Proof of AGW fraud

[Wyatt earp]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

FACTBOX: Oil major's investments in renewable energy - Reuters


Exxon Mobil Corp

The world's largest non-government-controlled oil company by market value sold its solar power business in the 1980s and now has no investments in renewable energy.


Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

 

[Grumblenuts]

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All

According to Epstein, reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables is a “terrifying” prospect. He also offers some advice on terminology, suggesting “They shouldn’t be called renewables, in part because they exclude hydro, I think they should be called unreliables. So I would encourage the good people in this audience to start using that terminology.” [69]

Going further, he describes policies favoring solar and wind “a murderous policy if it’s taken seriously” and claims that “we are completely ignoring the unthinkable costs of these radical restrictions on fossil fuels.” [69]

So which is it, Bear? Is what Royal Dutch Shell's doing really "terrifying" as Epstein says -or- is it a good thing and Epstein just a shameless opportunist getting rich by pretending to give a shit?

Context:

Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All

According to Epstein, reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables is a “terrifying” prospect. He also offers some advice on terminology, suggesting “They shouldn’t be called renewables, in part because they exclude hydro, I think they should be called unreliables. So I would encourage the good people in this audience to start using that terminology.” [69]

Going further, he describes policies favoring solar and wind “a murderous policy if it’s taken seriously” and claims that “we are completely ignoring the unthinkable costs of these radical restrictions on fossil fuels.” [69]

So which is it, Bear? Is what Royal Dutch Shell's doing really "terrifying" as Epstein says -or- is it a good thing and Epstein just a shameless opportunist getting rich by pretending to give a shit?

Context:

Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

Why Renewables Advocates Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate



Over the last three years, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables and other climate-related ventures.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All

According to Epstein, reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables is a “terrifying” prospect. He also offers some advice on terminology, suggesting “They shouldn’t be called renewables, in part because they exclude hydro, I think they should be called unreliables. So I would encourage the good people in this audience to start using that terminology.” [69]

Going further, he describes policies favoring solar and wind “a murderous policy if it’s taken seriously” and claims that “we are completely ignoring the unthinkable costs of these radical restrictions on fossil fuels.” [69]

So which is it, Bear? Is what Royal Dutch Shell's doing really "terrifying" as Epstein says -or- is it a good thing and Epstein just a shameless opportunist getting rich by pretending to give a shit?

Context:

Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

Why Renewables Advocates Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate



Over the last three years, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables and other climate-related ventures.

Historical Timeline - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org


Solar-cell technology proved too expensive for terrestrial use until the early 1970s when Dr. Elliot Berman, with financial help from Exxon Corporation, designed a significantly less costly solar cell by using a poorer grade of silicon and packaging the cells with cheaper materials. Bringing the price down from $100 a watt to $20 per watt, solar cells could now compete in situations where people needed electricity distant from power lines. Off-shore oil rigs, for example, required warning lights and horns to prevent ships from running into them but had no power other than toxic, cumbersome, short-lived batteries. Compared to their installation, maintenance and replacement, solar modules proved a bargain.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All

According to Epstein, reducing fossil fuel use and replacing them with renewables is a “terrifying” prospect. He also offers some advice on terminology, suggesting “They shouldn’t be called renewables, in part because they exclude hydro, I think they should be called unreliables. So I would encourage the good people in this audience to start using that terminology.” [69]

Going further, he describes policies favoring solar and wind “a murderous policy if it’s taken seriously” and claims that “we are completely ignoring the unthinkable costs of these radical restrictions on fossil fuels.” [69]

So which is it, Bear? Is what Royal Dutch Shell's doing really "terrifying" as Epstein says -or- is it a good thing and Epstein just a shameless opportunist getting rich by pretending to give a shit?

Context:

Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

Why Renewables Advocates Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate



Over the last three years, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total invested a whopping one billion dollars into advertising and lobbying for renewables and other climate-related ventures.

Historical Timeline - Alternative Energy - ProCon.org


Solar-cell technology proved too expensive for terrestrial use until the early 1970s when Dr. Elliot Berman, with financial help from Exxon Corporation, designed a significantly less costly solar cell by using a poorer grade of silicon and packaging the cells with cheaper materials. Bringing the price down from $100 a watt to $20 per watt, solar cells could now compete in situations where people needed electricity distant from power lines. Off-shore oil rigs, for example, required warning lights and horns to prevent ships from running into them but had no power other than toxic, cumbersome, short-lived batteries. Compared to their installation, maintenance and replacement, solar modules proved a bargain.

When Renewables Meet the Oil and Gas Industry, Opposites Attract


2: A Volatile Courtship

Oil and gas companies have been dabbling in the renewables business for a long time. In the wake of the oil shock of the 1970s, OECD governments established a range of incentives and subsidies for energy independence. This sparked a first wave of standalone renewable business ventures by the oil patch, focusing on solar, wind and geothermal energy. Today, Chevron is the world’s largest private producer of geothermal power, for example.

But government matchmaking proved a fickle friend. When public incentives for renewable technologies were withdrawn in the 1980s, most companies abandoned their alternative technology investment and refocused on their core petroleum business.

A second wave of oil and gas companies got into renewables in the late 1990s and early 2000s as momentum built around reaching a global climate agreement. When the global economic downturn hit and industrialized countries failed to match rhetoric with action, ventures in solar and wind by BP and Shell, among others, were sold off or quietly shuttered

 

[SSDD]

So you are now saying,
Energy can flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

 

[SSDD]

WTF are you talking about.

Spontaneous? Molecules do not stop and start. They are always moving and warmer ones move faster.

We are talking about a misinterpretation of the second law of thermodynamics that SSDD has made for many years. He doesn't understand what the physics definition of spontaneous means. He made up his own definition. It's a long story.

.

And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?

Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..

I did not make up this definition, and I don't feel the need to modify it in any way since it jibes perfectly with my understanding of energy movement...you on the other hand are unable to accept the statement as is and must modify the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake in order to make it jibe with what you believe.

It truly must suck to be such a liar...

 

[SSDD]

1) You didn't answer any of the questions "Yes" or "No" proving once again - must've been tough!
2) Your questions are nearly all incoherent, but I'll attempt a straight up response as soon as you do.
3) "Where were the billboards, commercials, ect..ect.. Paid for by fossil fuel to promote that burning emissions were good for us?, like big tobacco did?" -
You've just "compar[ed] the tobacco industry with fossil fuel" - Horrors!
Plus sounds like you agree that "the tobacco industry" lied "to the public for decades and" provided "junk science from paid hacks to support their pseudoscientific claims as long as they possibly could" - Fine, unintentional admission!

Deflect much?


I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .



It wouldn't of mattered one bit if we knew man was contributing, no one would of drove those Electric cars.



.

.

deflection and logical fallacy are the only tools he has to work with..he certainly can't post up any actual empirical science to support his claims.

 

[SSDD]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

All liberal plans invariably hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt.

 

[RealDave]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

FACTBOX: Oil major's investments in renewable energy - Reuters


Exxon Mobil Corp

The world's largest non-government-controlled oil company by market value sold its solar power business in the 1980s and now has no investments in renewable energy.


Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

See, even these companies recognize the need to use less fossil fuels.

 

[RealDave]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

All liberal plans invariably hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt.

More short sighted bullshit.

So, you are saying that if we do nothing on AGW, it will not hit the poorest the hardest?

Food & water will increase. Who will that hurt, jackass.

 

[RealDave]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?

I get it. You have no logic. You really have no knowledge about much of anything.

We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.

Are you just stupid?

 

[RealDave]

Consensus is so rare in the science community that the fact of it here points out the strength of the argument

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

 

[RealDave]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far. I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it. You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?

CO2 concentration is up.

List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.

Scientists can estimate these things. The can, really.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I already answered your questions if you bothered to research them and think about them .

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

FACTBOX: Oil major's investments in renewable energy - Reuters


Exxon Mobil Corp

The world's largest non-government-controlled oil company by market value sold its solar power business in the 1980s and now has no investments in renewable energy.


Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

See, even these companies recognize the need to use less fossil fuels.

Huh? So now you change your tune on your boogey man?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far. I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it. You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?

CO2 concentration is up.

List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.

Scientists can estimate these things. The can, really.

No they can't, way to many variables and things they don't know.


And deforestation of the southern hemisphere...is something you don't want to acknowledge.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

No correlation between C02 and warming has been found so far, again you don't want to acknowledge for example Mars atmosphere is made up of like 95% C02

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

It was rising before then dumb ass.


.

the killer one is that folks like him can't explain why CO2 was higher than now, back when man wasn't around. that's their kryptonite

Hey dumbass...no one claims that man is the only thing that can put CO2 into the atmosphere...but man certainly is doing so NOW

Thus far I have provided 7 peer reviewed published papers stating that our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so negligible as to be unmeasurable...you got any actual science that says otherwise or just an uninformed opinion?

I get it. You have no logic. You really have no knowledge about much of anything.

We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.

Are you just stupid?

No you are the stupid one he said our contribution, he didn't say wasn't measurable and all 7 have been peer reviewed .