We have consensus...most scientists think AGW is not true.

[MisterBeale]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

What is wrong with reducing pollution to a minimum?

Tyranny. One world government. That is the motivation.

Look into agenda 21. It is already being implemented around the globe. Once all nations accept AGW, it will be implemented all that much faster.

Nothing is wrong with reducing pollution to a minimum. I am all in favor of doing that. What I am against is an international taxation without representation. The United Nations and all other international bodies are wholly undemocratic. . . . what, you didn't notice?

 

[S.J.]

oil companies who stand to make billions on the AGW bandwagon.

Right.

It does make sense that oil industries would want to trash their own market, potentially put themselves out of business and blame themselves for climate change even though they are actually completely innocent.

It's obvious.

They're not potentially putting themselves out of business. They know that every product made depends on oil. They're not losing money and they're not GOING to lose money because the entire world will continue to buy their product, no matter HOW many people jump on the GW bandwagon. You don't have much common sense on this issue.

 

[MisterBeale]

Is there Global Climate Change, sure. Ask the Vikings and Inuit who once colonized Greenland before the weather changed and they had to move out again.

But as soon as the elites start to talk about some massive world wide human caused global warming so they can bilk the world's people out of mucho dinero, just like they talked about a massive world wide ice age in the seventies, and people in this thread want to try to prove it, it's time to move this thread to the conspiracy sub-forum. You people watch too much TV and lap up too much corporate media w/o doing your own research.

Obvoiusly, research on this subject is what you have not done.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This site is put up by the largest Scientific Society of Physicists in the world, the American Institute of Physics.

There is not one scientific society in the world that does not state that AGW is a real, and a clear and present danger. Not one National Academy of Science. Not one major University.

So do your research, and get back to us with some real scientific evidence disproving AGW. Without that, all you have is flap-yap.

Oh yes, I am well aware of the history and theory. And I am very educated on the topic. I have just done a lot of independent research, I follow the money, I realize who benefits from "pushing" AGW. I understand that such a complex issue as "global climate change" cannot be so easily explained. I will not apologize for my mind being free and having the ability to think for myself which seems to threaten you and your world view. Your banding about fallacies is a poor excuse for thinking and reasoning.

Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim.

This guy was a reviewer and sat for the IPPC. I doubt you will be able to sit still for this lecture, you don't seem like the type of person that could ever sit still for a University lecture. THINK FOR YOURSELF!!! Stop letting the governments and press think for you!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I&feature=youtu.be]SALBY_02.08.11 - YouTube[/ame]

For more discussion:

He elegantly shows that there is a solid correlation between natural climate factors (global temperature and soil moisture content) and the net gain (or loss) in global atmospheric content when the latter is averaged over a two year period. The hanging question remains, if natural factors drive more than 90% of the growth in CO2 how significant is the contribution of human generated emissions. The answer is simple… not very.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/what-you-mean-we-arent-controlling-the-climate/

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Then prove it.

Let's see how much money BP, Chevron and Shell make from oil - and then see how much they make from renewables and from research grants into renewables.

The glaring elephant in the room fact that you seem to spend all your time stumbling over is the fact that the oil companies are still making the money from oil that they always made plus a bonus percentage for a higher cost of oil even though there is more of it than ever due to energy taxes....the renewables are bonus money that they wouldn't have been making if they hadn't jumped on the AGW bandwagon to grab up those tax credits, subsidies, and incentives.

You don't seem bright enough to grasp the fact that the money they make on oil has doubled and nearly tripled since the AGW hoax started and renewables and the rest of the offshoots from the climate change hoax are just more gravy. They would have been idiots to continue fighting energy taxes because that amounts to money in their pockets.

The problem with you flaming libs is that you don't have the first inkling of how money works and how it is made.

 

[Saigon]

oil companies who stand to make billions on the AGW bandwagon.

Right.

It does make sense that oil industries would want to trash their own market, potentially put themselves out of business and blame themselves for climate change even though they are actually completely innocent.

It's obvious.

They're not potentially putting themselves out of business. They know that every product made depends on oil. They're not losing money and they're not GOING to lose money because the entire world will continue to buy their product, no matter HOW many people jump on the GW bandwagon. You don't have much common sense on this issue.

Right.

So oil companies - which initially denied climate change - then decided to undermine their own industry and admit that their product was a major factor behind climate change, because people would use oil anyway.

So basically it is like tobaco companies admitting that smoking causes cancer, because people will still smoke.

You call that common sense?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Perhaps just produce the facts which would back up your claim.

Let's see how much money oil companies make from all of this funded research!

 

[S.J.]

Right.

It does make sense that oil industries would want to trash their own market, potentially put themselves out of business and blame themselves for climate change even though they are actually completely innocent.

It's obvious.

They're not potentially putting themselves out of business. They know that every product made depends on oil. They're not losing money and they're not GOING to lose money because the entire world will continue to buy their product, no matter HOW many people jump on the GW bandwagon. You don't have much common sense on this issue.

Right.

So oil companies - which initially denied climate change - then decided to undermine their own industry and admit that their product was a major factor behind climate change, because people would use oil anyway.

So basically it is like tobaco companies admitting that smoking causes cancer, because people will still smoke.

You call that common sense?

They're not undermining their own idustry if people will continue to use their product. And your tobacco analogy is YOUR'S, not mine, so don't try to make it mine.

 

[Saigon]

SJ -

So when oil companies admitted that oil was responsible for climate change - after years of bitter internal fighting - they were not undermining the oil industry.

Right.

 

[S.J.]

So when oil companies admitted that oil was responsible for climate change -

One person does not represent an entire industry.

 

[Saigon]

S.J -

No, it doesn't. When BP first admitted climate change was real, after years of fighting (there are articles about this online), it sent huge shockwaves through the industry.

You can imagine how lawyers felt about BP essentially admitting liability for detroying the entire planet!!!

But by this point it was also clear where the science was, and it only took months for Shell, Chevron et al to follow suit.

Their approach ever since has been to claim that they are minimising their emissions (which is half true) and researching alternative fuels (also half true) while continuing to function largely on oil and gas.

I agree that oil is still a very profitable business, but the surivival or oil companies 100 years from now will be based on how well they can transition into industries which will survive after the death of the internal combustion engine, and ironically it is climate change which forced them to realise that.

 

[S.J.]

You can imagine how lawyers felt about BP essentially admitting liability for detroying the entire planet!!!

Destroying the entire planet? There goes your credibility.

 

[Saigon]

SJ -

Try and stay with the topic.

I would have thought the multiple exclamation marks made it fairly clear I did not mean the sentence too literally.

 

[polarbear]

SJ -

So when oil companies admitted that oil was responsible for climate change - after years of bitter internal fighting - they were not undermining the oil industry.

Right.

You talk as if stupidity and lying are virtues and You excel in both.
In 1997 the (ex) CEO of British Petroleum, John Browne sucked up to the "politically correct" enviro- mob in England by re- branding BP as a "green company" and that is supposed to be an admission of "oil companies" that oil is responsible for climate change.
You managed to pack 2 lies inside a 18 word sentence.
One single individual morphed to "oil companies" and a political speech this known liar and later convicted perjurer made "after bitter internal fighting" becomes "an admission by oil companies".
...and the "bitter internal fighting" You refer to was that John Browne tried to conceal the fact that he was a flaming left wing-nut ***, lied about it and committed perjury which finally forced him to resign as BP`s CEO.
John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1997, Browne sought to re-brand BP as a "green" energy company
It was announced on 25 July 2006 that Browne would stand down as chief executive of BP in December 2008. There had been press speculation that he had wished to continue beyond this date, but he made it clear that he did not wish to do so. On 6 January 2007, Browne won his first interim injunction against the pulication of allegations by his former partner, Jeff Chevalier. Browne later disclosed being "terrified" that his sexuality would be revealed publicly.[2] A week later it was announced that his retirement date had been brought forward to July 2007
At the time he faced allegations that he had supported his partner, Canadian Jeff Chevalier, throughout their four-year relationship, and when Chevalier moved back to Toronto at the end of the relationship, that Browne paid for 12 months of a lease on an apartment.
Browne faced charges of perjury for lying to the court over how he met Chevalier. In a deposition to the court, Browne said the pair had met when exercising in Battersea Park. Browne later admitted this was a lie. He acknowledged that he had actually met Chevalier via a commercial gay-escort website,

You also claimed that more snow in cold regions is evidence that CO2 caused such regions to get warmer, but still haven't answered my question:
Was that a lengthy "warm period" that deposited the massive amount of snow which formed the miles thick glaciers on Greenland.
Your cop-out was that "my English is too terrible" and that You can`t understand the question...
So what`s Your cop-out this time?

 

[Saigon]

Polar Bear -

If I want to read stream of consciousness rants, I'll try Ginsburg.

Try posting something on topic, coherent and ideally relevent, and I'll respond to it.

Here are statements from 4 oil companies and a linked article I found interesting. Perhaps take a look at that and get back to me if you have anything substantial to contribute to the discussion.



Exxon: "Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."

Shell: "…CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies."

BP: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening and is caused mainly by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2˚C, global emissions should peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050."

Chevron: "At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/bigoil.html

 

[editec]

Where else but in places like USMB is the debate about whether Gloabal Weirding is happening? still raging?

Facts, logic statistis?

None of that matters to the faith-based.

 

[polarbear]

Polar Bear -

If I want to read stream of consciousness rants, I'll try Ginsburg.

Try posting something on topic, coherent and ideally relevent, and I'll respond to it.

Here are statements from 4 oil companies and a linked article I found interesting. Perhaps take a look at that and get back to me if you have anything substantial to contribute to the discussion.



Exxon: "Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."

Shell: "…CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies."

BP: "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening and is caused mainly by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2˚C, global emissions should peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050."

Chevron: "At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

Big Oil and the Demise of Crude Climate Change Denial

That`s all You have been reading and ranting...lets see..:
Your stats say that You wrote 5,440 rants in just 291 days..!
Which means You pretty well sit all day every day in your Finland hut and do nothing but. It`s not as hard as You think to find a shitload of your and your cohorts` rants where You all have been labeling every AGW skeptic no matter what his or her background is, as "unreliable" because "they work for the oil lobby" .
And now You`ll have it that the "oil lobby" is "admitting that CO2 (from fossil oil) is responsible for global warming"...because that`s the latest buzz on the idiotic blogs that You are reading...and ate it, hook line and sinker !
Let`s start with BP
All BP said that "according to the IPCC...blah blah blah"
How is that an "admission"..???
Then Chevron:
What else would a public relations expert say publicly during a senate hearing while Obama`s democrats are issuing drilling licenses ?...and while Exon was trying to improve it`s corporate image.
During these U.S. senate hearings the VP`s of Exxon, BP or Shell would have also come out in full support of gay weddings as good public relations with the Obama admin would require...it means shit...
Did You read what the press had to say about these "admissions" ?
No, of course You did not.
It was summarily dismissed right across the country by the entire the left wing liberal press cluster **** as "smoke and mirrors" and yet now it`s being used by idiots like You as the source for all that green jubilation.

The one You linked to started to blog cherry picked comments totally out of context so that naive idiots like You can delude yourself that "oil companies have admitted"..blah blah:
Quotes from Skeptical Science - News, photos, topics, and quotes

" At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change.
SOURCE: Skeptical Science 3 months ago

" Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems."
SOURCE: Skeptical Science 3 months ago

As for Shell:
"we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies."
Guess why they would say that..! Forget it, a dummy like You would never guess. Shell`s "CO2 reducing technology" is 2 fold.
Like some of the other U.S. based oil companies they did not want to miss out on the lucrative subsidies for "bio fuel" and secondly (not only) Shell is trying to push CO2 fracking as "CO2 reducing technology",...and again as with the bio-fuel scams is planning to reap fat Gov grants and tax breaks...:

Government action is required to support a framework for reducing greenhouse gasses.

So what kind of "Government action" that might be which an (any) oil company wants in that context?
Penalties?
Man what are You smoking ?

You might as well have picked any of the TV commercials BP, Shell or Exxon produces for gullible idiots like You as a source.
Any one are better "climate change admissions" than the silly crap You Googled for and picked out...

By the way, when we talk of the "Oil industry" we don`t just pick out a few of the players way down the scale.
I`m sure You don`t even have the vaguest idea which oil company is by far the largest one..
1. Saudi Aramco - 12.5 million barrels per day - The World's 25 Biggest Oil Companies - Forbes
#1 Saudi-Aramco 12.5 million barrels per day Saudi Aramco is by far the biggest energy company in the world, generating more than $1 billion a day in revenues.

#2 Gazprom - 9.7 million barrels per day

3. National Iranian Oil Co. - 6.4 million barrels per day


So what does Your "skeptical science" blogger have to say about them?
Do you think they give a shit about your CO2 psychosis?
Then we get down to Exxon:

4. ExxonMobil - 5.3 million barrels per day

It takes giant projects to "move the needle" for the Big Unit. That means CEO Rex Tillerson has to make friends with potentates. In this picture from last April, Tillerson is meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin to iron out a joint venture between Exxon and Russia's state-controlled oil giant

And You think they were discussing CO2 & climate change...???
How about the oil industry 5.th largest player:
5. PetroChina - 4.4 million barrels per day

Do You think they give a rat`s ass about You or Your "skeptical science" blog ?
Are You still having a problem reading and understanding English?
If so I`ll explain it to You what is motivating Your "repenting BP":

6. BP - 4.1 million barrels per day

Bob Dudley is seeking to turn the giant formerly known as British Petroleum around. Selling assets, settling lawsuits, promising improvements. BP may not maintain its 4.1 million barrels per day for long; it is in talks to sell its 50% stake in Russian venture TNK-BP, which provides a quarter of production.

Like I said, **** you are not only naive but utterly dis-informed and stupid.
You can go down the entire list of the top 25 oil companies like Pemex of Mexico, Kuwait Petroleum, Abu Dhabi Oil, Sonatrach Algeria, Iraq Oil, Qatar Petroleum .....
All the way down to Hugo Chavez and his 1.9 million barrels per day Petroleos de Venezuela...
And I challenge You to find any such "oil industry admissions" that oil is responsible for "climate change"....aside from the 2 which were in the "hot seat" while the U.S. senate grilled them,... but actually avoided admitting to anything.
By the way Your English is terrible:

Try posting something on topic, coherent and ideally relevent, and I'll respond to it.

That`s not how we spell "relevent"...or is that a new acronym for some sort of religious "event" You are experiencing, like when you smoke your dope and read these dumb blogs?
I did ask You already a whole bunch of relevant questions, but You avoid answering them...not just mine, but also SSDD`s and many other ones.
So again...
Did all that snow which formed the glaciers on Greenland get there during a lengthy warm period...?
...as You claimed is the case when snow falls in a "cold region".
When the **** will You answer that simple question, You illiterate finnish goat ******* ****** ?
( You sure as shit can dish out insults galore, but can`t take it if anybody calls You what You are...I also know that your eyes glaze over if a sentence is longer than Your limited attention span..I`m not writing this for You anyway...that would be a total waste of time...I`m writing it so that there is something else to read instead of the 20 retard-rants You are spewing out every day since You registered in this forum...why?...are You actually deluding Yourself that anybody in the U.S. & Canada will get rid of his car and buy a Chevy Volt, a windmill and solar cells because of the crap You post here?
)

 

[PoliticalChic]

6% of scientists are Republican. Most of them don't believe in either climate change or evolution. It's partly the reason they have no "discoveries".

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.


So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

 

[polarbear]

6% of scientists are Republican. Most of them don't believe in either climate change or evolution. It's partly the reason they have no "discoveries".

1. Let’s take a look at who is ‘anti-science’: 93 % of scientists acknowledge the necessity of animal research, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 48% of Democrats. Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

a. Nuclear power plants? 70 % of scientists favor, as do 62 % of Republicans, but only 45% of Democrats Ibid.

b. The National Academy of Sciences found that genetically engineered food is safe. So say more Republicans (48%) than Democrats (42%) Who?s More Anti-Science: Republicans or Democrats? - Reason.com


2. “Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are”…with respect to belief in astrology, the need for control groups, probability, antibiotics, exposure to radioactivity….Check out the list at The Audacious Epigone: Republicans are more scientifically literate than Democrats or independents are

a. Razib Khan reanalyzed the data and found that conservatives and liberals are roughly equal in their knowledge of science, but that both are more knowledgeable than moderates.
Berezow and Campbell, “Science Left Behind,” p. 212.


So….Republicans/conservatives less science literate or knowledgeable? Hardly. But do Democrats/liberals win the decibel battle…..seems likely.

You nailed it, when the facts on the ground don`t bear out the the demo-liberal agenda they resort to "weaponizing" decibels.
It was the gay-lesbian movement that started using this tactic and the public sector unions followed suit. CEO`s of oil companies are just as expedient as savvy career politicians and avoid confrontations...just like You or I would if we have to make our way by a crowd of protestors.
Only a fool would argue with a crowd of intolerant and vindictive "greens" or a "gay parade". Chick-fil-A`s CEO found out the hard way and no major oil company CEO would commit such an error. We`ve seen a little bit of that in Canada. Only hours after an Alberta Exxon rep spoke about the Keystone pipeline the for any case hire professional demonstrators were at gas stations that sell fuel with an Alberta Oil sand content and even people just shopping for groceries were harassed by the "Hey Hey- Ho ho.....blah blah blah has got to go" chanters.
Most corporate PR departments are counting on the stupidity of these activists to take any non confrontational pseudo agreement for face value in their eagerness to score propaganda points. But idiots like Saigon from Finland (really??) either can`t can`t comprehend or is too insincere to acknowledge. I`m beginning to have my doubts if this "Saigon" is indeed posting from Finland as he claims.
I would like to see the 3 lines of ASCII characters he would generate if he would run his finger across the "qwerty", "asdfg" and "zxcvb" key lines.
They should be loaded with special characters that are not on an American English keyboard. I`m suspecting he is an immigrant on welfare sitting in a British social housing project with nothing else to do than spewing out anti- free enterprise and anti- oil forum posts by the thousands.
How about it "Saigon"...here is an easy chance to prove me wrong...it would be quite time consuming to fake a Fin-keyboard with the Windows OS "Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Character Map" one by one
...and after that finally commit to your choice how to answer my question..You know, the one You`ve been ignoring over and over again.
Your Nostradamus "science" has recently claimed, as usual after the fact , that snow in cold regions is "evidence of warming" and You hung it on the big bell here.
So is all that snow which formed the massive glaciers on Greenland evidence that Greenland was "warm"?
It`s a simple question...!!! Why are You too chicken to answer it ?
I`ve been on Greenland and Ellesmere Island during snow storms.
Have You ?
I can tell You they are not very "warm" :
I won`t even black out my name because unlike You, I have no problem backing up what I`m saying..:

This is what one of these "warm" snow storms near the North Pole looks like:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOwvR-Zuev4"]Windstorm in Alert 2 - YouTube[/ame]

That`s why we string these ropes. We hook our harness to these else You get swept away never to be found again...alive that is.

I`m retired now and moved south. The farging arctic cold seems to have followed me wherever I decided to go. For the last 10 years our winters have started earlier and lasted longer. It started snowing in September and has`nt quit snowing since. I`m not just talking about Manitoba but a 2.25 million square mile area in Canada where it`s been "warming" up with all that snow...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb3zD6dDbLg&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1"]Global What ?.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

Most of the farmers in central Canada gave up all but indoor vegetable growing, because the growing seasons have been way too short for almost a decade now. So if You think that all that snow is "evidence of man made global warming" why do`nt you come over here and enjoy the "warmth" ..
Don`t worry I won`t kill you. Conservatives don`t go "postal"...we leave that up to You left threaded wing nuts

 

[Saigon]

Where else but in places like USMB is the debate about whether Gloabal Weirding is happening? still raging?

Facts, logic statistis?

None of that matters to the faith-based.

It's interesting to look at the last three posts on this thread and consider where the debate is.

Ranting about gay people, astrology, antibiotics and pictures of men with sleds.

There is very, very, very little informed, scientific scepticism these days - more the high-pitched whining of forlorn extremists and assorted nutcases.

 

[SSDD]

Where else but in places like USMB is the debate about whether Gloabal Weirding is happening? still raging?

Facts, logic statistis?

None of that matters to the faith-based.

It's interesting to look at the last three posts on this thread and consider where the debate is.

Ranting about gay people, astrology, antibiotics and pictures of men with sleds.

There is very, very, very little informed, scientific scepticism these days - more the high-pitched whining of forlorn extremists and assorted nutcases.

There was enough to put your claim that oil companies have admitted that they are destroying the world down. Outright lies and half truth are what you work with siagon and the more you talk, the more obvious it becomes.