The Fossil Fuel Industry Misinformation Campaign

[Seymour Flops]

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 myself would have an easier time accepting the science that tells us what measures we need to take to combat this problem, if you would show it to me. After you show the science that proves that there is a problem, of course.

You have refused to show me, in spite of several requests on another thread. I'll give you an easy way out:

At first you don't even have to show the science. Just tell me what specifically should be done to combat this problem. Not something vague like "reduce emissions," but concrete steps that will combat this problem.* Tell us whether the steps will be voluntary.

Once you do that, I'll ask about the science.

*For example, if you asked me what steps I favored to alleviate the border crises, I would not say "slow down the flow!" I would say "build more barriers, use border patrol to keep people out instead of processing them in, punish employers harshly for hiring illegals, reinstate remain in Mexico . . . " and I could go for several paragraphs.

 

[Crick]

there has never been any sustained reaction.

Do you really think a microsecond reaction is the same thing as fusion to scale and a constantly running reaction for years at a time?

Well, I said I wasn't an expert. I was wrong.

There are two types of fusion reactors: magnetic confinement and inertial confinement. Inertial confinement uses fuel pellets and creates discrete fusion reactions several times a second. Magnetic confinement DOES create a sustained reaction. My apologies.

The magnetic confinement in small units was created by water cooled copper coils. That would not have worked for larger systems as creating the magnetic bottle would have consumed a major portion of the reactors power output. The solution is superconducting coils. In such systems, once the field is established, the only power requirement is the refrigeration system needed to maintain a superconducting temperature.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/magnetic-confinement#:~:text=While%20magnetic%20confinement%20seeks%20to%20create%20as%20stable%20continuous%20plasma,burst%20of%20energy%20each%20time.

The temperture within the fusion reaction is hotter than the center of the sun. So there was never any attempt to come up with materials that could withstand it and that has not been a problem. Magnetic confinement has been successful without failure for 50 years.

 

[Crick]

I myself would have an easier time accepting the science that tells us what measures we need to take to combat this problem. After you shwo the science that proves that there is a problem, of course.

www.ipcc.ch
OR

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

OR

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf

You have refused to show me, in spite of several requests on another thread. I'll give you an easy way out:

I have not refused to show you anything. I have provided you numerous links to excellent sources. I have no need of an "easy way out" and I REALLY do not care for people lying to my face. And I have refused to allow you to draw me away from our central conversation.

At first you don't even have to show the science.

Because the science I HAVE been showing you clearly shows you to be both intellectually remiss and in factual error.

Just tell me what specifically should be done to combat this problem. Not something vague like "reduce emissions," but concrete steps that will combat this problem.* Tell us whether the steps will be voluntary.

No. Your position from the start was that AGW was a hoax by alarmists. That is a question of science. Mitigation measures and costs have no bearing whatsoever on whether AGW is valid science or alarmist hoax. Your repeated attempts to take our conversation away from the science are blatant dissembling.

Once you do that, I'll ask about the science.

No you won't.

*For example, if you asked me what steps I favored to alleviate the border crises, I would not say "slow down the flow!" I would say "build more barriers, use border patrol to keep people out instead of processing them in, punish employers harshly for hiring illegals, reinstate remain in Mexico . . . " and I could go for several paragraphs.

You'd really like to be talking about something else, wouldn't you. Well, all that's required is an admission that your claims of an alarmist hoax were not supported by the facts.

 

[Seymour Flops]

www.ipcc.ch
OR

AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

OR

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf

I have not refused to show you anything. I have provided you numerous links to excellent sources.

Links are not an argument. I took a look at a couple of them, and they are as vague as you are about what specifically should be done to combat this problem. A red herring, not an explanation.

Might as well just say "google the internet and you'll see how right I am."

Just tell me specifically what should be done to combat this problem.

 

[Crick]

Links are not an argument.

No, they aren't. They're evidence supporting the arguments I make in my posts.

I took a look at a couple of them, and they are as vague as you are about what specifically should be done to combat this problem. A red herring, not an explanation.

I sent you links covering over 5,000 pages of material, much of which was exceedingly technical. I reject your characterization.

Might as well just say "google the internet and you'll see how right I am."

Might as well admit that you haven't the slightest intention of learning anything technical regarding this topic.

Just tell me specifically what should be done to combat this problem.

I really tire of your commandments. You already know what needs to be done, it is the topic of widespread conversation on the internet, on tv, radio and in the real world around you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, they aren't. They're evidence supporting the arguments I make in my posts.

I sent you links covering over 5,000 pages of material, much of which was exceedingly technical. I reject your characterization.

That shows my point. You seriously expected me to plow through a 5,000 page reading assignment?

All I asked is what can be done to reduce global warming, how much will it cost, and how much will it reduce Earth’s temperature?

Might as well admit that you haven't the slightest intention of learning anything technical regarding this topic.

I really tire of your commandments. You already know what needs to be done, it is the topic of widespread conversation on the internet, on tv, radio and in the real world around you.

If I know, you should know. Answer the questions unless the answers embarrass you.

 

[Crick]

That shows my point. You seriously expected me to plow through a 5,000 page reading assignment?

No, I expected you to use the table of contents to locate pertinent information.

All I asked is what can be done to reduce global warming, how much will it cost, and how much will it reduce Earth’s temperature?

The Working Group 3 report covers mitigation in enormous detail. Working Group 2's report covers impact, adaptation and vulnerability. It's in their titles.

If I know, you should know.

Know what? And why?

Answer the questions unless the answers embarrass you.

I don't expect the least bit of embarrassment from them. And, as I have already told you, that is not my field and you have no reason to want my answer if you're actually looking for knowledge. Now, if you're NOT looking for knowledge, you have other problems and the only aid I can offer is to publicize them on your behlf.

 

[jc456]

That shows my point. You seriously expected me to plow through a 5,000 page reading assignment?

All I asked is what can be done to reduce global warming, how much will it cost, and how much will it reduce Earth’s temperature?

If I know, you should know. Answer the questions unless the answers embarrass you.

That’s the Cuck’s play every thread! Yet can’t ever provide a summary

 

[JLW]

The fossil fuel companies have been spreading disinformation about climate change for decades. I find it laughable that those who claim climate change is a hoax are those that have been brainwashed the most by this disinformation campaign. This disinformation campaign has been so successful that facts, figures and science mean nothing to them because their brains are now so clouded.

The fossil fuel companies will face a reckoning just like the tobacco companies. It is coming.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fossil fuel companies have been spreading disinformation about climate change for decades. I find it laughable that those who claim climate change is a hoax are those that have been brainwashed the most by this disinformation campaign. This disinformation campaign has been so successful that facts, figures and science mean nothing to them because their brains are now so clouded.

The fossil fuel companies will face a reckoning just like the tobacco companies. It is coming.

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

They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today.


The fossil fuel companies have been spreading disinformation about climate change for decades

Those bastards!
Were they the only ones who knew that burning fossil fuels released CO2?
Were they the only ones who knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas?

The fossil fuel companies will face a reckoning just like the tobacco companies. It is coming.

That's hilarious! When did you stop using fossil fuels?

 

[JLW]

They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today.


The fossil fuel companies have been spreading disinformation about climate change for decades

Those bastards!
Were they the only ones who knew that burning fossil fuels released CO2?
Were they the only ones who knew that CO2 was a greenhouse gas?

The fossil fuel companies will face a reckoning just like the tobacco companies. It is coming.

That's hilarious! When did you stop using fossil fuels?

Who said we were the only ones burning CO2? Just because your neighbor is dumping raw sewage in the river, doesn’t mean you should do the same. If you do, you both will pay a price and will both live with the consequences.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, I expected you to use the table of contents to locate pertinent information.

The Working Group 3 report covers mitigation in enormous detail. Working Group 2's report covers impact, adaptation and vulnerability. It's in their titles.

Know what? And why?

I don't expect the least bit of embarrassment from them. And, as I have already told you, that is not my field and you have no reason to want my answer if you're actually looking for knowledge. Now, if you're NOT looking for knowledge, you have other problems and the only aid I can offer is to publicize them on your behlf.

If you know that little about it, why should anyone listen to you on the topic, or accept reading assignments from you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who said we were the only ones burning CO2? Just because your neighbor is dumping raw sewage in the river, doesn’t mean you should do the same. If you do, you both will pay a price and will both live with the consequences.

How much raw sewage are you still dumping?

 

[jc456]

Who said we were the only ones burning CO2? Just because your neighbor is dumping raw sewage in the river, doesn’t mean you should do the same. If you do, you both will pay a price and will both live with the consequences.

What is the consequence?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The fossil fuel companies have been spreading disinformation about climate change for decades. I find it laughable that those who claim climate change is a hoax are those that have been brainwashed the most by this disinformation campaign. This disinformation campaign has been so successful that facts, figures and science mean nothing to them because their brains are now so clouded.

The fossil fuel companies will face a reckoning just like the tobacco companies. It is coming.

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

Maybe you can answer the questions, that another alarmist found impossible:

1) What can humans do to stop or reverse climate change?
2) How much will it cost?
3) How much will spending the figure you name for 2) lower the temperature of the planet?

Trying to get a handle on the cost benefit, the degrees cooling per million dollars.

 

[Crick]

If you know that little about it, why should anyone listen to you on the topic, or accept reading assignments from you?

I never offered information about economic issues beyond directing people to the pertinent IPCC reports. It was YOU who demanded I give you economic data. And you who have repeatedly ignored the scientific information I HAVE given you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I never offered information about economic issues beyond directing people to the pertinent IPCC reports. It was YOU who demanded I give you economic data. And you who have repeatedly ignored the scientific information I HAVE given you.

Why should we take your advice about what to read on a topic that you admit to having so little knowledge of?

How does such little knowledge justify your attacks on people who disagree with you - on a topic you know so little about?

 

[jc456]

I never offered information about economic issues beyond directing people to the pertinent IPCC reports. It was YOU who demanded I give you economic data. And you who have repeatedly ignored the scientific information I HAVE given you.

why would anyone need to read a political piece of propaganda?

 

[Crick]

Why should we take your advice about what to read on a topic that you admit to having so little knowledge of?

How does such little knowledge justify your attacks on people who disagree with you - on a topic you know so little about?

Asked and answered Seymour.

 

[ding]

The fossil fuel companies have been spreading disinformation about climate change for decades. I find it laughable that those who claim climate change is a hoax are those that have been brainwashed the most by this disinformation campaign. This disinformation campaign has been so successful that facts, figures and science mean nothing to them because their brains are now so clouded.

The fossil fuel companies will face a reckoning just like the tobacco companies. It is coming.

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

The "science" is controversial. I didn't need Exxon to tell me that.