The Fossil Fuel Industry Misinformation Campaign

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
29,038
5,611
290
N/A
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".






 
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".







When all the science is on your side, the first thing you do is cancel anyone who disagrees,

Deniers here have also constantly IGNORED the possibility that the fossil fuel industry, seeing global warming mitigation measures as an existential threat,

It's true, government idiocy is a threat to cheap, reliable fossil fuels.

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".

Using fossil fuels to survive Chicago winters is smarter than depending on
more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

Green idiots are free to risk their own and their family's lives on solar power in cold climates. They should do so, to show how smart they are.
 
When all the science is on your side, the first thing you do is cancel anyone who disagrees,

Deniers here have also constantly IGNORED the possibility that the fossil fuel industry, seeing global warming mitigation measures as an existential threat,

It's true, government idiocy is a threat to cheap, reliable fossil fuels.

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".

Using fossil fuels to survive Chicago winters is smarter than depending on
more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

Green idiots are free to risk their own and their family's lives on solar power in cold climates. They should do so, to show how smart they are.
The topic of this thread is the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign. If you don't have anything pertinent to say on that topic there's no need whatsoever for you to post here Todd.
 
The topic of this thread is the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign. If you don't have anything pertinent to say on that topic there's no need whatsoever for you to post here Todd.
'
This is America, the fossil fuel industry is still allowed to defend themselves from government idiocy. Even if that makes you sad.
 
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

Someone got rich off this dead robot...

Tesla.jpg


2) Remain employed

Somone is gonna lose their job if they can't push their dead robot to work on time.

Tesla.jpg


3) Gain control over the population

Who is in control here?

Tesla.jpg


4) Destroy western civilization.

Sure doesn't look like they're helping this western civilian's day very much.

Tesla.jpg


Unfortunately for them, they have ZERO evidence to support those claims.

the-arctic-cold-that-hit-the-chicago-area-turns-teslas-into-a-bunch-of-dead-robots-227783_1.jpg
 
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".






I really am interested in the science of climate and have read extensively on the subject. I don’t have a dog in the fight between so called deniers and alarmists.
Here is my take-
FACTS
-Climate is an incredibly complicated system with a multitude of factors.
- Scientist who are not funded by the IPCC by and large do not accept the narrative that an increase of 120 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere is driving massive global warming.
Questions-
if our understanding of climate is so precise that we can predict future calamity caused by the addition of 120ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere, why can we not have a clear an unambiguous explanation of the Little Ice Age? This is a major climate event that happened relatively recently, is well documented, has been studied extensively and yet there is no consensus to which all the factors involved contributed. Conversely, we are suppose to accept that some scientists are certain about the effect of 120 ppm of additional CO2. That doesn’t pass the smell test.
why cant IPCC scientist produce an accurate and dependable climate model, why has every model thus far been wrong?
 
Unfortunately for them, they have ZERO evidence to support those claims.
"ZERO evidence", other than that every one of the "solutions" proposed...

1) Redistributes wealth from the hoi polli to the elites.​
2) Keeps the hoaxers employed and in high cotton.​
3) Centralizes control over the entire population.​
4) Destroys western industrialized civilization.​

Newp....Not a shred of evidence at all! :uhoh3:
 
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".







121001_tch.jpg



titan_lakes.jpg


Saturn's Moon Titan, lakes of "fossil fuels" no fossils
 
Someone got rich off this dead robot...

Tesla.jpg




Somone is gonna lose their job if they can't push their dead robot to work on time.

Tesla.jpg




Who is in control here?

Tesla.jpg




Sure doesn't look like they're helping this western civilian's day very much.

Tesla.jpg




the-arctic-cold-that-hit-the-chicago-area-turns-teslas-into-a-bunch-of-dead-robots-227783_1.jpg
The topic of this thread is the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign concerning manmade global warming, not EVs.
 
The topic of this thread is the fossil fuel industry's misinformation campaign concerning manmade global warming, not EVs.

Firstly. The topic is very broad and will not be compartmentalized, limited and maintained conforming to the scope of your particular interest in it.

And I'll say whatever the fuck I wanna say, so long as it's relevant in scope.

I responded directly to your own claims on the topic.

And don't make me explain myself again...
 
Which is precisely why they wanna take the silly notion of freedom of choice out of the equation at the barrel of a government gun.
What choice is that? ICE vs EV?

1) Where does the Constitution give you any such right?
2) There are numerous examples of government's ability to take harmful products off the market
3) No one is yet using a gun to hold down your GHG emissions.
4) What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?
 
Last edited:
I really am interested in the science of climate and have read extensively on the subject. I don’t have a dog in the fight between so called deniers and alarmists.
Here is my take-
FACTS
-Climate is an incredibly complicated system with a multitude of factors.
- Scientist who are not funded by the IPCC by and large do not accept the narrative that an increase of 120 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere is driving massive global warming.
The IPCC funds NO science.
The number of active climate scientists that support this document is minute.
Questions-
if our understanding of climate is so precise that we can predict future calamity caused by the addition of 120ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere
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.
why can we not have a clear an unambiguous explanation of the Little Ice Age?
Because the climate data available today is not available for the Little Ice Age
This is a major climate event that happened relatively recently
It precedes the invention of the thermometer. There is NO widespread instrument data during the period. It is almost all proxy data.
is well documented
It is NOT well documented compared to the present time.
has been studied extensively
It has not been studied as extensively or as accurately as the last 50 years.
and yet there is no consensus to which all the factors involved contributed. Conversely, we are suppose to accept that some scientists are certain about the effect of 120 ppm of additional CO2. That doesn’t pass the smell test.
It does pass the smell test.
why cant IPCC scientist produce an accurate and dependable climate model, why has every model thus far been wrong?
Here we go again. Which of the following do you believe to have been "wrong"?

1705940923100.png


1705940939499.png


1705940959831.png


1705940979841.png


1705940996078.png


1705941011943.png


1705941028980.png


1705941044416.png

 

Forum List

Back
Top