Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

Let us look at Exxon employee, Marty Hoeffert. The story begins in 1981.

“Marty Hoffert was one of the first scientists to create a model which predicted the effects of man-made climate change. And he did so while working for Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, which would later merge with another, Mobil.

At the time Exxon was spending millions of dollars on ground-breaking research. It wanted to lead the charge as scientists grappled with the emerging understanding that the warming planet could cause the climate to change in ways that could make life pretty difficult for humans.

Hoffert shared his predictions with his managers, showing them what might happen if we continued burning fossil fuels in our cars, trucks and planes.


But he noticed a clash between Exxon's own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that "currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

"They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups," said Hoffert.
Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.”


Hoeffert went on to say, that what Exxon did was “immoral. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change when their own researchers were confirming how serious a threat it was."

Exxon then undertook the same tactic of disinformation that the tobacco companies did to discredit the science. But it wasn’t just Exxon.

“But this isn't just about Exxon's past actions. In the same year as the Levine presentation, 1989, many energy companies and fossil fuel dependent industries came together to form the Global Climate Coalition, which aggressively lobbied US politicians and media”.

It is unfortunate for us that these slut purveyors of lies were so successful

As can be seen from the above denier posts, the fossil fuel disinformation campaign still resonates. We are all now feeling the consequences.


See also:

In a Federal District Court in San Francisco, five oil companies argued before a judge on facts that uphold the 95-100 percent likelihood that human activity has been the dominant cause of the global warming of Earth since the mid-20th century.

“......Chevron was represented by Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Boutrous did not deny the science behind climate change and based his presentation on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013. Dr. Myles Allen, who had been the first presenter in this courtroom hearing, had been the lead author on the Fifth Assessment report. The assessments are status reports that provide an update on the knowledge of the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic aspects of climate change.

Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous. There’s no debate about climate science”.


Like tobacco, times-a-changing.
 
Last edited:
PseudoScience.jpg
 
I started a thread in 2013 that is still going strong here in 2020. Nobody cared about global warming back then.......they still dont care. Once again, its nowhere on the radar in this election season except for fringe voters.
The GOP is the only party in the world that denies global warming. As well as the only people who believe Democrats are corrupt and hundreds of phony scandals and conspiracy theories about all kinds of stuff thanks Rupert Murdoch and Rush . Poor America....
 
If you want exact amount of change in 2100.. you are well into the demand detail Fallacy, especially on this dynamic system.

Wow -- this is new one to me. Someone upset that they make scientific assertions and are asked a key question and the dodge it invoking some obscure voodoo about "demanding details".. This aint going nowhere. Well it IS.. But you're not...

Just one EXAMPLE, of 99 others in the wings ready to fly as to WHY you cant have scientific consensus on GW with ONE QUESTION.. And you don't even the KNOW or cant state question for the CONSENSUS you claim is in those not so important "policy statements" from various organizations' front office management.

And invoking the "Paranoia Fallacy" with some chippy statement about me WARNING you? In the words of Joe -- "C'monnnn Maaan".. You wasted a post -- taking a cheap shot at a member who's not even in this thread.. Completely personal -- so you had a post deleted.. Wanna complain MORE?? Do it in PM like the rules state, so I don't have to POST THE DELETION HERE and argue it out with you in Public.

(and you yourself kinda admit some amount of "GW" is [shhh!] unused "AGW" [Shhh!] in your sticky thread above)

You mean THIS sticky thread?

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics. ????

That happened because there were one or two members TOTALLY DENYING EVERYTHING about basic physics and chemistry and specifically Atmospheric Radiative Physics of the funking GHouse effect.. Got tiresome, to most ALL MEMBERS because these folks would hijack EVERY thread on GW with their intentional denials.. You dont seem to even recognize the argument as DEFENDING GHouse theory and establishing the very BASIS for GW -- which I and most EVERY OTHER Enviro forum member accept.. So the arguments got "sequestered" in their own special thread -- so that the rest of us could have a discussion...

Now -- you're FREE to pursue YOUR topic and not spend all your energy trying to intimidate me and others..
 
I started a thread in 2013 that is still going strong here in 2020. Nobody cared about global warming back then.......they still dont care. Once again, its nowhere on the radar in this election season except for fringe voters.
The GOP is the only party in the world that denies global warming. As well as the only people who believe Democrats are corrupt and hundreds of phony scandals and conspiracy theories about all kinds of stuff thanks Rupert Murdoch and Rush . Poor America....

Politics is the judge and jury of science? I learn something new every day...
 

meaning what? You don't know the diff between scientific method/process and pseudo science?
You don't have to be a Kreskin to figure out to what he was referring to with the pseudo-science post. The pseudo science is not climate science, it is denier junk science paid for by the fossil fuel companies. For heaven sakes even they admit climate change is being cause by fossil fuel admissions.
 
Tell me again how CO2 drives climate.... Now prove it with science and not some opinion piece...

See the post above..
Its that magical multiplier that is in question... and that is what he must explain... As it sits today the base Log of CO2 is all it has in driving force. As you pointed out, water vapor kills its potential dead..

Just as important is the false premise that CO2 has powers BEYOND the basic physics of other GH gases to cause ACCELERATION of the warming thru releasing sequestered frozen calthrates of CO2/Methane. If a degree or so of warming had the POWER to do that -- Man wouldn't be here. Because the previous recoveries from 4 diff Ice Ages would have caused the "runaway accelerations" and destroyed the livability of this junker of a planet.. Fact is the VAST MAJORITY of what's gonna melt and release CO2/CH4 has already been released. Not much RESTORED since before the LAST ice age..

Russian scientists who are sitting on the BIGGEST ground sequestered sources of frozen CO2/CH4 say that SEISMIC activity is MORE like to release these as gases than GW...

Just like Antarctica might melt -- but from VOLCANIC heating, not air temperature.. We're preparing for the WRONG DISASTERS because politics and stupidity and the web aren't tuned into science..

Don't point out his errors and idiocy.
If you do, he'll cry and put you on ignore.
He's very fragile.
LOL

He was agreeing with me..... You need to resume taking your meds...
 
The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?
 

So you're done now? That certainly settles that.. :up: Folded rather quickly this time...

Are you aware that in just the past 5 years, scientists have discovered that the source of fast glacial calving in West Antarctica is increasingly likely to be due to ACTIVE VOLCANIC RIFTS under the coastal glaciers and NOT "air temperature"???

Shit on the internet STINKS forever.. Science moves constantly on.. You on board or just googling yourself?

Don't point out his errors and idiocy.
If you do, he'll cry and put you on ignore.
He's very fragile.
 
The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?
I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The answer is a resounding yes. Even fossil fuel companies admit it. Now the only question is what to do about it.
 
Last edited:
The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

Let us look at Exxon employee, Marty Hoeffert. The story begins in 1981.

“Marty Hoffert was one of the first scientists to create a model which predicted the effects of man-made climate change. And he did so while working for Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, which would later merge with another, Mobil.

At the time Exxon was spending millions of dollars on ground-breaking research. It wanted to lead the charge as scientists grappled with the emerging understanding that the warming planet could cause the climate to change in ways that could make life pretty difficult for humans.

Hoffert shared his predictions with his managers, showing them what might happen if we continued burning fossil fuels in our cars, trucks and planes.


But he noticed a clash between Exxon's own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that "currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

"They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups," said Hoffert.
Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.”


Hoeffert went on to say, that what Exxon did was “immoral. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change when their own researchers were confirming how serious a threat it was."

Exxon then undertook the same tactic of disinformation that the tobacco companies did to discredit the science. But it wasn’t just Exxon.

“But this isn't just about Exxon's past actions. In the same year as the Levine presentation, 1989, many energy companies and fossil fuel dependent industries came together to form the Global Climate Coalition, which aggressively lobbied US politicians and media”.

It is unfortunate for us that these slut purveyors of lies were so successful

As can be seen from the above denier posts, the fossil fuel disinformation campaign still resonates. We are all now feeling the consequences.


See also:

In a Federal District Court in San Francisco, five oil companies argued before a judge on facts that uphold the 95-100 percent likelihood that human activity has been the dominant cause of the global warming of Earth since the mid-20th century.

“......Chevron was represented by Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Boutrous did not deny the science behind climate change and based his presentation on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013. Dr. Myles Allen, who had been the first presenter in this courtroom hearing, had been the lead author on the Fifth Assessment report. The assessments are status reports that provide an update on the knowledge of the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic aspects of climate change.

Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous. There’s no debate about climate science”.


Like tobacco, times-a-changing.

Damn crazy how wrong you are on this Exxon meme,... You miss the whole point by having to read LEGAL/POLITICAL analysis of the Exxon paper instead of the SCIENCE IN THE PAPER...

You rely on LOCAL DISTRICT COURT rulings for your science -- do you???

Lemme explain to you why those Exxon scientists were MORE CORRECT than the complete circus train of scientists in the FOLLOWING DECADES of GW science...

Like you say -- or your quoted -- the story begins in 1981.. Before there was EVEN WAS an organized "science of Global warming"..


Big corporations have problems preventing their sr researchers from opining on anything relevant to the business.. Because it's right thing to do when a HAVE an elite basic research group.. So these guys are TUNED to a lot of different fields and what's hot/new and read the original papers on CO2 emissions and the atmosphere.

They decide to take a look.. And they do a lot of work. Make some calculations and come to the conclusion that INDEED man-made emissions COULD have an effect on the Global Mean Temperature (GMAST)

Now mind you -- this was WAAAAY before the activists in labcoats like James Hansen and others started publishing crude modeling showed showing a temperature anomaly in 2100 of 6 to 8degC and projecting that lower Manhattan and the NY subways would flood.. That Biscayne Bay in Miami would MERGE with the Atlantic Ocean and half of the smaller Pacific atolls would be underwater by then.. The FIRST "hair on fire", we're "ALL GONNA DIE" CATASTROPHIC papers were not out until the mid 80s...

Meanwhile the Exxon report conclusions based on atmospheric physic/chemistry and emission scenarios suggested a much more "relaxed" prediction of about 1.5 to 1.8DegC by 2100...

So after FORTY YEARS of "approved" GW science funded by politicians and international institutions seeing the POLICY ADVANTAGE of making the entire world piss their pants -- by the 2000s -- EVEN THE IPCC was then projecting -- what that brilliant group of Exxon had projected..

Now I ask you for a response to my help here..

WHO WAS MORE RESPONSIBLE for hysteria, purposeful DECEPTION of the public and hyping weak modeling predictions to create FEAR in the world?? Exxon Mobil or the IPCC??? Exxon Mobil or that Circuit Court judge???

The paper from Exxon matches my conclusions based on 30 years of following this circus train.. That there IS an effect from CO2 emissions, but it falls WAY SHORT of the CATASTROPHIC part of theorems surrounding GW science as it played out in the media, in governments and in public opinion.. And I'm more impressed by the responsible science from Exxon and APPALLED by the deceptions, misrepresentations and EXAGGERATIONS of the science that are stinking and rotting on the web...
 
The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?
I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The anwser is a resounding yes. Even they admit it. Now the only question is what to do about.

The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change.

The issue is, if burning fossil fuels are causing climate change and are a danger to our very existence, why is the liberal solution higher taxes, more government control and massive spending on unreliable, more expensive wind and solar, instead of nuclear?
 
The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

The only thing worse than Exxon is CO2.
We need to really stick it to these awful fossil fuel companies.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

100? 200? More?
I am not opposed to nuclear power. The issue is, are burning fossil fuels causing climate change. The answer is a resounding yes. Even fossil fuel companies admit it. Now the only question is what to do about.

Replace the 50 aging nuclear plants in this country,.. Build 50 new ones.. Problem solved. TOMORROW if you want it with 3rd nuclear plants that don't look ANYTHING like what we have now..

Even James "the GodFather of GW we're all gonna die" Hansen has said (with 20 other top environmentalists) that "If you believe you're gonna solve GW with wind and solar -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny"...

Problem is -- too many folks MORE SCARED of nuclear power than they are about a planet they THINK is gonna die from GW in the next 12 years.. Stop FRIGHTENING the children and grow up..

GW is NOT A CRISIS anymore.. That's WHY you folks far behind the science aren't getting any traction for your circus train.. It's now an issue of RESPONSIBLE POWER PLANNING that COULD be fixed if the will to do it was actually there...

Exxon Mobil was correct.. The rest of this frightening tale is sadly irrelevant.. In YOUR lifetime depending on how old you are -- the globe has warmed by a measly 0.6 to 0.9DegC -- not 2 or 3DegC.. And ALL of the IMAGINED superpowers of CO2 have NOT manifested. No accelerations, No empirical evidence that the whacky add-on postulations about "runaway warming" are in play...
 

meaning what? You don't know the diff between scientific method/process and pseudo science?
You don't have to be a Kreskin to figure out to what he was referring to with the pseudo-science post. The pseudo science is not climate science, it is denier junk science paid for by the fossil fuel companies. For heaven sakes even they admit climate change is being cause by fossil fuel admissions.

A lot of the PUBLIC perception of GW IS PSEUDO SCIENCE.. Because it's been filtered to support political goals and in a lot of cases -- activists in labcoats have willingly aided the media in misrepresenting their OWN WORK to the public.. Like Hansen, Mann, Trenberth and others... And what politicians, media and public KNOWS - accurately fits that description of Pseudo-Science posting in "that there" meme...
 
The above posts by the climate deniers show just how successful the disinformation campaign promulgated by the fossil fuel companies have been. In a recent BBC article , Phoebe Keene, explained how Exxon used ”the tobacco playbook” to sow doubt about anthropogenic climate change.

Let us look at Exxon employee, Marty Hoeffert. The story begins in 1981.

“Marty Hoffert was one of the first scientists to create a model which predicted the effects of man-made climate change. And he did so while working for Exxon, one of the world's largest oil companies, which would later merge with another, Mobil.

At the time Exxon was spending millions of dollars on ground-breaking research. It wanted to lead the charge as scientists grappled with the emerging understanding that the warming planet could cause the climate to change in ways that could make life pretty difficult for humans.

Hoffert shared his predictions with his managers, showing them what might happen if we continued burning fossil fuels in our cars, trucks and planes.


But he noticed a clash between Exxon's own findings, and public statements made by company bosses, such as the then chief executive Lee Raymond, who said that "currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate".

"They were saying things that were contradicting their own world-class research groups," said Hoffert.
Angry, he left Exxon, and went on to become a leading academic in the field.”


Hoeffert went on to say, that what Exxon did was “immoral. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change when their own researchers were confirming how serious a threat it was."

Exxon then undertook the same tactic of disinformation that the tobacco companies did to discredit the science. But it wasn’t just Exxon.

“But this isn't just about Exxon's past actions. In the same year as the Levine presentation, 1989, many energy companies and fossil fuel dependent industries came together to form the Global Climate Coalition, which aggressively lobbied US politicians and media”.

It is unfortunate for us that these slut purveyors of lies were so successful

As can be seen from the above denier posts, the fossil fuel disinformation campaign still resonates. We are all now feeling the consequences.


See also:

In a Federal District Court in San Francisco, five oil companies argued before a judge on facts that uphold the 95-100 percent likelihood that human activity has been the dominant cause of the global warming of Earth since the mid-20th century.

“......Chevron was represented by Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney with the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Boutrous did not deny the science behind climate change and based his presentation on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013. Dr. Myles Allen, who had been the first presenter in this courtroom hearing, had been the lead author on the Fifth Assessment report. The assessments are status reports that provide an update on the knowledge of the scientific, technical, and socioeconomic aspects of climate change.

Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said Boutrous. There’s no debate about climate science”.


Like tobacco, times-a-changing.

Damn crazy how wrong you are on this Exxon meme,... You miss the whole point by having to read LEGAL/POLITICAL analysis of the Exxon paper instead of the SCIENCE IN THE PAPER...

You rely on LOCAL DISTRICT COURT rulings for your science -- do you???

Lemme explain to you why those Exxon scientists were MORE CORRECT than the complete circus train of scientists in the FOLLOWING DECADES of GW science...

Like you say -- or your quoted -- the story begins in 1981.. Before there was EVEN WAS an organized "science of Global warming"..


Big corporations have problems preventing their sr researchers from opining on anything relevant to the business.. Because it's right thing to do when a HAVE an elite basic research group.. So these guys are TUNED to a lot of different fields and what's hot/new and read the original papers on CO2 emissions and the atmosphere.

They decide to take a look.. And they do a lot of work. Make some calculations and come to the conclusion that INDEED man-made emissions COULD have an effect on the Global Mean Temperature (GMAST)

Now mind you -- this was WAAAAY before the activists in labcoats like James Hansen and others started publishing crude modeling showed showing a temperature anomaly in 2100 of 6 to 8degC and projecting that lower Manhattan and the NY subways would flood.. That Biscayne Bay in Miami would MERGE with the Atlantic Ocean and half of the smaller Pacific atolls would be underwater by then.. The FIRST "hair on fire", we're "ALL GONNA DIE" CATASTROPHIC papers were not out until the mid 80s...

Meanwhile the Exxon report conclusions based on atmospheric physic/chemistry and emission scenarios suggested a much more "relaxed" prediction of about 1.5 to 1.8DegC by 2100...

So after FORTY YEARS of "approved" GW science funded by politicians and international institutions seeing the POLICY ADVANTAGE of making the entire world piss their pants -- by the 2000s -- EVEN THE IPCC was then projecting -- what that brilliant group of Exxon had projected..

Now I ask you for a response to my help here..

WHO WAS MORE RESPONSIBLE for hysteria, purposeful DECEPTION of the public and hyping weak modeling predictions to create FEAR in the world?? Exxon Mobil or the IPCC??? Exxon Mobil or that Circuit Court judge???

The paper from Exxon matches my conclusions based on 30 years of following this circus train.. That there IS an effect from CO2 emissions, but it falls WAY SHORT of the CATASTROPHIC part of theorems surrounding GW science as it played out in the media, in governments and in public opinion.. And I'm more impressed by the responsible science from Exxon and APPALLED by the deceptions, misrepresentations and EXAGGERATIONS of the science that are stinking and rotting on the web...
I may be wrong, but the burning of CO2 and rising temperatures is not a new theory. It goes back to the late under 1800s when it was first theorized by Svante Arrhenius. His calculations may have been off because he could not anticipate the growth of the use motorized vehicles or of industry.

I am not a scientist nor do I pretend to be. My job, as it is with most people navigating the issue of climate change, is judging the credibility of the sources and coming to a conclusion. I can look at the sources as well as climate trends around the world.

Rex Tillerson himself, IIRC, admitted fossil fuels were causing climate change. I read recently that certain European oil giants were preparing for a shift away from fossil fuels largely because of climate change. If you want I can find the link to the story.

If the CEOs and/or their representatives of fossil fuel companies admit that consumption and use of their product causes global warming who am I to disagree?
 
Last edited:
not much of an admission-----human pressure on environment is nothing new------it started when humans were invented (evolved) Even deserts are, largely, man made
 

Forum List

Back
Top