The Fossil Fuel Industry Misinformation Campaign

[1srelluc]

 

[Crick]

We're not the ones denying hard facts and rejecting mainstream science. You people must be fucking petrified.

 

[1srelluc]

We're not the ones denying hard facts and rejecting mainstream science. You people must be fucking petrified.

Nope, we will elect someone that will stand between the nut-job climate weenie grifters and the rest of us.

That's what you people are really afraid of.....No more grifter "studies" for you.....At least not with our money.

 

[Crick]

Nope, we will elect someone that will stand between the nut-job climate weenie grifters and the rest of us.

That's what you people are really afraid of.....No more grifter "studies" for you.....At least not with our money.

Okay... okay... so you're rather spend several thousand times as much dealing with the problems you chose to ignore. Good thinkin'.

 

[1srelluc]

Okay... okay... so you're rather spend several thousand times as much dealing with the problems you chose to ignore. Good thinkin'.

It's only a "problem" if I believe that it is. To that end I don't want to spend my money on something I don't deem a problem.

 

[Crick]

It's only a "problem" if I believe that it is. To that end I don't want to spend my money on something I don't deem a problem.

Your belief has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is actually a problem. The scientific evidence does, but you reject all of that. So, you're opting for the extremely more expensive route.

 

[1srelluc]

Your belief has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is actually a problem. The scientific evidence does, but you reject all of that. So, you're opting for the extremely more expensive route.

Sorry, I forgot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your belief has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is actually a problem. The scientific evidence does, but you reject all of that. So, you're opting for the extremely more expensive route.

Your belief has absolutely no bearing on whether or not your "solution" will work.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I just wanted to point out that you're not invulnerable here. Having your misconceptions corrected does you good.

You have become a street preacher.

 

[Crick]

Sorry, I forgot.

We'll remind you when the first few trillions installment comes due.

 

[Crick]

You have become a street preacher.

You don't care for atheists, do you. Don't be shy about it. Its common in the US.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The IPCC funds NO science.

The number of active climate scientists that support this document is minute.

Our understanding of climate allows us to make broad projections of averge global temperature dependent on a range of emissions scenarios. It is not a local weather forecast for a century in the future. CO2 is already 140 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels and the effects that that has caused have been studied extensively.

Because the climate data available today is not available for the Little Ice Age

It precedes the invention of the thermometer. There is NO widespread instrument data during the period. It is almost all proxy data.

It is NOT well documented compared to the present time.

It has not been studied as extensively or as accurately as the last 50 years.

It does pass the smell test.

Here we go again. Which of the following do you believe to have been "wrong"?

View attachment 891657

View attachment 891658

View attachment 891659

View attachment 891660

View attachment 891661

View attachment 891662

View attachment 891664

View attachment 891665

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

The IPCC funds NO science.

The number of active climate scientists that support this document is minute.

Our understanding of climate allows us to make broad projections of averge global temperature dependent on a range of emissions scenarios. It is not a local weather forecast for a century in the future. CO2 is already 140 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels and the effects that that has caused have been studied extensively.

Because the climate data available today is not available for the Little Ice Age

It precedes the invention of the thermometer. There is NO widespread instrument data during the period. It is almost all proxy data.

It is NOT well documented compared to the present time.

It has not been studied as extensively or as accurately as the last 50 years.

It does pass the smell test.

Here we go again. Which of the following do you believe to have been "wrong"?

View attachment 891657

View attachment 891658

View attachment 891659

View attachment 891660

View attachment 891661

View attachment 891662

View attachment 891664

View attachment 891665

Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? - Carbon Brief

Scientists have been making projections of future global warming using climate models of increasing complexity for the past four decades.

www.carbonbrief.org

Ok, funded by the IPCC was a poor choice of words. A more accurate way to say this would be scientist not funded by global warming/climate change organizations/grants.

Regarding your statement about climate data- Really? Are you suggesting that alarmist are simply relying on data from the 1970s, like all of the graphs you posted. Dude, that is not climate science. Climate scientist don’t just look at available recent data. The whole idea is to study climate from history, 100s of years ago, 1000’s of years ago, etc. Btw- the thermometer was invented in the midst of the Little Ice Age. Why don’t any of your graphs show/explain the global cooling that occurred from 1940-1976?
Look, I get it. Many people don’t want to be skeptical, but science is all about being skeptical, questioning, proposing a theory and then trying to disprove it. That is science. The IPCC is a politically founded organization with an agenda. It is not based in science.

Let me also just say this, Climate change is inevitable. Climate is not a constant, never has been, never will be. It is literally impossible for climate not to change. Regarding the alleged climate disaster on the horizon because of warming temperatures- mankind has always done much better in times of global warmth as opposed to cooler times.

And it has been warmer in the past than it is now. Was that caused by additional CO2?

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of largely human-caused global warming. That was an era when CO2 levels were much lower than now, long before industrialization and SUVs.

Science Under Attack

One study demonstrates that the period known as the Roman Warming was the warmest in the last 2,000 years. The other study provides evidence that it was just as warm up to 6,000 years ago. Both studies reinforce the occurrence of an even warmer period immediately following the end of t

www.scienceunderattack.com

 

[Crick]

Ok, funded by the IPCC was a poor choice of words. A more accurate way to say this would be scientist not funded by global warming/climate change organizations/grants.

I have no idea what you mean there. Are you rejecting all funded research? If so, you reject all research and all science.

Regarding your statement about climate data- Really? Are you suggesting that alarmist are simply relying on data from the 1970s, like all of the graphs you posted.

The graphs I posted were comparisons between general climate models and climate observations. The models can be judged on how well they reproduce the past (hindcasting) and how well they predicted the future (forecasting). The widely denier-held belief that climate models have failed badly is simply false. I don't know to what you're referring with "data from the 70s"

Dude, that is not climate science. Climate scientist don’t just look at available recent data. The whole idea is to study climate from history, 100s of years ago, 1000’s of years ago, etc. Btw- the thermometer was invented in the midst of the Little Ice Age. Why don’t any of your graphs show/explain the global cooling that occurred from 1940-1976?

Climate science can and does study any period the researcher wants to study. Recently, a great deal of study has gone into the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when human CO2 emissions began affecting global temperatures. Study of the more distant past also takes place. If you scan through this forum you will see data going back anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of millions of years. Your objection here is specious.

Look, I get it. Many people don’t want to be skeptical, but science is all about being skeptical, questioning, proposing a theory and then trying to disprove it. That is science.

That skepticism, however, must remain based in the scientific method. It does not mean accepting any hypothesis that comes along simply because it differs from the consensus or rejecting a scientifically valid theory because you've been told it is politically based.

The IPCC is a politically founded organization with an agenda. It is not based in science.

The IPCC is a part of the United Nations. In that sense, it cannot avoid being political in some manner. But it does NOT have a political goal, ambition or agenda. It's charter requires that it technically assess published science regarding the possibility of human caused global warming with an aim of advising the member nations as to the actual risks of the situation and with how they may be dealt. And that is what they have been doing.

Let me also just say this, Climate change is inevitable. Climate is not a constant, never has been, never will be. It is literally impossible for climate not to change.

That is incorrect. It IS possible for climate not to change but that would be rare and the point is irrelevant. The world's climate, in response to the unprecedentedly rapid increase in CO2 is experiencing an unprecedentedly rapid increase in temperature. As I have stated here on many occasions, it is NOT the absolute temperature we will achieve in the next century or two, it is the RATE at which our temperature is changing. If the world were to heat up 5C over the next 100,000 years (as it has done repeatedly in the distant past) we would not even notice. If it rises 5C within a century and a half (as it is doing now) the consequences will be catastrophic.

Regarding the alleged climate disaster on the horizon because of warming temperatures- mankind has always done much better in times of global warmth as opposed to cooler times.

We are headed towards higher temperatures that we have ever experienced and we are already far beyond any CO2 level experienced in many times the span of human existence.

And it has been warmer in the past than it is now. Was that caused by additional CO2?

Some of it, yes.

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of largely human-caused global warming.

I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. The Holocene Climate Optimum, roughly 8,000 years ago, has been considered the warmest period in human history for many decades now. We are closely approaching those temperatures and there is a very good chance we will exceed them soon, but no one disputes they are the current record holder.

That was an era when CO2 levels were much lower than now, long before industrialization and SUVs.

Science Under Attack

One study demonstrates that the period known as the Roman Warming was the warmest in the last 2,000 years. The other study provides evidence that it was just as warm up to 6,000 years ago. Both studies reinforce the occurrence of an even warmer period immediately following the end of t

www.scienceunderattack.com

Please. When folks make the argument that CO2 can't be warming the planet because it was warmer in the past without SUVs the only thing revealed is their ignorance. You need to improve your knowledge on this topic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Duh.

Fine admission. Yes, it was the tow truck driver, not the car owner. And yes, idiots abound. Some buy and abandon EVs in parking lots. Others buy and abandon ICE vehicles all along our highways. Chicagoans crying again about winter weather conditions? Priceless.

 

[1srelluc]

We'll remind you when the first few trillions installment comes due.

I'll be long dead by then.....Well unless the dems ever hold total sway again sometime before my dirt nap. Then it will be grift, grift, and more CC grift.

 

[Crick]

I'll be long dead by then.....Well unless the dems ever hold total sway again sometime before my dirt nap. Then it will be grift, grift, and more CC grift.

I expect that come 2024, the democrats will control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

 

[fncceo]

The deniers here constantly accuse the world's climate scientists of ALL being involved in a massive and decades-long hoat to push global warming in order to 1) Get rich 2) Remain employed 3) Gain control over the population 4) Destroy western civilization. Unfortunately for them, they have ZERO evidence to support those claims.

Deniers here have also constantly IGNORED the possibility that the fossil fuel industry, seeing global warming mitigation measures as an existential threat, might make efforts to slow the acceptance of the science and the measures required to combat this problem. Unfortunately for them, there is a wealth of evidence to prove that this is precisely what they have done and that all deniers have served admirably as the industry's "useful idiots".

Oil companies discourage climate action, study says

Harvard researchers have turned a spotlight on the sometimes subtle, yet effective, strategies employed by oil companies to foster doubt and delay action on climate change.

news.harvard.edu

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf

Exxon’s Climate Denial History: A Timeline

A review of Exxon's knowledge and subsequent denial of climate change.

www.greenpeace.org

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199570023/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-global-warming-oil-gas

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide

www.theguardian.com

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[Crick]

View attachment 891872

Could you explain what about my statement there you find sermon like? I don't visualize myself shouting like that fellow.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't visualize myself shouting like that fellow.

Preach it, brother! Just don't enter a dick waving contest. I seem to have misplaced mine.

 

[fncceo]

I don't visualize myself shouting like that fellow.

I KNOW you don't...every one else does.

Using Inquisition era terminology like "denier" to label anyone who doesn't immediately accept your beliefs without question doesn't support your case for not being preachy.