CDZ Climate Change "almost entirely man's fault"!

[Saigon]

However once they saw the writing on the wall they jumped into the green sector full bore. It's free money.

Again, most western oil companies earn 95% of their revenues from fossil fuels.

Again, very, very few companies in the solar, wind, tidal or even hydro sectors are owned by oil companies.

Really, Westwall.....is this your best argument, do you think?

 

[westwall]

However once they saw the writing on the wall they jumped into the green sector full bore. It's free money.

Again, most western oil companies earn 95% of their revenues from fossil fuels.

Again, very, very few companies in the solar, wind, tidal or even hydro sectors are owned by oil companies.

Really, Westwall.....is this your best argument, do you think?

The reality says you're wrong. Nothing unusual there.....

"If you’re a capitalist, you should be applauding the fact that oil stocks, like all businesses in the world, are trying to create generate corporate profits. I would say that oil stocks are simply doing on a larger scale what every business attempts to do: maximizing corporate profits. Without corporate profits, you have no company, hence, no jobs. We’ve seen what happens when a society is not run for profit through the collapse of every communist nation in the world, such as the former U.S.S.R. China has only succeeded because it’s now embraced the notion that to thrive in the world, businesses must generate corporate profits.
But the shocker for many is that some of the leaders in green energy development have been oil stocks, such as BP p.l.c. (NYSE/BP). Oil stocks have spent billions of dollars on green energy initiatives. BP, for one, has invested over $7.0 billion since 2005. While some might think this is just a PR stunt, I disagree. The truth is that oil stocks like BP see the potential for large corporate profits over the next century. While corporate profits through oil production have been significant, even firms like BP know there’s a limit to how much they can extract. It’s just common sense to use the corporate profits from oil to develop new green energy sources.
Since 2005, the BP Alternative Energy division has grown from just a couple of employees to 5,000 currently. The hunt for corporate profits involves biofuel, wind or solar energy, and any other possible avenue to generate green energy. All of life is based on incentives, and the drive to increase corporate profits is the purest of all. Without this drive, we would be nowhere near as technologically advanced as we are today."

Investing in Green Energy Through Big Oil Companies The Market Oracle Financial Markets Analysis Forecasting Free Website

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

No, I'm not wrong, because you addressing a point no one made. Of course some oil companies have invested in new technologies - particularly in areas like biogas. So what? Why shouldn't they invest in new technologies?

Because some nutcase extremists might think they secretly don't believe in climate change science, and are part of some giant socialist conspiracy?

The fact remains that all of the major companies that I checked - perhaps 6 companies - generate 95% of their revenues from fossil fuels.

And very few of the major renewables companies are owned by oil companies. That's a fact, too.

So it's simple, basic, obvious common sense that oil companies would have stuck with denial as long as they could. When the science became simply overwhelming, they switched camp. Anyone can see that. It's no different from what happened with tobacco - presumably you also think they don't believe tobacco was linked to cancer?

What do you think you achieve by attacking arguments you know with absolute certainty are correct?

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

No, I'm not wrong, because you addressing a point no one made. Of course some oil companies have invested in new technologies - particularly in areas like biogas. So what?

The fact remains that all of the major companies that I checked - perhaps 6 companies - generate 95% of their revenues from fossil fuels.

And very few of the major renewables companies are owned by oil companies. That's a fact, too.

So it's simple, basic, obvious common sense that oil companies would have stuck with denial as long as they could. When the science became simply overwhelming, they switched camp. Anyone can see that.

What do you think you achieve by attacking arguments you know with absolute certainty are correct?

Of course they generate 95% of their profits from fossil fuels. Green energy ISN'T PROFITABLE! The only way those companies stay in business is through government largesse. If it weren't for the good old taxpayer your green companies would have bit the dust decades ago.

Use some common sense of your own. I'm off to bed.

 

[Saigon]

Of course they generate 95% of their profits from fossil fuels

Great - then we agree.

Any oil company is going to safeguard 95% of their revenue. And if, as you say, green energy isn't profitable, then obviously they are not going into green energy for the money, are they?

And in this case we know that all of the major oil companies have backed climate change as being linked to fossil fuels. So we know that they did that - potentially jeopardising their own revenues - simply because the scientific proof was overwhelming.

Excellent.

 

[Saigon]

Maybe it's nice to round this topic off with a statement from BP oil.....as you read this, ask yourself with BP are a) socialists b) greenies, warmers or hippes....

The science
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is in large part due to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities. The IPCC believes that warming of the climate will probably lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Its latest report makes clear that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions.

The climate challenge
BP’s analysis suggests that global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels may be 29% higher in 2035 than they were in 2012, partly as a consequence of coal use in rapidly growing economies. This is a projection of what we think is likely to happen, not what we would like to see.

More aggressive energy policies and technologies could lead to slower growth in CO2 emissions than expected but this would still not be enough to limit warming to no more than 2°C, the threshold recognized by governments as limiting the worst impacts of climate change. The International Energy Agency has acknowledged that its 450 scenario, which would put the world on a lower-carbon trajectory, looks increasingly unlikely.

There are several reasons, in addition to growing energy demand, why achieving substantial and rapid GHG emissions reductions will be challenging. Some potentially important lower-carbon technologies – including nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage, and electric vehicles – still face significant technology, logistical, political, infrastructure and cost challenges. And worries about the cost of renewable technologies have led some governments to reduce their levels of support. In the meantime, the GHG intensity of oil and gas extraction and production looks set to increase, with the move towards resources that are harder to access.

Carbon policy
The scale of this challenge is such that governments must act by setting a clear, stable and effective carbon policy framework. A clear framework is necessary if energy companies are to limit GHGs while providing energy competitively. Global economic challenges have reduced the focus of some governments on climate policy, at least in the short term. That said, carbon regulations continue to be introduced and strengthened; and the commitment made in Durban in 2011 by both developed and developing countries to negotiate an agreement by 2015 that requires action from all countries by 2020 suggests that an emphasis on carbon policy may return.

We also believe that putting a price on carbon – one that treats all carbon equally, whether it comes out of a smokestack or a car exhaust – will make energy efficiency and conservation more attractive to businesses and individuals and lower-carbon energy sources more cost competitive. A global carbon price should be the long-term goal, but regional and national approaches are a good first step, provided temporary financial relief is given to sectors that are exposed to international competition.

Climate change Sustainability BP Global

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know what I think? When we do switch to alternative forms of energy, then there will be just as much of a monopoly on those resources by multi-million dollar conglomerates as there was on fossil fuels. AGW will be just another way for corporations to make obscene profits at the expense of the consumer.

AGW isn't real; it is a cash cow, not science. The IPCC has already been exposed as a corrupt scientific research organization that selectively uses data to paint an alarming picture. Why people ignore that is beyond me.

Just listen to some of the claims made about AGW:

1) Our ice caps are going to melt!

No. Our ice caps will not melt. Instead they have reached multidecadal highs in coverage.

2) Climate change is happening, and it's all man's fault!

Climate change has been happening for the life of the planet. It has been frozen over at least four times since (known as "snowball earth"). Ice melt occurs with the drift of climate. In fact the ice has been slowly melting since the last Ice Age. None of those changes were the result of man's influence. The Earth has been warm, if not warmer than it is now, yet alarmists claim that if the Earth reaches two degrees Celsius, it will kill us all.

3) CO2 drives temperature!

Sorry, CO2 lags temperature, as such it isn't a significant factor in driving it. Oh by the way, global temperature has been flat since 1996.

4) If we don't stop burning fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet!

Actually not. We are more at risk of being annihilated by a meteorite impact than being killed off via Anthropogenic Global Warming. Why must we stop burning fossil fuels, if not to allow another industry to take hold?

5) The seas are rising!

No they are not. Sea rise is nearly undetectable, it requires Antarctic ice melt. Do you see the icecaps melting? Does anyone remember the Himalayan Glaciers debacle?

6) The science is settled!

Well, if you have enough money, yes, yes indeed it is.

7) 97% of scientists agree we are the cause!

No. More like 52%.

The 97 consensus myth 8211 busted by a real survey Watts Up With That

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The science
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is in large part due to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities. The IPCC believes that warming of the climate will probably lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Its latest report makes clear that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions.

is NOT science

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

NAILED IT!

 

[Saigon]

I never undestand why posters think lying helps....

1) Our ice caps are going to melt!

No. Our ice caps will not melt. Instead they have reached multidecadal highs in coverage.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

 

[Saigon]

So just to review some of the agruments on this thread -

Westwall claims that oil companies when into Green Energy because it is "free money". He then went on to explain that there is no money in Green Energy, which is why BP earn all of their money from oil.

Paulitician explained that many conservative politicians confirm climate change science because they are part of a communist-blobalist conspiracy.

I think we can dismiss these theories fairly easily.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never undestand why posters think lying helps....

1) Our ice caps are going to melt!

No. Our ice caps will not melt. Instead they have reached multidecadal highs in coverage.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

I'm sorry?

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum NASA

 

[Saigon]

Templar -

'm sorry?

You should be - but I doubt you are, somehow,. This is form YOUR OWN link:

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

 

[TemplarKormac]

The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

So why does it acknowledge that sea ice extent reached a record? Should it be all melting away? I wouldn't be trusting the NSIDC either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perhaps you should have read the entire article, Saigon:

"“Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did,” Parkinson said. “The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it’s natural for scientists to ask, ‘OK, this isn’t what we expected, now how can we explain it?’”

 

[Saigon]

Templar -

We have established that the Arctic is melting very steadily - around three times the rate of any gains in Antarctic Ice. Hence, your claim about polar caps gaining ice is obviously false. I suspect you knew that when you posted it.

And yes, Antarctic Ice seems to be unstable and unpredictable.

 

[Saigon]

5) The seas are rising!

No they are not. Sea rise is nearly undetectable, it requires Antarctic ice melt. Do you see the icecaps melting? Does anyone remember the Himalayan Glaciers debacle?

Let's look at another lie -

First, we have established that the polar caps ARE melting, and that TK knew this when he claimed the opposite.

Next, let's look at what is happening with Himalayan Glaciers -

The glaciers of the Himalayas are melting so fast they will affect the water supplies of a population twice that of the US within 22 years, the head of the world’s leading authority on climate change has warned.

“That’s something to be concerned about,” said Rachendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which this week starts releasing its first extensive report in six years on how the global climate is changing.

This is the panel’s first big study since it was mired in controversy four years ago over a mistaken suggestion in its last assessment in 2007 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear as early as 2035, a date it admitted was “poorly substantiated”.

“The mistake we made was using that figure of 2035, but that doesn’t in any way reduce the implications of glacier melt across the entire Himalayan range and that’s something to be concerned about, as it was then.”

While the glaciers may not vanish by 2035, he added, the pace at which they are melting is bound to affect vast numbers of people depending on them for water.

“Even before 2035 it’s going to start showing up in terms of changes in water flows, which affect, as we had estimated, 500m people in south Asia and 250m people in China,” he said.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/10e65b88-220a-11e3-9b55-00144feab7de.html#axzz3IGHsUQAz

 

[Saigon]

And another lie....TK claims ocean levels are not rising, but actually....

Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.

Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat.

Sea Level Rise -- National Geographic

I think pointing out three lies in one TK post is probably enough.....!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I never undestand why posters think lying helps....

1) Our ice caps are going to melt!

No. Our ice caps will not melt. Instead they have reached multidecadal highs in coverage.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

Golly... You're saying that your data goes all the way back to 1975? Well that seems a little excessive, given that the earth formed only 4.5 billion years before that... and it's been what? 39 years since 1975?

So that's like most of time itself... .

I mean if we used a 24 hour clock and the earth began at 00:00 midnight, and the present would be at 23:59, then human life would have come on the scene at like 23:58. 1975 would be at 23:59:59 and... today would be like... 23:59:59000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

Which... is plenty of time in which to make conclusions on issues which cycle over periods of time wherein humanity is, roughly, irrelevant.

I mean think about it... using the reasoning of these clowns are using, then given that the current temperature outside at 12:29am... is 60 degrees... which is down from 80 degrees just 12 hours earlier... we could be looking at the planet being incased in ice by this time Saturday!

 

[Saigon]

Keys -

Please try to limit the spamming - this is the Clean Debate Zone.

Just because one single data source is presented here does not mean other, much older, sources of data do not exist. Obvously they do. However, by using a single data source we can be sure of looking at like-on-like numbers.