anti-AGW groups are sketchier to me because they get funded through dark money: channels that are meant to obscure who is actually funding the research.
Is the earth warming? yeah, just look at the climate stations positioned by a/c's, or on blacktop.
As fun as it is to use anecdotes to dismiss entire trends, it's a good thing we don't rely on your keen eye for anecdotes in general research initiatives.
And the ton of documents that have been falsified should by agw supporters should be upheld? What about all the documents that show CO2 does not coincide with temperature increases? Should we ignore that the planet was hotter just 1000 years ago, before we started industrializing?
And the circular reasoning continues!
Because it's supposition that the problem is man made.
But AGW deniers don't provide a reasonable replacement for rising CO2 emissions. It's real easy to link CO2 rises to man made emissions even doing engineering style back of the envelope calculations. Once you get into real data collection the finger pointer just gets red hot. If mankind is not causing rising CO2 emissions, then what is? Unless you can provide an alternative then we must go with the most likely suspect.
The problem here is: the earth cooled and warmed prior to any man made co2 emissions.
Perhaps if science could explain that, we'd be onto something. WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution?
I think the farts of GM may be the culprit.
Because it's supposition that the problem is man made.
But AGW deniers don't provide a reasonable replacement for rising CO2 emissions.
The sun. That great big, glowing, nuclear reactor in the sky. You do know the temperatures on Venus, and Mars rose the same percentage as ours during the same time frame, correct? Are we polluting that much of space too?
Where is the smoking gun? Are there invisible aliens? Do blue whales produce all of the CO2 emissions in almost the exact same amount that cars would? Who is doing it then?
See above
They also said a 2-3 degree C rise in temperatures, when it's only warmed .8 F. That is a natural rise, not a man made one. Their predictions were just as wrong as the rest of the global warming crowd, as we still have ice on the poles, the sea levels haven't risen, and we are entering a cooling stage right now. It's the sun, not man.
Can I get a source on this? I've never read anywhere that temps rose only 0.8 Degrees Fahrenheit, or even the 2-3 degree Celsius rise claim. Plus most scientists use Celsius or Kelvin and not F anyway...
Check the Forbes article I posted earlier. In fact, I think it's in a few of them. Glad you guys at least look at the links, when I go through all the trouble to find the articles. The internet searches are horribly skewed towards agw.
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you.
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you.
Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming.
WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution
Denial usually includes the exclusion of the time line here. Climate change today is happening at a much more accelerated pace then before the industrial revolution. And I expect the denial to accelerate with that statement.
WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution
Denial usually includes the exclusion of the time line here. Climate change today is happening at a much more accelerated pace then before the industrial revolution. And I expect the denial to accelerate with that statement.
.8 degrees F since 1900.
WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution
Denial usually includes the exclusion of the time line here. Climate change today is happening at a much more accelerated pace then before the industrial revolution. And I expect the denial to accelerate with that statement.
So, in other words: You can't explain why the earth has continually warmed and cooled, so you'll try to attack the person posting the fact as opposed to actually trying to explain why, prior to the industrial revolution, and millions of years prior, the earth was warming and cooling.
Great debate tactic aside from the fact that it sucks.
The problem here is: the earth cooled and warmed prior to any man made co2 emissions.
You're still moving the goal posts. You aren't explaining to me WHY CO2 levels have risen commiserate with the industrial era. Stop arguing about aggregate data and deal with the single variable first.
Perhaps if science could explain that, we'd be onto something. WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution?
Science has, but I don't get the impression you've cared to do research on your own. Otherwise you wouldn't be asking this question.
Do you know that trees were the first living thing to cause a mass extinction event? When plants developed the ability to grow vertically into trees, it created a vast canopy that covered the ground. Yet there was nothing in the ecosystem to clean up the mess. Nothing would eat the tree bark. So the trees just died and rotted down where they laid, building up layer upon layer of organic material that would become coal. Then something amazing happened: The Siberian traps erupted in volcanic events. Sure you had some Co2 in the atmosphere, but the big problem was the coal built up over eons. It erupted enough sulfer and methane and CO2 to cause wild temperature swings. The majority of all life on earth died, including insects.
So yes, there is prior art as it were where living creatures contributed to change the earths climate in drastic ways, on top of the usual solar activity/jetstreams/ocean currents/etc.
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you.
Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming.
They know that term well in Texas and other southern states where they are flogging that horse sweating their butts off and watching crops die in their fields every summer while blaming it on some invisible god.
The sun. That great big, glowing, nuclear reactor in the sky. You do know the temperatures on Venus, and Mars rose the same percentage as ours during the same time frame, correct? Are we polluting that much of space too?
What measurement are you using for Mars? Albedo calculations? Those have already been debunked as someone using "timing." They showed a brighter mars in 1977 and a darker one in 1999, when it was just dust moving around. Heck, Mars was brighter than the 1977 image in 2001!
I haven't found research that shows Venus temperatures rising since the start of the industrial revolution. Source?
Smoking guns back to you, let me know!
Check the Forbes article I posted earlier. In fact, I think it's in a few of them. Glad you guys at least look at the links, when I go through all the trouble to find the articles. The internet searches are horribly skewed towards agw.
Ahh, I was confused by the scales. You mentioned F, not C. Got it
It's such a shame that scientific data has been reduced to politics. But I await your peer research that demonstrates AGW is false. Seriously, I do await it. I'd love to be put at ease over this stuff
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you.
Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming.
They know that term well in Texas and other southern states where they are flogging that horse sweating their butts off and watching crops die in their fields every summer while blaming it on some invisible god.
Their cotton yields look pretty much the same over the past several years. In fact, it looks like it went up in the hotter years.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Texas/Charts_&_Maps/zcott_y.htm I picked cotton because they grow it in the summer.
You are attacking their Religion. They don't want to hear you.
Yes, I know. The term 'flogging a dead horse' comes to mind. When they're all freezing their butts off this winter, they'll blame it on warming.
Tell me about it. We've had this thread how many times and it's always the same loop:
* AGW is maybe a thing
- AGW is false
* 97% of scientists agree
- 97% figure is false
* 97% figure is demonstrated to be true
- Weather stations are on volcanoes and skyscrapers
* Weather station location shown to not matter
- Well the temperature difference doesn't matter
* Temperature is not what AGW is about
- Well what about temperature on mars
* Temperature is not what AGW is about
- Science is religion!!!111
And then we can reboot the whole thing in a few months when it next comes around! The bottom line is climate change research is done using the scientific method when skeptics do not do so. If you think CO2 isn't rising, show us the data from research papers. If you think rising CO2 is nothing to worry about , show us your experiments demonstrating where rising CO2 had no effect on living creatures. If you don't think temperatures matter, then shows us your experiments on mice living through 120C environments for long periods.
Instead all it is is finger pointing, posturing, and trying to debunk sound scientific research. You don't prove a scientific finding wrong by going "nuh uh!" You prove a scientific finding wrong by performing an experiment that debunks it. So where are all the experiments that debunk AGW erik?
So, in other words: You can't explain why the earth has continually warmed and cooled, so you'll try to attack the person posting the fact as opposed to actually trying to explain why, prior to the industrial revolution, and millions of years prior, the earth was warming and cooling.
Great debate tactic aside from the fact that it sucks.
LOL where did he attack you?
The problem here is: the earth cooled and warmed prior to any man made co2 emissions.
You're still moving the goal posts. You aren't explaining to me WHY CO2 levels have risen commiserate with the industrial era. Stop arguing about aggregate data and deal with the single variable first.
Nah, I think YOU are moving the goal posts. Why would I need to explain anything when the fact is, the earth has cooled and warmed since its existence?
I know, I know....science wants to be able to prove everything, and at this point, the only "proof" science has is "hey, there's a lot of money involved if we say that THIS time the earth warming is due to co2". All those other times? Eh, ignore them.
Perhaps if science could explain that, we'd be onto something. WHY did the earth cool and warm since way before the industrial revolution?
Do you know that trees were the first living thing to cause a mass extinction event? When plants developed the ability to grow vertically into trees, it created a vast canopy that covered the ground. Yet there was nothing in the ecosystem to clean up the mess. Nothing would eat the tree bark. So the trees just died and rotted down where they laid, building up layer upon layer of organic material that would become coal.
On a side note, who buried the coal? Or, did nature do its "nature" thing, you know, like, the earth took care of stuff? Sorry to side track there.
Then something amazing happened: The Siberian traps erupted in volcanic events. Sure you had some Co2 in the atmosphere, but the big problem was the coal built up over eons. It erupted enough sulfer and methane and CO2 to cause wild temperature swings. The majority of all life on earth died, including insects.
And yet, here we are. People, trees, plants, even insects. But, if we just spend a lot of money, we'll solve the earths warming and cooling. Just need more money, right?
So yes, there is prior art as it were where living creatures contributed to change the earths climate in drastic ways, on top of the usual solar activity/jetstreams/ocean currents/etc.
Wait - I thought trees did it the first time.
Oh well, I suppose we could go back to the times when people had to grow their own food/raise their own food.
We certainly don't need planes, or cars. Not even for business as there isn't any need what with the internet and all.
And heating or cooling your home or place of business? Why? That just adds to global warming......which, in 20-50 years will be global cooling.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, to an extent. The earth has warmed and cooled since forever. To think that we as people control it is foolhardy.
I know, science wants to be able to explain everything. Yet we see yearly where science changes its mind.
Fact: the earth warms and cools on its own cycle.
It's such a shame that scientific data has been reduced to politics. But I await your peer research that demonstrates AGW is false. Seriously, I do await it. I'd love to be put at ease over this stuff
I posted a lot of it in this thread. The AGW argument has always been political, on both sides. Why is it only political when conservatives don't believe that crap? In a more conservative society, let's say JFK's era when it was 'don't ask what your country can do for you', I think they would see it as bunk. Hard core libs want everything free and taxes to go up to save a gay, communist seal, while conservatives think the government should leave us alone and the seal should save himself.
Nah, I think YOU are moving the goal posts. Why would I need to explain anything when the fact is, the earth has cooled and warmed since its existence?
Uhm, because I told you AGW is not about temperature but you keep arguing against AGW on the basis of temperature. That's pretty much the example definition of moving the goalposts. But nice attempt to tu quoque
I know, I know....science wants to be able to prove everything, and at this point, the only "proof" science has is "hey, there's a lot of money involved if we say that THIS time the earth warming is due to co2". All those other times? Eh, ignore them.
And lets keep the logical fallacy train rolling with some false cause! Because after all if people have put money forward to research something, it must be false! Unless it's perhaps from the Heritage foundation
On a side note, who buried the coal? Or, did nature do its "nature" thing, you know, like, the earth took care of stuff? Sorry to side track there.
The big problem is nothing was buried before the extinction event, because there was no creatures to digest and break down the organic material that would become coal. After the extinction event the remaining coal and byproducts were buried and became the stuff we dig up in coal mines... Given what happened with the Permian event with too much coal/Co2 burning and us digging up coal and burning it into CO2, it's possible that there is a bad link there
And yet, here we are. People, trees, plants, even insects. But, if we just spend a lot of money, we'll solve the earths warming and cooling. Just need more money, right?
Quote me where I said we needed to spend a dime on carbon credits or taxation to "fight" AGW. I think you'll find I'm very much against that. But you seem to think it impossible of someone to be complex enough to understand science and *ALSO* be against political tomfoolery.
So yes, there is prior art as it were where living creatures contributed to change the earths climate in drastic ways, on top of the usual solar activity/jetstreams/ocean currents/etc.
Wait - I thought trees did it the first time.
Eh I shouldn't have put creature there, I meant the trees.
Oh well, I suppose we could go back to the times when people had to grow their own food/raise their own food.
We certainly don't need planes, or cars. Not even for business as there isn't any need what with the internet and all.
And heating or cooling your home or place of business? Why? That just adds to global warming......which, in 20-50 years will be global cooling.
Yeah, I'm being facetious, to an extent. The earth has warmed and cooled since forever. To think that we as people control it is foolhardy.
I know, science wants to be able to explain everything. Yet we see yearly where science changes its mind.
You definitely have a sect of folks (Greenpeace/Sierra Club/etc) that try to use bombastic language to scare people into taxing/carbon credits/etc. They have done more harm to climate change IMO than even skeptics would talking to people on the internet, because their shtick is so horrible that I routinely shake my head at them.
But just because you have a small group trying to profit off of an event doesn't mean the event itself is false. There have been charities that have ripped off donors before for good causes, so should we not donate to charities? What about churches that have ripped off their flock? Should we not give money to churches ever?
Fact: the earth warms and cools on its own cycle.
Yes. And AGW is real as well. Correlation does not equal causation.
I posted a lot of it in this thread. The AGW argument has always been political, on both sides. Why is it only political when conservatives don't believe that crap? In a more conservative society, let's say JFK's era when it was 'don't ask what your country can do for you', I think they would see it as bunk. Hard core libs want everything free and taxes to go up to save a gay, communist seal, while conservatives think the government should leave us alone and the seal should save himself.
The articles you post fall into a few categories:
- Some supposed person of power saying AGW is crap
- Someone trying to prove an experiment wrong by nitpicking at the data instead of devising their own experiment.
If you can't devise your own experiment to prove something wrong, you haven't proved it wrong. Until I can devise an experiment that shows objects fall toward outer space, I can't prove gravity wrong. Just because I say 9.8m/s^2 is wrong (and technically it is!) doesn't mean gravity is wrong. Until I can prove it wrong in a lab I've done nothing. Show me the lab results that show CO2 levels aren't being driven by industry or else you haven't done anything to "prove" AGW is wrong.
And why are you trying to paint me as a hardcore lib now? For cripes sake I'm voting against all new taxes and even the marijuana bill next week because it's a monopoly. I must be libbing wrong. Once against there are logical fallacies all over this thread as we have now painted anyone who agrees with AGW research as liberal strawmen ready to vote for Obama's 3rd term. If it wasn't wet outside today I'd drive my 7.8MPG car around the block for fun. Oops, libbing wrong again.
I posted a lot of it in this thread. The AGW argument has always been political, on both sides. Why is it only political when conservatives don't believe that crap? In a more conservative society, let's say JFK's era when it was 'don't ask what your country can do for you', I think they would see it as bunk. Hard core libs want everything free and taxes to go up to save a gay, communist seal, while conservatives think the government should leave us alone and the seal should save himself.
The articles you post fall into a few categories:
- Some supposed person of power saying AGW is crap
- Someone trying to prove an experiment wrong by nitpicking at the data instead of devising their own experiment.
If you can't devise your own experiment to prove something wrong, you haven't proved it wrong. Until I can devise an experiment that shows objects fall toward outer space, I can't prove gravity wrong. Just because I say 9.8m/s^2 is wrong (and technically it is!) doesn't mean gravity is wrong. Until I can prove it wrong in a lab I've done nothing. Show me the lab results that show CO2 levels aren't being driven by industry or else you haven't done anything to "prove" AGW is wrong.
And why are you trying to paint me as a hardcore lib now? For cripes sake I'm voting against all new taxes and even the marijuana bill next week because it's a monopoly. I must be libbing wrong. Once against there are logical fallacies all over this thread as we have now painted anyone who agrees with AGW research as liberal strawmen ready to vote for Obama's 3rd term. If it wasn't wet outside today I'd drive my 7.8MPG car around the block for fun. Oops, libbing wrong again.
I said 'hard core liberals'. I never called you one.
The articles I post also have another category. They are immediately dismissed by those who don't want to even consider they might be wrong. I've read both sides of a lot of these studies, as agw seemed wrong to be from the beginning. AGW reads almost exactly as all those prophesies that the world would be flooded in 1999.
Nelly is actually one of the 3/100 scientists who don't believe in global warming. Bastardizing his message like this is pretty despicable even from tree huggers.
The articles I post also have another category. They are immediately dismissed by those who don't want to even consider they might be wrong. I've read both sides of a lot of these studies, as agw seemed wrong to be from the beginning. AGW reads almost exactly as all those prophesies that the world would be flooded in 1999.
You got to show me some links to this other category. I decided to look at every link you posted in these four pages and found no evidence of this third category. They all devolved into either name calling or trying to disprove a study by nitpicking data that has been re-verified since. Not a single link you provided showcased the results of a scientific experiment that debunked the evidence of increased CO2 production being produced by man. Not a single link.
The closest links you even got to a technical query was a LOLfest about arctic icecaps, which is hilarious for several reasons. AGW Skeptics always rail on and on about how climate change research is only 150 years old or so, yet the arctic ice cap gains some ice in a winter and all of a sudden it's "haha one year means forever!!" Saying 150 years is not enough time but 1 year is, is not science. It's not even very mathematical. It's FUD. That's all it is.
The thing about science is you don't have to like it. You don't have to believe in it. But it's true, whether you want it to be or not. And nothing the AGW Skeptic community provides disproves the truth presented that mankind is producing excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Picking nits about temperature and arctic ice caps over a years time isn't even the same ballpark as atmospheric CO2. It's not even the same sport. Yet people are convinced that if they find a case where someone missed a variable, the entire theory is wrong. Creationists try the same "house of cards" attack on evolution and it's comical. Sure we might find a new fossil that explains a transition better than we did before. Sure we now think dinosaurs probably had feathers and not before. But to pick those nits and say it's proof that evolution is completely wrong is well... pleading ignorance. It expresses a desire to live in a world where one knows less than is possible. You don't have to agree with liberal plans to "combat" AGW. I sure don't. But to use that to "decide" you're against AGW and don't want to learn about it? It's pleading ignorance. I caution against doing such things.
The articles I post also have another category. They are immediately dismissed by those who don't want to even consider they might be wrong. I've read both sides of a lot of these studies, as agw seemed wrong to be from the beginning. AGW reads almost exactly as all those prophesies that the world would be flooded in 1999.
You got to show me some links to this other category. I decided to look at every link you posted in these four pages and found no evidence of this third category. They all devolved into either name calling or trying to disprove a study by nitpicking data that has been re-verified since. Not a single link you provided showcased the results of a scientific experiment that debunked the evidence of increased CO2 production being produced by man. Not a single link.
The closest links you even got to a technical query was a LOLfest about arctic icecaps, which is hilarious for several reasons. AGW Skeptics always rail on and on about how climate change research is only 150 years old or so, yet the arctic ice cap gains some ice in a winter and all of a sudden it's "haha one year means forever!!" Saying 150 years is not enough time but 1 year is, is not science. It's not even very mathematical. It's FUD. That's all it is.
The thing about science is you don't have to like it. You don't have to believe in it. But it's true, whether you want it to be or not. And nothing the AGW Skeptic community provides disproves the truth presented that mankind is producing excess CO2 in the atmosphere. Picking nits about temperature and arctic ice caps over a years time isn't even the same ballpark as atmospheric CO2. It's not even the same sport. Yet people are convinced that if they find a case where someone missed a variable, the entire theory is wrong. Creationists try the same "house of cards" attack on evolution and it's comical. Sure we might find a new fossil that explains a transition better than we did before. Sure we now think dinosaurs probably had feathers and not before. But to pick those nits and say it's proof that evolution is completely wrong is well... pleading ignorance. It expresses a desire to live in a world where one knows less than is possible. You don't have to agree with liberal plans to "combat" AGW. I sure don't. But to use that to "decide" you're against AGW and don't want to learn about it? It's pleading ignorance. I caution against doing such things.
And if I believed everything AGW 'scientists' say, I should ask, 'why are there still ice caps'. None of the computer models have been correct with their data. None of their prediction have come true. Glaciers are growing, and are still there. Icecaps are growing and are still there. Great lakes ice is seeing all time highs. Storms have not destroyed the US. Polar bears are still alive. Weather stations have been proven to create faulty data due to their locations. Why do you still believe these people know what they're talking about?
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago.
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago.
Al Gore put solar panels on his house, problem solved.
Man caused Global Warming is a wet cow Farce.
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago.
30 years ago, CFC's and the Ozone Layer were the problem - threatening to plummet us into an Ice Age. They get rid of Aqua Net and big hair and now we're stuck with Global Warming.
Coincidence? I think not.
Pumpkin peril: Federal website's jack o'lantern warning cites climate change
There’s good reason to be frightened of those jack o’lanterns on porches across America this week, according to the federal government, and it isn’t just candlelit, jagged-toothed grins.
Pumpkins, according to the Department of Energy’s website, contribute to global warming by decomposing into methane, a harmful greenhouse gas the federal government says is 20 times as scary as carbon dioxide.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...e/?intcmp=hpbt4
And if I believed everything AGW 'scientists' say, I should ask, 'why are there still ice caps'. None of the computer models have been correct with their data. None of their prediction have come true. Glaciers are growing, and are still there. Icecaps are growing and are still there. Great lakes ice is seeing all time highs. Storms have not destroyed the US. Polar bears are still alive. Weather stations have been proven to create faulty data due to their locations. Why do you still believe these people know what they're talking about?
You using one year data sets to prove your "point" only proves you possess no understanding for what climate actually is. I'll give you a hint: climate is about longer data sets than one winter or even one year! Mind shattering news for you I know, but it's true!
And once again you don't provide a rebuttal to man made CO2 emissions. Are you going to get to the meat of the topic or are you going to continue arguing about aggregate data sets that you don't appear to understand? I think I know the answer because something tells me you couldn't prove that mankind isn't increasing CO2 emissions against the existing data.
Pumpkin peril: Federal website's jack o'lantern warning cites climate change
There’s good reason to be frightened of those jack o’lanterns on porches across America this week, according to the federal government, and it isn’t just candlelit, jagged-toothed grins.
Pumpkins, according to the Department of Energy’s website, contribute to global warming by decomposing into methane, a harmful greenhouse gas the federal government says is 20 times as scary as carbon dioxide.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...e/?intcmp=hpbt4 Food/Organics in landfills is super bad because it never properly decomposes, it just gets more garbage dumped on top of it. I compost every bit of food that I don't eat such as rinds or in this case, pumpkin rinds
You using one year data sets to prove your "point" only proves you possess no understanding for what climate actually is. I'll give you a hint: climate is about longer data sets than one winter or even one year! Mind shattering news for you I know, but it's true!
And yet, over the millions of years the earth has been around, warming and cooling, scientists are saying the last 100 years is proof enough? 1 year, 100 years? Over millions of years?
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
What, the day after tomorrow movie isn't true life?
The 'we all die in 20 years' is baloney. However, there is some cause for concern due to how CO2/methane levels contributed to the great dying of the Permian extinction event. Imagine a world so hot that nothing could live in the equatorial latitudes. A world where 90% of all life died off. Current research places the timeline of the amount of time it took for the initial CO2 emissions to cause mass extinction at 2k-18k years. Other famous extinction events that were due to the world getting too hot include the triassic, toarcian, and the PETM event (which is a good comparison for CO2 levels and warming events).
So while it is silly to think that we're all gonna die in 20 years, claiming that CO2 couldn't possibly cause a warmer earth when we have socmany examples in the past is right in the definition of insanity. If CO2 and warming occurred together every time in the past, why would today all of a sudden be different?
And yet, over the millions of years the earth has been around, warming and cooling, scientists are saying the last 100 years is proof enough? 1 year, 100 years? Over millions of years?
No, science is looking through the very rocks of the earth itself when determining the relationship between warming and CO2 emissions, and the prior world events that it shared. Don't confuse certain data points as the entire picture of research.
And if I believed everything AGW 'scientists' say, I should ask, 'why are there still ice caps'. None of the computer models have been correct with their data. None of their prediction have come true. Glaciers are growing, and are still there. Icecaps are growing and are still there. Great lakes ice is seeing all time highs. Storms have not destroyed the US. Polar bears are still alive. Weather stations have been proven to create faulty data due to their locations. Why do you still believe these people know what they're talking about?
You using one year data sets to prove your "point" only proves you possess no understanding for what climate actually is. I'll give you a hint: climate is about longer data sets than one winter or even one year! Mind shattering news for you I know, but it's true!
And once again you don't provide a rebuttal to man made CO2 emissions. Are you going to get to the meat of the topic or are you going to continue arguing about aggregate data sets that you don't appear to understand? I think I know the answer because something tells me you couldn't prove that mankind isn't increasing CO2 emissions against the existing data.
I have used multiple years in many different threads to prove my point. I have shown that co2 and heat have no correlation. If you remember elementary science class, you should know that co2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, so it would fall instead of rise in the atmosphere. That's huge problem #1 with agw, as that is supposed to be
the greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more dangerous to the atmosphere for heat trapping.
None of their predictions come true. I've seen better psychics than agw 'scientists'. Weather stations have been proven to sit on all concrete runways, in metal boxes, next to AC units, on blacktop surfaces, and all that data was used for their agw theory. If you average earth temperatures for the past 19 years, there has been no rise in temperature (and you guys keep telling me that one year is not climate). The largest investors in carbon credits are the same guys pushing this agenda. Is the world so lacking common sense that they won't even question this, because they heard the false stat, 97%?
Pumpkin peril: Federal website's jack o'lantern warning cites climate change
There’s good reason to be frightened of those jack o’lanterns on porches across America this week, according to the federal government, and it isn’t just candlelit, jagged-toothed grins.
Pumpkins, according to the Department of Energy’s website, contribute to global warming by decomposing into methane, a harmful greenhouse gas the federal government says is 20 times as scary as carbon dioxide.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...e/?intcmp=hpbt4They've gone Full Retard.
You should
never go Full Retard.
I often wonder, 20 years from now, when coastal cities are not under water and we can all still breathe... will AGW admit they may have exaggerated just a bit... or will they claim victory and it was their vigilance that saved us all?
They'll claim victory, of course. Don't forget, we had 20 years to save our planet 30 years ago.
Al Gore put solar panels on his house, problem solved.
As big as I hear that place was, ya never know.
The 'we all die in 20 years' is baloney. However, there is some cause for concern due to how CO2/methane levels contributed to the great dying of the Permian extinction event. Imagine a world so hot that nothing could live in the equatorial latitudes. A world where 90% of all life died off. Current research places the timeline of the amount of time it took for the initial CO2 emissions to cause mass extinction at 2k-18k years. Other famous extinction events that were due to the world getting too hot include the triassic, toarcian, and the PETM event (which is a good comparison for CO2 levels and warming events).
So while it is silly to think that we're all gonna die in 20 years, claiming that CO2 couldn't possibly cause a warmer earth when we have socmany examples in the past is right in the definition of insanity. If CO2 and warming occurred together every time in the past, why would today all of a sudden be different?
So, you just listed 4 different extinction events that happened prior to any industrial revolution events. Wow. You mean the earth is not controlled by man?
Now, you want to say that man made emissions of co2 are the cause today, but earth made co2 was the cause before.
Do we know that? Or, did the earth get a little too close to the sun?
What are YOU doing to limit co2 emissions?
As to your last sentence/statement: Good question. But it also begs the question: What turned the warming around? What caused global cooling?
Food/Organics in landfills is super bad because it never properly decomposes, it just gets more garbage dumped on top of it. I compost every bit of food that I don't eat such as rinds or in this case, pumpkin rinds
When I finish eating there is never anything left to compost.
Later I heat my home with 98.6 degree Methane.
I have used multiple years in many different threads to prove my point.
For the arctic ice refreezing? Most of the FUD around that is spread over a single data point used to declassify an entire trend. I wonder why there isn't mention being made of other areas with ice loss, such as Greenland?
I have shown that co2 and heat have no correlation.
To argue that there is no correlation between CO2 and heat content is to argue that 2+2=5.
If you remember elementary science class, you should know that co2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, so it would fall instead of rise in the atmosphere. That's huge problem #1 with agw, as that is supposed to be the greenhouse gas. Water vapor is more dangerous to the atmosphere for heat trapping.
Elementary science is great! But we cannot use building block lessons as the sole purpose of knowledge. If you remember a later science lesson, you may have heard about this concept called a closed system. Sure CO2 will naturally fall (as will nitrogen) in a closed system because they are heavier than O2. Yet thanks to convection currents in our atmosphere, we have natural mechanisms to distribute gaseous molecules pretty easily, because all things considered, CO2 and N are pretty light. Heck even in the confined space, it's not like 100% of the CO2 settles at the bottom of say, a silo. You just have an exponential falloff the higher up you go in the closed system.
None of their predictions come true. I've seen better psychics than agw 'scientists'. Weather stations have been proven to sit on all concrete runways, in metal boxes, next to AC units, on blacktop surfaces, and all that data was used for their agw theory.
Once again, this is false. Aside from the fact that your assertion that literally every weather station is biased is wrong, 42% of city trends are cooler as compared to the countryside surroundings. Why? Because most city based temperature stations are carefully calibrated to counter urban heat island effect.
If you average earth temperatures for the past 19 years, there has been no rise in temperature (and you guys keep telling me that one year is not climate). The largest investors in carbon credits are the same guys pushing this agenda. Is the world so lacking common sense that they won't even question this, because they heard the false stat, 97%?
Ahh yes, the Ross McKitrick paper. He has been associated with lovely groups such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The same CEI who has their research papers debunked regularly. It's not science to try to create an experiment to fit a desired result, no matter how hard we sometimes want to try.
You'd be better off talking about the 15 year pause, which was stated by the IPCC. You know, those evil people who have nothing better to do than to profit off of evil climate change scares. I wonder why they published the data. It couldn't be because they are scientists publishing results and findings. No. To you this must be a giant conspiracy. Well forgive me for not making a tin foil hat
So, you just listed 4 different extinction events that happened prior to any industrial revolution events. Wow. You mean the earth is not controlled by man? Now, you want to say that man made emissions of co2 are the cause today, but earth made co2 was the cause before.
You are attempting to link false cause here. Just because CO2 levels rose before the age of man does not mean that it is not capable for man to contribute to CO2 levels.
Do we know that? Or, did the earth get a little too close to the sun?
Yes we do. We have the geologic record, ice cores, and numerous other mechanisms by which to measure CO2 density and concentration over time. Have you ever considered why we don't put lead in gasoline anymore? Have you ever looked at the levels of lead in the ocean from the time of the industrial age to the time we got rid of lead in most fuels? Mankind has been capable of changing the global environment before, so to assume it's impossible now is well, foolhardy.
What are YOU doing to limit co2 emissions?
This is just ad hominem arch. It's not really rude or mean, but it is all the same. You are posturing that my argument is invalid because I'm not doing enough to limit CO2 emissions. It's kinda funny considering I work from home and so don't use nearly the gas amounts other people do, but I'm definitely not perfect and I'm not saying we need to make drastic changes.
As to your last sentence/statement: Good question. But it also begs the question: What turned the warming around? What caused global cooling?
In the last extinction events it was running out of fuel. And you don't have to burn every last bit of fuel either. Every few weeks this summer I'd collect brush in the forest on my property and burn it up, so it wouldn't collect. It's also a good excuse to have a beer or two outside
But not all of the fuel burned. Some of the fuel would get blocked by ash and even though it was very hot, it wouldn't burn at all. Next week I came out and there would be pretty good burnable wood, ready to be reset, and relit for the next go around. I just had to sift the ashes. Same thing with the prior extinction events. That's why we have the gas and oil deposits in the earth that we do. Then the CO2 levels would get lower as they got buried in the remaining exposed deposits, and off we are.
When I finish eating there is never anything left to compost.
Later I heat my home with 98.6 degree Methane.
I heat my home similarly. I confess I can't eat used coffee grounds or apple cores. But they make fantastic topsoil!
I have used multiple years in many different threads to prove my point.
For the arctic ice refreezing? Most of the FUD around that is spread over a single data point used to declassify an entire trend. I wonder why there isn't mention being made of other areas with ice loss, such as Greenland?
Would you like to try the Greenland ice sheet again? Maybe you're working with old data, or maybe you've been mislead with false data.
http://iceagenow.info/2015/01/greenland-ice-sheet-growing-fastest-rate-years-video/
JC.
So Basically
1) We can all agree the earth's climate is changing, whether that be a large change or slight change, warming or cooling, it is changing.
2) We can all agree we should be good stewards of our planet, do what we can to clean the planet and the air we breathe. It is currently the only one we have to live on.
3) Whether climate change is man-made, man-contributed or just natural, has no bearing on the ability to accept #1 and #2.
We can all argue, debate, fight, kill each other over the reasons, causes and effects. But in the end, we should all be focusing on solutions that not only obtain their objective, but do so without upending our entire society abruptly, while spreading the responsibility across everyone.
Taxpayer-backed solar plant actually a carbon polluter
Even as the Obama administration announces another $120 million in grants to boost solar energy, new reports indicate a centerpiece of the administration's green-energy effort is actually a carbon polluter.
Located in Southern California's Mojave Desert, the $2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System benefited from a $1.6 billion Energy Department loan guarantee, and a $539 million Treasury Department stimulus grant to help pay off the loan.
Yet it is producing carbon emissions at nearly twice the amount that compels power plants and companies to participate in the state's cap-and-trade program.
That's because the plant relies on natural gas as a supplementary fuel.
According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 to emit 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. But Ivanpah, while in the cap-and-trade program, is still considered a renewable energy source because it technically produces most its energy from solar.
Built by BrightSource Energy Inc. and operated by NRG Energy, the Ivanpah project has been mired in controversy from the start.
Taxpayer advocates object to the federal support. Environmentalists say it would hurt the endangered desert tortoise and lament that 3,500 birds were "fried" by the heat produced by the plant in its first year.
But the natural gas factor raises the fundamental question of whether this plant -- and others -- are undercutting their own green energy gains by emitting carbon pollution in the process, while not producing anywhere near the level of electricity of a regular power plant.
"This is a prime example of when good intentions go bad," said H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow at the Heartland Institute.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/...r/?intcmp=hpbt3
It's not the amount of ice that gets added that is the concern, it's the thaw rate. Greenland has been losing the equivalent weight of mt everest every year. One good winter isn't going to replace the 2000 gigatonnes of ice already lost since the turn of the millenium.
For Greenland to replace that amount of ice loss in a winter would probably require nuclear winter style global conditions, which would be just as bad for us as extreme warming
JC.
So Basically
1) We can all agree the earth's climate is changing, whether that be a large change or slight change, warming or cooling, it is changing.
2) We can all agree we should be good stewards of our planet, do what we can to clean the planet and the air we breathe. It is currently the only one we have to live on.
3) Whether climate change is man-made, man-contributed or just natural, has no bearing on the ability to accept #1 and #2.
We can all argue, debate, fight, kill each other over the reasons, causes and effects. But in the end, we should all be focusing on solutions that not only obtain their objective, but do so without upending our entire society abruptly, while spreading the responsibility across everyone.
That's pretty much where I'm at with the exception of realizing that mankind is easily capable of changing worldwide conditions. We have done so in the past with prior chemicals). If you look at CO2 levels and rate of decay, the news is sobering. If everyone on the planet stopped creating excess CO2 today, it would take over a century for the earth to renormalize CO2 levels. And this amount of time is moving logarithmically because the excess CO2 acts like a giant pillow: the more CO2 you have, the longer it will take to go back into the earth.
I think that's why you do have some scientists saying look we need to make drastic changes to reverse the trend. I just don't think there's anything we can do to stop whatever is going to happen, so whats the point in killing our economy and our childrens future for something that will probably happen anyway. You think China is gonna stop producing CO2 today? I sure don't.
I just don't like this concept that scientists are all of a sudden the enemy. Maybe I take it a bit more personally doing computer science, but as someone with contacts with scientists at NASA, SAIC, the Pentagon, and others, it's shameful that we've reduced these hard working people to political pundits trying to make headlines.
Ahh California, the kings of not thinking things through
.......
I just don't like this concept that scientists are all of a sudden the enemy. ......
You can thank the media and the political system for the sensationalized tactics they use to inform us and the way they use it for political gain.
Does anyone ever notice that most things we disagree on, can almost always come back to the way way the media and our political leaders present the information. hmmm...
I wonder, gage, would you believe NASA?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...-not-shrinking/ I love the article. A NASA scientist is stating that even though the ice sheet is growing, we'll never know when warming affects will melt the ice cap.
Since you're praising the scientists here - I wonder if any of the scientists who worked on this project believe in global warming? I bet they all do.
It might be worth reading an actual science article on the subject:
http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
Actually, I'm joking the scientist, as he's confounded by the ice build up, and is sure it will warm up soon enough.
Hey it was 76F in Uniontown OH today, so global warming is most certainly real guys!
I really hope these articles help curtail some of the cognitive dissonance on climate research. After all if NASA/IPCC were trying to hoax the world on climate change, why would these articles get posted by the same groups.
It's also great that the overall ice mass is growing, but the scientist in the article does show concern that we are indeed showing loss in some other areas, that are more pressing for water levels (especially because water levels are rising). If the southern pole continent isn't doing it, then it would be good to find out what is
it was 82 here yesterday. Had the motorcycle out all day running between DR offices, hospitals, and the pharmacy. Lets keep up the global warming so I can ride in January
It was dark last night.
I was totally shocked when I woke up and it wasn't dark anymore.
I bet because it's sunny outside now we won't be seeing anymore dark.
Hey it was 76F in Uniontown OH today, so global warming is most certainly real guys!
I really hope these articles help curtail some of the cognitive dissonance on climate research. After all if NASA/IPCC were trying to hoax the world on climate change, why would these articles get posted by the same groups.
It's also great that the overall ice mass is growing, but the scientist in the article does show concern that we are indeed showing loss in some other areas, that are more pressing for water levels (especially because water levels are rising). If the southern pole continent isn't doing it, then it would be good to find out what is
The sun.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/61...-sun-hibernates
