New Congressional Report on Fossil Fuel Industry Disinformation

[Crick]

Are you comparing the earnings of fossil fuel companies to government expenditures for climate research? How do you believe oil companies/NOC's are forestalling action? What is it that they control?

Try reading the OP

 

[Crick]

There's only the empirical climate evidence from the geologic record and my conclusions from the data. That's it. You are tilting at windmills.

That's pretty rich coming from you.

 

[ding]

Try reading the OP

You can't state it in one simple sentence?

 

[ding]

That's pretty rich coming from you.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

 

[Crick]

You must be confusing me with someone else.

So how about putting your position out here in simple terms and explain how much input the fossil fuel industry disinformation program has had on your thinking?

I'll go first.

---

---

I believe the world is warming at a rapid pace and that the primary cause of that warming is increasing levels of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Deforestation is also part of this problem. These are all the results of human activities. The rate of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecedented in the last 3 million years, FAR longer than all of human history.

I believe that warming presents a real threat to human society, particularly due to the ice melt and sea level rise it is causing and the effects it will have on seasonal timing, rain and drought patters and weather intensity.

I believe this interglacial period hit its maximum temperature at the Holocene Climate Optimum, 6,000 years ago and cooled steadily till we began producing large quantities of GHG in the Industrial Revolution. That this interglacial might have a more gradual off-ramp does not bother me as Earth's climate history has not been perfectly periodic.

What needs doing is the elimination of human GHG emissions as quickly as we can reasonably accomplish it. If we had started on such a process when we should have - 20 or 30 years ago - the difficulty of avoiding the worst consequences would have been greatly ameliorated.

I suspected very early on that the fossil fuel industry would be running a covert PR campaign modeled on the cigarette industry's work and that a great deal of research funded by fossil fuel companies and organizations they had surreptitiously created and/or funded would be suspect. I have thus attempted to stick close to the line of mainstream science funded by unconflicted sources. I do not believe any of the paranoid fantasies with which the far right seems to be awash, that all the planet's scientists and their government sponsors are lying to get rich, get power and/or destroy modern civilization.

---

---

Your turn. If possible, could you explain, in clear terms without obscure references, what you think is happening and what - if anything - you think humans should be doing, and - just to stay on topic - including what impact fossil fuel disinformation might have had on your conclusions.

 

[ding]

So how about putting your position out here in simple terms and explain how much input the fossil fuel industry disinformation program has had on your thinking?

I'll go first.

---

---

I believe the world is warming at a rapid pace and that the primary cause of that warming is increasing levels of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Deforestation is also part of this problem. These are all the results of human activities. The rate of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecedented in the last 3 million years, FAR longer than all of human history.

I believe that warming presents a real threat to human society, particularly due to the ice melt and sea level rise it is causing and the effects it will have on seasonal timing, rain and drought patters and weather intensity.

I believe this interglacial period hit its maximum temperature at the Holocene Climate Optimum, 6,000 years ago and cooled steadily till we began producing large quantities of GHG in the Industrial Revolution. That this interglacial might have a more gradual off-ramp does not bother me as Earth's climate history has not been perfectly periodic.

What needs doing is the elimination of human GHG emissions as quickly as we can reasonably accomplish it. If we had started on such a process when we should have - 20 or 30 years ago - the difficulty of avoiding the worst consequences would have been greatly ameliorated.

I suspected very early on that the fossil fuel industry would be running a covert PR campaign modeled on the cigarette industry's work and that a great deal of research funded by fossil fuel companies and organizations they had surreptitiously created and/or funded would be suspect. I have thus attempted to stick close to the line of mainstream science funded by unconflicted sources. I do not believe any of the paranoid fantasies with which the far right seems to be awash, that all the planet's scientists and their government sponsors are lying to get rich, get power and/or destroy modern civilization.

---

---

Your turn. If possible, could you explain, in clear terms without obscure references, what you think is happening and what - if anything - you think humans should be doing, and - just to stay on topic - including what impact fossil fuel disinformation might have had on your conclusions.

I believe the world is warming and that the primary cause of that warming is natural with increasing levels of CO2 only accounting for 0.22 to 0.5C. Deforestation and urbanization is problem. The rate of CO2 increase is unprecedented but is a weak GHG which produces a 1C warming per doubling of CO2.

I believe that warming does not present a real threat to human society and is due to the planet naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial period temperature like it has been doing ever since the beginning of the ice age three million years ago. I believe that ice melt and sea level rise are no different today than any previous interglacial period and whatever effects of the natural warming are no different than any other interglacial period.

I believe this interglacial period is still 2C below the temperature which causes salinity and density changes in the ocean (due to meltwater and thermal expansion) to trigger changes in ocean currents which disrupt heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic. I believe that in addition to salinity and density changes, changes in wind patterns also play a role in altering ocean currents. I believe the changes in wind patterns are primarily due to changes in solar radiation - either from orbital changes, solar flare activity and solar radiation output.

I don't believe the fossil fuel industry drives people opinions in the slightest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So how about putting your position out here in simple terms and explain how much input the fossil fuel industry disinformation program has had on your thinking?

I'll go first.

---

---

I believe the world is warming at a rapid pace and that the primary cause of that warming is increasing levels of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Deforestation is also part of this problem. These are all the results of human activities. The rate of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecedented in the last 3 million years, FAR longer than all of human history.

I believe that warming presents a real threat to human society, particularly due to the ice melt and sea level rise it is causing and the effects it will have on seasonal timing, rain and drought patters and weather intensity.

I believe this interglacial period hit its maximum temperature at the Holocene Climate Optimum, 6,000 years ago and cooled steadily till we began producing large quantities of GHG in the Industrial Revolution. That this interglacial might have a more gradual off-ramp does not bother me as Earth's climate history has not been perfectly periodic.

What needs doing is the elimination of human GHG emissions as quickly as we can reasonably accomplish it. If we had started on such a process when we should have - 20 or 30 years ago - the difficulty of avoiding the worst consequences would have been greatly ameliorated.

I suspected very early on that the fossil fuel industry would be running a covert PR campaign modeled on the cigarette industry's work and that a great deal of research funded by fossil fuel companies and organizations they had surreptitiously created and/or funded would be suspect. I have thus attempted to stick close to the line of mainstream science funded by unconflicted sources. I do not believe any of the paranoid fantasies with which the far right seems to be awash, that all the planet's scientists and their government sponsors are lying to get rich, get power and/or destroy modern civilization.

---

---

Your turn. If possible, could you explain, in clear terms without obscure references, what you think is happening and what - if anything - you think humans should be doing, and - just to stay on topic - including what impact fossil fuel disinformation might have had on your conclusions.

The rate of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecedented in the last 3 million years

You can't prove that.

 

[Crick]

The rate of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecedented in the last 3 million years

You can't prove that.

But the statement is VERY likely correct.

No proofs in the natural sciences, remember?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But the statement is VERY likely correct.

No proofs in the natural sciences, remember?

Very likely baloney.
We don't have anything near the resolution to tell
us what the largest temperature increases over a 140-year period were.
Not over the last 100,000 years and certainly not over the last 3 million years.
Just hearing that claim makes me realize how gullible the doomers have become.

 

[ding]

The rate of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecedented in the last 3 million years

You can't prove that.

The slope is not materially different than any other warming trend.

 

[ding]

But the statement is VERY likely correct.

Why do you believe that it is VERY likely? You act like 1 to 2C warming trends never occur unless CO2 is involved, but you have never proven that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The slope is not materially different than any other warming trend.

The idea that you can see the warming over any 140-year periods in history
is even dumber than the usual warmer idiocy.

 

[Crick]

Very likely baloney.
We don't have anything near the resolution to tell
us what the largest temperature increases over a 140-year period were.
Not over the last 100,000 years and certainly not over the last 3 million years.
Just hearing that claim makes me realize how gullible the doomers have become.

What do you believe would cause such a thing to occur? And to not be seen in the record, it has to come on and go away in less time than the record's resolution. That will require massive forcing in both directions, one right after the other. The rate that we've been producing CO2 dwarfs the output of the world's volcanoes. It would require a truly massive, world-altering eruption or an asteroid strike. And then you have to find some way for the Earth to get rid of all that CO2 just as quickly. And given that it has a 200-1,000 year lifespan, that's not going to be easy. And whatever could do that would leave evidence.

So, twixt the two of us, I think it's YOU that's doing the wishful thinking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What do you believe would cause such a thing to occur? And to not be seen in the record, it has to come on and go away in less time than the record's resolution. That will require massive forcing in both directions, one right after the other. The rate that we've been producing CO2 dwarfs the output of the world's volcanoes. It would require a truly massive, world-altering eruption or an asteroid strike. And then you have to find some way for the Earth to get rid of all that CO2 just as quickly. And given that it has a 200-1,000 year lifespan, that's not going to be easy. And whatever could do that would leave evidence.

So, twixt the two of us, I think it's YOU that's doing the wishful thinking.

What do you believe would cause such a thing to occur?

Any number of things.

And to not be seen in the record, it has to come on and go away in less time than the record's resolution.

What is the resolution? 100,000 years ago? 3,000,000 years ago?

and then you have to find some way for the Earth to get rid of all that CO2 just as quickly.

Don't change the subject, we're not talking about CO2, we're talking about temperature change over 140-year periods.

 

[Crick]

What do you believe would cause such a thing to occur?

Any number of things.

Like what?

And to not be seen in the record, it has to come on and go away in less time than the record's resolution.

What is the resolution? 100,000 years ago? 3,000,000 years ago?

Ice cores collected in polar or other glaciated regions offer unique records of past climate. Deep ice cores collected in Greenland (GISP2 and GRIP) and in Antarctica (e.g., Vostok, Byrd, Siple Dome, Taylor Dome, Dome C, Berkner Island, Dome Fuji) provide climate records for as much as 100,000-400,000 years of earth’s history at annual to decadal to multi-decadal resolution.

Bureau Staff - Nelia W. Dunbar: Volcanic record in Antarctic ice

geoinfo.nmt.edu

and then you have to find some way for the Earth to get rid of all that CO2 just as quickly.

Don't change the subject, we're not talking about CO2, we're talking about temperature change over 140-year periods.

No, you're not. Under an absolute best case scenario we could stop warming after 170-200 years. But if you want temperatures to return to pre-industrial levels in the same amount of time, you're going to have to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere; remember its long lifespan in the atmosphere. So you're looking for a bump of at least 400 years duration. The info above tells us that we easily have that resolultion well beyond 400,000 years. And since nothing short of a major asteroid strike (which would leave other evidence) could put CO2 into the atmosphere as quickly as we have and NO KNOWN natural process could remove it at similar rates, you're wishful thinking is just that. Stop lying to yourself Todd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Like what?


Ice cores collected in polar or other glaciated regions offer unique records of past climate. Deep ice cores collected in Greenland (GISP2 and GRIP) and in Antarctica (e.g., Vostok, Byrd, Siple Dome, Taylor Dome, Dome C, Berkner Island, Dome Fuji) provide climate records for as much as 100,000-400,000 years of earth’s history at annual to decadal to multi-decadal resolution.

Bureau Staff - Nelia W. Dunbar: Volcanic record in Antarctic ice

geoinfo.nmt.edu

No, you're not. Under an absolute best case scenario we could stop warming after 170-200 years. But if you want temperatures to return to pre-industrial levels in the same amount of time, you're going to have to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere; remember its long lifespan in the atmosphere. So you're looking for a bump of at least 400 years duration. The info above tells us that we easily have that resolultion well beyond 400,000 years. And since nothing short of a major asteroid strike (which would leave other evidence) could put CO2 into the atmosphere as quickly as we have and NO KNOWN natural process could remove it at similar rates, you're wishful thinking is just that. Stop lying to yourself Todd.

Like what?

Like anything that causes the planet to warm. What caused the MWP or the RWP?
What caused the last Ice Age to end? What causes D-O events?

Ice cores collected in polar or other glaciated regions offer unique records of past climate.

That's awesome!

climate records for as much as 100,000-400,000 years of earth’s history at annual to decadal to multi-decadal resolution.

Science is cool!
Use that data from 100,000 years ago and post the 10 quickest warming 140-year periods.

No, you're not.

Yes, I am.

Under an absolute best case scenario we could stop warming after 170-200 years.

How do we stop it?

But if you want temperatures to return to pre-industrial levels in the same amount of time,

Why would we want to do that?

So you're looking for a bump of at least 400 years duration.

You're changing the subject again. We're talking about the claim that warming
over the last 140-years is quicker, 7-12 times quicker, than any time in the last (insert huge period of time here).

So, what is this abnormally huge temperature increase we're talking about?
1 degree? 1.5 degrees?

The info above tells us that we easily have that resolultion well beyond 400,000 years.

Great.
Post the top 10 largest 400-year warmings in the last 400,000 years.

And since nothing short of a major asteroid strike (which would leave other evidence) could put CO2 into the atmosphere as quickly as we have

You'd have a point if we were only talking about CO2, but we're not.
We're talking about temperature fluctuations. Focus!

 

[Crick]

Like what?

Like anything that causes the planet to warm. What caused the MWP or the RWP?
What caused the last Ice Age to end? What causes D-O events?

Ice cores collected in polar or other glaciated regions offer unique records of past climate.

That's awesome!

climate records for as much as 100,000-400,000 years of earth’s history at annual to decadal to multi-decadal resolution.

Science is cool!
Use that data from 100,000 years ago and post the 10 quickest warming 140-year periods.

No, you're not.

Yes, I am.

Under an absolute best case scenario we could stop warming after 170-200 years.

How do we stop it?

But if you want temperatures to return to pre-industrial levels in the same amount of time,

Why would we want to do that?

So you're looking for a bump of at least 400 years duration.

You're changing the subject again. We're talking about the claim that warming
over the last 140-years is quicker, 7-12 times quicker, than any time in the last (insert huge period of time here).

So, what is this abnormally huge temperature increase we're talking about?
1 degree? 1.5 degrees?

The info above tells us that we easily have that resolultion well beyond 400,000 years.

Great.
Post the top 10 largest 400-year warmings in the last 400,000 years.

And since nothing short of a major asteroid strike (which would leave other evidence) could put CO2 into the atmosphere as quickly as we have

You'd have a point if we were only talking about CO2, but we're not.
We're talking about temperature fluctuations. Focus!

You're dissembling. I was looking at what the minimum length might be for the bump in the records the current situation will create. You were the one who has said it couldn't be seen and I'm telling you it could.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't have a phobia about weather and the majority of people both in the US and worldwide believe that AGW is taking place, that it is a threat to our future well-being and that its cause is the burning of fossil fuels. This is not the first study to show that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince fools like you to reject AGW. That the lot of you should think it more likely that every scientists on the planet is lying to us to get research grants than that the fossil fuel industry might try some PR in response to a completely existential threat is the perfect demonstration of the ignorance of the folks who've bought their bullshit.

Do you deny that the fossil fuel industry must have some interest in this topic? Then why is it that we NEVER here deniers reporting on the statements, positions, choices or actions of the fossil fuel industry? If what YOU believe is true, is actually true, why aren't fossil fuel industries fighting for their lives to put that out to the public?

If AGW is occurring, why did we have the lowest temps ever during the winter of 2022? Why have the high temps in the summer been lower the past two summers here in Tennessee?

There is one simple answer: weather.

 

[ding]

What do you believe would cause such a thing to occur?

The ocean temperature returning to its pre-glacial temperature which occurs during every interglacial period before ocean currents disrupt heat transport from the Atlantic to the Arctic. So blame the sun for heating up the ocean.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Global warming could be a good thing. Increased rainfall has made greening occur in the Sahel of Africa, deserts are retreating, not growing. The predicted increased intensity and number of hurricanes has NOT occurred. Longer growing seasons have increased crop yields. California's extended drought was ended by increased rain and snow fall last winter. Crick is so worried about something that will not significantly impact his grandchildren if he is stupid enough to reproduce. Any steps to prevent this so-called warming will not accomplish anything without the cooperation of all nations, and we're not even sure there is a problem yet. It is sad that Crick dedicates so much time an energy yelling at a wall, telling it to move! I think he needs psychiatric help!