This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
More Energy Companies Accused Of Downplaying Climate Change
Submitted by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com,
A growing number of energy companies could come under increased scrutiny over their involvement in funding science and public relations campaigns denying the risks of climate change.
The New York attorney general made news a few weeks ago when he announced an investigation into oil major ExxonMobil for its alleged cover up of climate science. The investigation is looking into the possibility that ExxonMobil funded and gathered hard science on climate change, and once coming to the inevitable conclusion that the burning of fossil fuels could lead to regulatory blowback, the oil major proceeded to bury the conclusions and instead fund climate-denying science to obfuscate and head off political action.
While the news could yet blow up into a significant scandal, for now it is too early to tell what the outcome could be. However, more companies could come under fire from a growing number of attorneys general over their involvement in similar practices. After all, ExxonMobil is only the largest in a long line of companies that have pushed back against climate change policy.
The money flowing from energy companies to anti-climate change think tanks and lobbying organizations is relatively well known, and the links between the two are not hard to find. Donations to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), for example, is one of the more infamous relationships between oil and climate change lobbying. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) says that ExxonMobil has donated at least $1.7 million to ALEC between 1998 and 2014, a figure that CMD says is conservative. ALEC, in turn, pushed a legislative agenda to cloud the science on climate change, lobbying lawmakers across the U.S. and sowing doubts about the science of climate change.
European oil companies have taken a more proactive stance on addressing climate change. In October, for example, 10 large oil companies including BP, Shell, and Total, signed a joint letter stating their support for UN action on climate change.
To be sure, there is a big question about whether or not the New York attorney general can actually convict the oil company of a crime. Unlike the tobacco industry – a criminal case often cited as similar – it may be more difficult to prove that the energy industry directly violated the law.
A new report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tries to put hard evidence to the fact that money from oil companies directly led to climate-denying scientific research. Using quantitative analysis, studying reports from anti-climate change organizations over 20 years, researcher Justin Farrell illustrates an “ecosystem of influence” that contributed to public confusion over climate change. Organizations that received funding from oil companies were more likely to publish papers clouding the science on climate change. In other words, the study points the finger directly at the energy industry for its role in misleading the public.
Again, it is hard to say how that will actually play out from a legal standpoint. ExxonMobil denies any wrongdoing.
But it wasn’t alone, and whether or not the attorney general has a strong case, dozens of other companies could also come under fire for similar action.
Peabody Energy, a major coal mining company, agreed to begin disclosing the risks of climate change to its investors as part of an agreement with the same New York attorney general looking into ExxonMobil.
As the world steps up efforts to tackle climate change, we could be witnessing the beginning of a trend towards greater political and legal scrutiny on the energy industry for its role in slowing action on climate change.
The legal route is merely one element of a growing political tide moving against the energy industry. Just a few weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama set a precedent by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline on climate change grounds. By all accounts, he only reached that decision after strong and persistent protest by environmental groups. Politico reported that the Koch brothers have setup an intelligence network to spy on leftist groups, in order not to be outmaneuvered again. The “Koch Intelligence Agency,” as Politico describes it, illustrates the energy industry’s rising concern over political threats.
And the international community is kicking off the Paris climate change talks this week. While few expect a landmark agreement, the momentum behind international action to crack down on carbon emissions is stronger than it was in Copenhagen in 2009. Even if no deal is reached, more regulatory action on carbon emissions can be expected in the coming years.
Obviously, oil, gas, and coal companies are not going away (at least those not near bankruptcy), but low prices are not the only existential threat facing the industry. The political movement to act on climate change is picking up steam, and the legal case against ExxonMobil perfectly illustrates that growing threat.
- 853 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Why are we having high powered international meetings about climate change whilst totally ignoring Fukushima? Cooler or hotter, it will still be glowing in the dark. Any climate risk in the longer term seems somewhat irrelevant if no one is going to be around to say 'I told you so'.
And, the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC. arming, funding & training AL CIA duh Terror Oganizations.
That's right. Distraction, Divide & Conquer Playbook.
How dare anyone challenge the government narrative. Off with their heads.
Maybe because "Climate Change" is a political movement? Maybe that is why they are spending money to counteract it?
How is it the modellers can get all sorts of grant money from governements who are set to gain a shitload of power and $$ from "climate change" and they are looked as pure as the wind driven Arctic snow?
This is not about science. Science does not use models to prove a foregone conclusion. This is rubbish.
I am tired of the "ends justifies the means" type of thinking at the government level.
And when the moneychangers are on the side of something, you can be damn sure it will not benefit me.
pods
Apart from the "inconvenient truth" that many of the "Climate Change Gurus" (such as our very own Aussie "Minister for Climate Change"), have seen fit to invest their sizeable income in coastal properties (so what DO they really know about those "rising sea levels"??), it is interesting to remember other periods in our past where atmospheric CO2 levels were higher (often much higher) than now.
One such period was the Carboniferous Era. The era of the planet's greatest biodiversity, and the era of the giant flying insects. Without the atmospheric CO2, there would have been much less plant life, and much less O2 for the giant-sized everything. Without that CO2 we'd have little (or maybe no) coal, and likewise little (or maybe no) oil (assuming the abiotic oil production process is a minimal contributor to current stockpiles).
It is unfortunate that the "accepted truth" (?!) states rising sea levels (see above) and desertification will be the "consequence" of rising atmospheric CO2; known history clearly indicates rising atmospheric CO2 is associated with increased biodiversity, and reduction in desertification (as a result of rainfall modification via increased transpiration processes).
Just one example of very many - http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/357/801.full
"More Energy Companies Accused Of Downplaying Climate Change"
As well as the rest of the rational, non-government paid, world.
Probably O2 does help develop brains more than being the next giant flying insect?
The IPCC wasn't created to investigate global warming but to prove it, meaning that it isn't involved in science at all but the corruption thereof.
Moreover, if nearly 600 million years of data show no correlation whatever, only occasitonal coincidences, then CO2 isn't the villain it's claimed to be.
Far more important, however is that in all that time, atmospheric CO2 has never been lower and dangerously so, given that plants die at concentrations below 150 ppm. So perhaps 150 years of industrial CO2 emissions not only isn't a bad thing; it may well have staved off a collapse of all life.
Look at the chart and see, which can be varified elsewhere:
http://i2.wp.com/www.truthofgujarat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hitle...
No, this isn't about natural science but political science, i.e., it's about the ruling elites getting global control over the very stuff of life, all based on perhaps the most sinister propaganda tool ever devised:
http://i2.wp.com/www.truthofgujarat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Hitle...
Poor Americans, most don't realize that most of their technological progress and prowess which was born from the 1800s came from an era when the Government would actively avoid publicly funding *ANY* science or research and development.
Most can't even wrap their heads around the idea that the railroads were built with private money, that most airports were also built (at least initially) with private monies.
Now, they're so convinced that government funded science is pure and blameless that we have armys of SJWs/Citizen-warriors who actively campaign against private funding of research.
The west is doomed.
Watch this and be enlightened as to how a private funding of research is actually the correct way to go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4
Private funding got us to the moon. And back.
Oh, wait.....
Some church somewhere found that out.
Thats it.
Government funding got us there and back, and we played golf, tooled around in a car, etc.
We just can't seem to do it now, with more computing power in a fucking Apple Watch than all of mission control had. And with materials science so far advanced now it should be rather easy to get there and back.
But nope, LEO is all we can seem to achieve.
pods
Seems to me that a private firm could have been first on the moon had US.gov not monopolized and funded rocketry programs while legally prohibiting non-.gov entities from doing so.*
*Unless you believe the moon landings were directed by Stanley Kubrick in a clandestined Hollywood sound studio - in which case, please go back to ranting about how 'climate change' is going to make the world uninhabitable by 2011.
I don't BELIEVE anything about the moon landing hoax. I look at the facts, the bloopers (for fun), the amount of gear carried (that is the best one, each and every box they crammed in that lander), and the fact we only achived anything higher than LEO orbit with the Apollo program some 50 years ago and have come to a conclusion that is devoid of anything resembling BELIEF that in fact we have never made it to the moon with a manned mission.
Maybe you should look into doing the same?
pods
I have no idea whether the moon landing was a hoax or not, but I also have no idea how crossing the Van Allen belts would be survivable.
GLOBAL WARMING - GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE - CLIMATE CHANGE
LIES - MORE LIES - AND TOTAL LIES.
I DENY MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
I DENY MAN-MADE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
I DENY MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING.
The same way that Ukranians & Russians attempting to solve an active melt-down in Chernobyl lived for months, even years afterwards with many thousands of times the radiation dose that the Van Allen belts give you.
Human physiology doesn't stop the moment radiation arrives on the scene. In fact earthly biology evolved to deal with a lot of the natural radiation in our environment. Bananas are radioactive. The human body deals with that just fine.
The Van Allen belts are home to highly energetic particles, much more energetic than the neutrons given off by the metal in Bananas, true enough. But the total dose in the belts can be remarkably less when considered next to how many bananas a person eats over their lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
Standard Disclaimer: To the first moon landing deniers, explain away. I've poised this many times on ZH, with the results being pretty much the same.
All the deniers will immediately shut the fuck up.
Yep, when golfing I always go to my target and affix a mirror on it to use my laser rangefinder. :D
Any idea what the obscuration is for a mirror that has been on the moon for 50 years? What it is like for a laser going through the atmosphere twice?
Or the fact that this readout:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment#/media/File...
Shows approximately 13 minutes of "hits" back from the mirror.
Any idea how much a returned beam moves from one rotating object and lands on another? Try it with a simple laser pointer on a mirror at like 100 yards.
I've done it. Go get a simple laser pointer, set up a mirror and try it.
They shoot a laser at the moon's surface. Not at some dinky 2 foot mirror.
pods
You mean the 'outtake videos' of the 'fake moon landings' that use a different camera angle, different frame speed/resolution, different LM ladder and different EV suit on the 'astronaut' than were present in the original footage? Yeah, I've seen those, and read all of the related 'facts' and 'testimonies'.
Maybe you should develop a more critical eye for detail?
Some of us don't believe we did go to the moon, but keep believing whatever the MSM talking heads tell you to believe. Be sure to buy moar stawks!
My Egyptian associate at a seminar in '84 swore that the Russians were the first on the moon... that is the history that he got. He believed that our textbooks were lies.
Private funding would have kept us in the moon with growing bases. Public funding was revoked the minute political winds changed.
And what did it get us? Dick-wagging rights against the Russians? No private company would have funded the Moon landings because no one currently gains anything by being there.
There are currently only 2 things useful on the Moon. Helium-3 and a base for a giant mass-driver to threaten the Earth with (i.e. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). The mass-driver thing is a non-starter since the people involved back on Terra Firma would be nuked well before it was completed. As for that awsome isotope H3.... how exactly do you plan on putting mining equipment on the Moon, assembling it, then transporting the finished goods back home? Not to mention the logistics of keeping the workers alive. Were at least 20 years off from solving those problems, and in the 60's that would have been pure Science Fiction.
...And if oil is the fuel of the past, why does the U.S. continue to destabilize and overthrow oil-rich nations?
Surely, we can run the world on solar, wind, and fairy dust energy!
The ClimateGate Hoax is almost out of control. It's a great excuse to exercise moar control over the peeples and tax them heavily ... for the benfit of the Elites like Gore and Soros.
This climate chage is a bitch!!!!! No hurricanies in Florida for ten years and crop prices at record highs because of the intense heat!! Oops....nevermind..crop prices in the tank because of bin busting harvests.... FYI...swam in the Atlantic ocean in NJ this summer...my summer vacation. The water was so cold it took me 20 minutes to get in it.
Because it's not about the environment, but power and control...same as its always been.......
Virtually every US nuke plant has vast amounts of spent fuel sitting in swimming pools until a permanent waste disposal solution is available. Yucca Mountain has been killed by Senator Reid (NV) for the time being (until he's out of office?). It will be years before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission can wade through the mountains of pages of the DOE waste-repository application for Yucca Mountain. Should a repository at Yucca Mountain ever be licensed, transportation of the waste to the site may be the biggest safety issue.
A more interesting phenomenon is that the design lives of existing US nuke plants went from 30 years to 60 years. Isn't that a cause for concern, particularly in the aftermath of Fukushima? Guess we can't afford to ever turn those plants off at this rate.
Cheers y'all!
Tax and control web of lies suckers!
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...
Rich oil company is not need spend any money for conviction of AGW Fraud. Is obvious to most stupid of citizenry that AGW is imaginary crisis for accumulation of power by political class and money changing fraudster elite.
Who gives a fuck. Those companies are the ones that will benefit from a carbon tax.
Ba Zing!!! We have a winner!
Bah! who needs energy (consumable calories) anway?
Oh wait... ...crap.
Since when is challenging a scientific theory, and Climate Change is ONLY a theory, a prosecutable offense?
This is the equivalent of the Catholic Church convicting Gallileo for showing the sun as the center of the solar system.
A beat down by government over their dumb-ass political shenanegans aka Climate (Money) Control is just more gestapo theater.
Oh for Fuckssake, when was the climate NOT changing?
Where/when was anyone promised the same climate, for all eternity that Al Gore thinks is juuuuuuusst right?
How is restricting CO2 "GREEN" given that A) CO2 is critical to photosynthesis and B) any increase of CO2 beyond current atmospheric levels would cause all green things to grow more robustly, not less?
But sure, just to be safe let’s go medieval and set up an all-powerful, international priesthood to interpret the Bible....sorry, science and define acceptable behaviors and activities for the rest of us which will buy us salvation.
What gets me is that the former Global Cooling crowd* said that we were due to have more storms and they would be more severe. Now the Global Warming crowd* says we are going to have more storms and they will be more severe.
It defies belief that we are magically at a storm minimum and storm severity minimum right when the environmental wacko movement gets rolling.
* Mostly the same people in both these crowds.
These Scum Fucks can't tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow yet these Psychopaths want me to believe in this "Conspiracy Theroy."
Shoe's on the other foot. How do they like to be called "Conspiracy Theorists?"
Sigh... The Oilprice bunch might want to look at the actual, verifiable scientific evidence instead of parroting the politically approved unicorn farts.....
Fuck them and their fake carbon tax and climate change, a.k.a. Global warming, if you replace 'carbon' with 'people', then you will begin to know what they really mean.
Cue the Hedgetards...
Cue the Flaktard...
(need some more lip balm while you're fluffing Gore?)
Flakzuki - you cunt. Crawl back in your hole
Long time no see Flak. Glad to see you around at least.
We at least used to have some good arguments?
pods
I always did enjoy watching the black knight scream "You yellow bastad!"
full disclosure: I do accept agw (or whatever the hell they want to call it this week) as reas as well as the need for tangible action.
THAT said I have to assume I'm far from the only zh-er whose jaw is on the floor at the idea that ag(s - particulay NEW YORK) would go fishing for trump laws to use in kangaroo trials against oil companies (who, again, ARE "bad guys") after they've spent a decade telling us: "gee, we know you're mad but nobody actually committed any crimes..." re: the INDUSTRIALIZED black-letter fraud, forgery & perjury committed by the squid & co?!? hell, they didn't even indict CORZINE & they're going to pull this w/the oil co(s)?!? I don't doubt they (oil co[s]) DID it, just astonished at the gall to ignore stealing an entire generation's pension while shoveling the time/$ to build a trump case here...
>> I do accept agw
So you're an idiot, then.
"I do accept agw..."
I agreed with you until about 2 weeks ago. It was then that I was flipping through the channels and ran into The 700 Club. Pat Robertson explained that the planet was actually getting colder; that if the planet does start to warm, it is because God is fooling with the thermostadt. (Which he may eventually do, since he doesn't like men marrying each other. Oddly enough, God, like me, has no problem with two women hooking up.) That settled it. Pat Robertson is a mean-assed mutherfucker--he once prayed away a hurricaine! That means Climate Change is bullshit!
Yes, to cleaner air. No to taxing an element.
Will the azzhat who tossed the red on the above comment please complete the following phrase:
"All life on this planet is (...) based."
I appreciate polution problems but I don't buy into climate change/global warming.
I do wish that this gathering today in Paris were rather being held in Bejing. Then perhaps the 150 'leaders' could all wear their masks to make a stronger point.
Which has nothing to do with C02.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991
This missive was originally going to have a sardonic slant, lots of tongue-in-cheek, lots of allegory and lots of metaphor. But I have to get it off my chest, so here it goes.
Science - in its methodology - strives to be exacting, impartial and relevant. At best, science is a tool to illuminate the relationships between things over time - at worst, science can be used as a device to promote political agenda, justify government spending and enabling social control. Science is politicized - no longer do we have what we now would consider rogue scientists conducting experiments for the sake of furthering knowledge. Science is either supported by government through grants and programs, or corporatized through R&D in an effort to improve margin and profit. Modern science is born from carefully controlled research funding. We ought to be skeptical of any government decisions made on the behalf of contradictory and inconclusive science. Especially when it is global in its scope. Too many variables. Too many avenues. Too many questions. Too many actors. Too many agendas. It's worth having a look at, sure. Chalk it up to global due diligence. However, a simple risk-analysis will will tell you to go no further. In the book the Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out that there are more immediate and more easily solved problems that the world can pursue. His recent piece on the recent climate change meeting is required reading. So why do governments constantly revisit the issue of 'global warming'? For one, it provides a distraction form the other things more dire and harder to solve domestically. People generally like talking about the weather, and this is a REALLY BIG discussion. Climate change is like the small-talk of global politics. But is the discussion important enough for governments to devote billions of taxpaying dollars to buy the world a better umbrella? Lawn sprinkler? There I go. I said I wouldn't go there - but I did. 2 billion dollars would go very far in promoting solutions to domestic poverty, domestic agriculture, and domestic energy. Here, literally right in our back yards. I may be one of the few that are absolutely confused as to why any foreign government would throw money - and lots of money - at a problem that seems to be without a solution. 20 years of often contradictory and incomplete science has clouded the judgement of policy-makers. I am confused at the 'sort-of's and 'maybe's that have been labelled as truth, and re-spun to fit agenda. 'Global warming' has been re-lablelled as 'global climate change', which just really amounts to 'weather'. Science has proved that local and global weather changes, for many different reasons. Yes folks, "weather happens". Well, my advice to you, and to my kids, is to adapt. If you cannot adapt to the weather, there is something more important, immediate and relevant that must be addressed. (I also recommend that you take a look at the following debate, Climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response and decide for yourself.) YOU ARE DEMOCRACY
Beheadings for the Al Gore worshippers?
Standard Disclaimer: Same for those posting links dating back to 2009?
History repeats I guess.
Not much has changed?
apologies.
Whether the weather be fine
Or whether the weather be not
Whether the weather be cold
Or whether the weather be hot
We'll weather the weather
Whatever the weather
Whether we like it or not.
No doubt science needs an impartial referee. Too bad philosophy's been scared shitless to do the heavy lifting since Hegel.
Funny how Al Snore's motives are never questioned even though he will profit handsomely from the global warming.., err.., I mean climate change scam.
"will" kinda ignores the hundred ten or so million he's already defrauded people of
While climate skeptics are denounced for mentioning “uncertainty,” the terms “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appear 173 times, while “error” and “errors” appear 192 times, in the 218-page chapter on climate models in the latest IPCC report released last September. As the IPCC admits, “there remain significant errors in the model simulation of clouds. It is very likely that these errors contribute significantly to the uncertainties in estimates of cloud feedback and consequently in the climate change projections.” The IPCC’s latest report rates the confidence of our understanding of clouds and aerosols as “low,” and allows that it is possible that clouds could cancel out most of the warming effect of greenhouse gases.
The original paper that claimed 97% global warming 'consensus' was written by John Cook . There have been several studies that have shown he manipulated the data. Only 41 of the 11,944 published climate studies he studied claimed that man was responsible for most of the warming since 1950. That is a consensus of .3%. That is pathetic.
Look up the paper published in 2013 by five climatologists in the Journal of Science and Education that completely demolishes this consensus nonsense.
The abstract of Cook’s OWN paper actually refutes the 97% talking point:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the study, the authors of the studies were invited to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
In other words, two-thirds of the articles expressed no opinion about the human causation of climate change, while the one-third that did were twisted by Cook into a simpleminded tautology: Among all the scientists who agree with the “consensus” are all of the scientists who agree with the consensus. Cook, incidentally, refused to share how he and his graduate students coded the 11,000 abstracts, which means he knows its a complete fraud as the 'results' of the 'study' can never be replicated as is required by the scientific method.
Only a fool who does not understand how science and the scientific method works would point to a 'consensus' as proof of any scientific theory, but that is what you hear from every non-scientist like Al Gore who is enriching himself and his corrupt friends with this idiocy.
At the behest of his handlers, Obomber vetos the Keystone XL pipeline on the grounds of "climate change" -- meanwhile Warren Buffets 'trains of anarchy' are derailing left and right spilling oil and petrochemicals directly into the environment.
See if you can guess: where we're at now.
Directly above the center of the earth?
Lindenbrook, is that you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI0-rUHorj8 Are you part of the 15 or the 85%?
stop pushing the string already duh
Americans have ADD but not that much ADD
Whether online or not the governments have pretty much eliminated most alternative theories to GW. A Tax on GW will only fund the NWO with the UN as a world government with the USA as its enforcer. At least that seems the plan at this stage.
GW has to be about the stupidest thing since the world is flat put out by religious governments centuries ago with the never ending same goals... Fleece the public, Increase their power.
Okay you GW believers,,, when your god, government, starts to mess with the atmosphere and screws it up like they screw up everything else, what you gonna do then? What planet do you intend to go to? It ain't like we have a dozen to choose from.They are already spraying areas in the Western USA which may be causing the present extreme drought. But, of course not,,, gubbermint would never do that to us,,, would they?
How about you paying each year for the C02 you exhale. It will make ObamaCare look like a great deal. Yes, this whole charade is to reduce population to some number an "expert" dreams up. What you gonna do when government says you have to pay for your child's lifetime of exhaling c02 else you can't have children. You gonna threaten them with Molon Labe? I'm sure they'll shake in their boots.
EDIT: If not for climate change,,, none of us would be here. And that you can take to the bank.
$1.4 million dollars over 16 years? Seriously, ExxonMobil probably pays more than that in having parking tickets fixed. Go out to the NSF database on funded research and you'll see $1.4 million anually isn't even chump change in the study of climate change. The author and his site make a living off of selling investment advice, not off of oil itself. Whether it goes up or down, they make money off of advice. If it doesn't move because there isn't a crisis of some kind (too much shale oil, not enough shale oil, too much OPEC production, not enough OPEC production, political movement with respect to climate change picking up steam, etc. etc., these guys have written articles on all of them), then the author and his site aren't getting hits and aren't making money. It gets really tiring sifting thru crap like this on ZH, but I'll just not bother to read anything by oilprice and save myself some time. I'd suggest you do the same.
Exactly right, Oreilly. The idea that government-backed "climate" scientists have motives as pure as the driven snow is nothing but a pile of steaming horse apples. They know who butters their bread and (to throw in yet another metaphor) will do everything possible to keep the taxpayer-funded gravy train moving toward their bank accounts.
Scientist ALWAYS chase the (grant) money and big budgets.
I have been thinking of doing that myself. This article tips the balance. Goodbye Oilprice.
Apples and oranges.
Only the energy sector denies climate change. Skeptics deny man-made climate change. The key variable here is CO2.
The oil industry doesn't want carbon tax. But revenue-neutral carbon taxes (as in BC, Canada) are rare, yet the net cost will not be borne by corporations, but by consumers. Once the oil execs realize this, they will be on board, and it's a green light after that for more trickle-up economics.
https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/trickle-up-carbon-taxes/
Mark Steyn ripping into the IPCC and Michael Mann. 30 minutes of fairly humorous poking at Mann and his lawsuit to try and shut Steyn and others up about the AGW myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
This is an enormous con game perpetrated by the new world order and the world population is going to be taxed because most have become so dumbed down that they are now too stupid to have figured this out.
To believe in AGW you then have to come to the conclusion that SOME people are more important than others because obviously the current iteration of the earth is wrong headed and only a radical change can save us and given the laws of math and thermodynamics there just won't be enough calories to go around and that to save us all a great majority of us will necessarily have to die and/ or experience a radical reduction in lifestyle and that the government knows best how to achieve all this.
I wonder if people will hold the same opinion of the issue as figure out THEY are the ones who are voted off the island to save it?
Idiots.
The purpose of the Paris talks is to increase capitalistic costs.
But there is no evidence this reduces emissions , in fact all the evidence points to a increase in emissions.
This can be seen most dramatically in the euro periphery.
Pre Maastricht much of the Irish economy remained coal and peat based yet we had much lower emissions then today.
The only low carbon economy is the peasant economy as there is little to no waste (as a result of usury )
If the brains of some of you ZHers had dicks, you’d be impotent on this issue. Ocean acidification, one of the major causes in the large decline globally of coral reefs (which directly and indirectly support up to 500 million people), is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. The International Society for Reef Studies thus calls on all nations and negotiators at the Paris Climate Change Conference to commit to limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations to no more than 450 ppm in the short-term, and reducing them to 350ppm in the long-term. This should keep average global temperature increase to less than 2°C (or 3.6oF) in the short-term, and less than 1.5oC (or 2.7oF) in the long-term, relative to the pre-industrial period. This would prevent global collapse of coral reef ecosystems and allow coral reefs to survive in perpetuity.
Cry me an Ocean. If KTV Escort had a brain you would have to emit CO2 to keep it alive. Do the world a favor and be the first to stop emitting CO2.
http://today.ucf.edu/lathering-up-with-sunscreen-may-protect-against-can...
Oh dear... Looks like your little hypothesis has failed.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/69.abstract
It is you that are impotent. Try this on for size...
6CO2 + 12H2O + Light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2+ 6H2O
Agreed. Warming itself isn't a big problem. However ocean acidification is HUGE.
Acidification kills off diatoms that have shells, which is a good proportion of them. Diatoms are at the bottom of the food chain in the ocean for all ocean creatures. It's like the "grass" of the ocean where everything in the food chain above them will disappear if they disappear. No invertebrates and small fish for bigger fish and marine mammals to eat, etc.
The problem is that the UN, and subsequently can't get people riled up by something that doesn't directly affect them, like ocean acidification. They can't sell their TAX and income redistribution using acidification.
GOOGLE these FACTS for yourself...
• CO2 is present in the atmosphere at just 400 ppm. By comparison, oxygen is present at 210,000 ppm. There is barely any CO2 in the atmosphere at all.
• Higher CO2 levels means better reforestation and “greening” of the planet. As CO2 levels rise, barren regions are able to “re-green” with trees that couldn’t grow there before.
• CO2 is chronically deficient in the atmosphere today; many plants are “starving” for carbon dioxide.
• The vast majority of CO2 emissions (over 96%) come from biology (volcanic eruptions and land and sea biomass decomposition), not burning of fossil fuels. Man is responsible for LESS THAN 5%.
Nah. I'd suspect that can't be right. Do you know what the C02 levels were in earth's past history? You need to check into it. You're blame for the effect of man-made C02 is way out of line. We're at about 375 PPM volume for C02 right now. Earth in the past was many times that. Higher than 8000 PPM volume. But I'll be damned. You're here, and so am I. Please go watch Al Gore's movie again. We're all supposed to be up to our knees in water by now, but those places are still high and dry. Oh wait. You don't go that far back...
I agree (as of now, there are just 3 of us, 4 counting KTV) that ocean acidification is a far larger issue that atmospheric warming. To be clear, the mass extinction events that took place near the end of the Permian period was largely caused by emissions from the ocean. Make no mistake, the amount of free carbonate in our oceans is declining, pH is falling, and as a result a whole host of ecological consequences are occurring. My view is that atmospheric warming and its consequences are annoying, but ocean acidification is downright life threatening - possibly sooner than we think.
> Drudge Report: “WORLD LEADERS PLOT WAR ON ‘WARMING'”
If I wrote the news . . .
The political movement THAT IS climate change is picking up steam, and the legal case against ExxonMobil perfectly illustrates that growing threat.
Fixed the fuck out of it for you.
A good example is the "big tobacco" settlement. The companies will role over and pass the cost on to consumers.
wonder if they will investigate the extortion ring in our government?
If you think Obamacare is expensive..its not even half the costs its going to be....wait until they get their hands all over energy costs...you will only be able to buy from the Greenies who donate the most to the Democrats and it will be very expensive...and it will not be there all the time
They are coming for your burgers next folks...
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/gassy-cows-emit-more-meth...
I didn't think there was enough beef in those burgers to merit much attention. But hey, two cows put out twice as much methane as one cow. So when a single cow on a farm gives birth, the gov can claim the farmer increased his methane emissions from his farm operations by 100%. Fine that farmer!
All people who believe that man is destroying the earth need to demonstrate their love of the planet by conducting a mass suicide.
Channeling my best Norm Macdonald:
As a young man pursuing a masters degree in environmental engineering, I was astonished by how few of my professors were leftist/marxist wholly dependent upon state and federal funding and completely incapable of performing in the private sector. And by "how few", I mean every last one of them.
Amazing how this all starts just after NOAA refused to provide Congress with details about how it came to its conclusions, and possibly faked all the temperature data, in its new Global warming paper.
At this point, we have to accept, whether there is any data at all supporting climate change by humans, which there is not, it is being used to push a purely evil global taxation scheme. And that is now the totality of this struggle, thanks to globalist neo-People's Temple Agricultural Project aholes who are simply after control.
"Global climate change requires government's action"
Lets walk this out.
1) Can we know whether we are going in a predictable trend toward warming or cooling? With what accuracy does our information have, so that we can make an informed and accurate decision- (garbage in>>out)?
2) What are the costs and BENEFITS of the climate change, warming or cooling?
3) Is mankind even minimally responsible? Can we know this to any accurate degree?
4) CAN we even do anything about it?
5) What can we do about? Do we have any certainty it will work, or even not make the "problem" worse?
6) Why does the govenment have to be involved?
7) Given the track record of just the US government, can they implement the right plan, without incompetance, and without corruption?
8) Can the world's govenrments accomplish ANY task with cooperation, with the right plan, without incompetence and without corruption?
In order to enact their plans, all above must be answered.
It seems to me, we jump from THERE"S GOLBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, QUICK, GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD, steal from us at gunpoint, demand we behave in a certain manner, let there be no dissent, we are gods.
We leave out a few steps in the logical progression of our thinking. As far as I can see, not one question above can be ignored or skipped in the debate.
It is more than "is there manmade global climate change"? EVEN IF THAT ONE POINT CAN BE PROVEN, all others need to be addressed before governmental dictate occurs.
Every acre of the world needs to have its temperature regulated and controlled by the Central Division of Average Temperatures.
What that temperature should be is still up for debate, but the CDAT has it under control!
A college friend of mine and I used to joke about a very similar yet to be created government agency.
The CPLC, otherwise known as the Curtailment of Personal Liberties Committee. Guessing as to who has pecking order, I'd say my fictitious organization outranks yours.
The author FAILS on so many aspects it's impossible to cover in one post here. But here are the MAJOR FAILS...
1) "Climate Science" is NOT science at all. It is pure propaganda/green religion. This was proven some twenty years ago with the rigged temps/email scandal. This is real science, biology 101... it's called photosynthesis! CO2 is an essential plant nutrient that makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.
2) The AGW crowd is ALSO funded primarily by organizations that stand to benefit from adoption of this religion.
3) The AGW "models" consider CO2 ONLY. They do not consider the following which may also be responsible for very minor sea rise... sedimentation from rivers is constantly flowing into the oceans, tectonic plate shifts, continuous underwater erruptions of volcanoes, cyclical forces in the universe including solar cycles, inadequate measurement techniques which have MUCH greater error compared to the amount of changes "observed" over the past 100 years.
Pure and simple bullshit...
They also totally ignore what Dane Wigington is trying to inform everyone about.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/tag/dane-wigington/
.
Chemtrails
HAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
Pablum for the infantile minds.
There is a lot of confusion and intentional misrepresentation.
1. The is no question that the earth is warming, and at least some of that is due to GHG.
2. Warming will benefit Canada, Russia and Northern Europe by extending the growing season and opening up more cropland.
4. Nothing realistically we can do about it. The world would have to stop using all fossil fuels today, and it would still take decades or a century or more to reverse the trend
A few additional comments
a) There is a huge difference between the SCIENCE, which consists of tens of thousands of individual studies, and the MODELLING, which TRIES to take the science and to predict future results. The science is solid, but the modelling will take another couple decades to become more accurate.
b) There's intentional lies on both sides, which usually equate the science with the modelling. The typical argument is that because the modelling is wrong, the science is wrong. The SCIENCE and MODELLING are NOT the same.
The pro warming side always points to the modelling as CONCLUSIVE and what WILL happen.
The skeptics say the opposite, and point to flawed modelling claiming the science is wrong.
Most "global warming science" is garbage for the very simple reason that it is based on corrupt data.
Like every other matter where government provides data (and "scientists" paid for one way or another by governments do the work of the government or they do not have a job) the data is corrupted to support a politicial agenda.
In the case of climate temperature data, the corruption includes:
Government temperature data is as well massaged as anything produced by the BLS and has its own versions of "double seasonally adjusted".
It is no coincidence that "the pause" occurred once a satellite record of global temperatures became generally available, since it bypasses most of the intentional and unintentional opportunities for data corruption unless the government corrupts the raw data at the time of release (which would now require continuously raising current reported temperatures since the past data is now in the public domain and can't be depressed).
GIGO, and that in a nutshell is "climate science".
No actually everything Exxon said privately was already published in journals and was public knowledge. They were batting around "what if" scenarios.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-...
When the facts are not with you (and they certainly are NOT with the CAGW crowd) then make a lot of noise and accusations. Nobody reads past the headlines anyway. Especially when it confirms their existing point of view.
Just keep repeating the "CAGW" lie often enough and all the useful idiots will fall in line with it.
This comes down to the problem of the general populace being an uneducated bunch of knuckleheads. Just thank goodness you don't get all the government you pay for.
Man denies science.
Science is Law in US
Man thrown in prison.
- a Haiku
Ireland is a model euro green jurisdiction with carbon taxes on all fuels.
Yet post (consumer war Economy) bailout it's diesel consumption has increased by 10kbd.
From 43kbd in Aug 2012 to 53kbd today
Petrol consumption has declined from 29kbd to 25kbd during that same period.
So consumption is up 6kbd despite all those taxes.
Emissions are stagnant however as the rump domestic economy continues to shrink.
Euro " Green" energy policy is actually a program to create living space for the cars..
marxist to the left of me and marxist to the right of me
Looks like this article is conveniently neglecting the same shenanigans that are going on pushing the climate change agenda. Junk science on both sides for sure.
How much have Blood and Gore paid for this article?
Tax and control web of lies suckers!
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...
Based on the rating of this article ZH seems to attract a lot of people who have decidedt that climate change is a govermment conspiracy; I have researched many articles that that present "scientific" evidence that climate change is a hoax and found (using tools like www.sourcewatch.com) that the authors are often financed by oil companies and religious fundamentalists.
The same is true for genetically modified food with the only difference that Monsantro and related agro-businesses have funded their research and writers. Here is the lastes example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2014/09/17/the-debate-about-gmo-sa...
Sourewatch reveals that both John Entine and the quoted scientist have financial ties to Monsanto; Forbes blocked my comment trying to expose the undisclosed financial interests of these 2 people; ladies and gentlemen let us be a bit less gullible; the world needs our critical intelligence now.
Thank you Tylers for your excellent news service!
Climate change is not a government conspiracy. Using climate change as a mechanism to transfer wealth to the oligarchs is a goverment conspiracy.
Government of, by, and for the oligarchs will use ANYTHING as an excuse to transfer more wealth to its owners. That's its purpose.
I found this analysis useful:
https://www.corbettreport.com/lies-damned-lies-and-global-warming-statis...
Please, help me recall: when exactly "global warming" became "climate change" and what is the difference?
Hey ZH, we need a way to vote 0 on articles, not just 1~5. Actually, this article deserves a vote of -5 on a 0~5 scale.
This topic is the most absurd in the history of mankind.
CLIMATE == CHANGE.
Yes, that's correct. You see, it works like this. Put sensors outside to measure rainfall, humidity, temperature, and barometric pressure.
The CHANGE in rainfall, humidity, temperature and barometric pressure IS "climate".
So the term "climate change" means "change change", which is STUPID.
Furthermore, every human being on the planet at least 3 years old knows quite clearly that rainfall, humidity, temperature [and barometric pressure] change from time to time.
And every half-awake human older than their teens knows these measures not only change every day and night, but during every season of the year, and also vary across years, centuries, millennia and beyond... as does the output of the sun that causes many of these changes.
Beyond that, anyone who reads a bit, and thinks a bit, understands that significantly warmer periods existed in the past... and they were more comfortable and supportive of human life (easier to grow more crops and in more places on the planet).
The entire AGW and "climate change" topic is so utterly absurd, and obviously just a NWO globalist political scam to justify ripoff taxes, world governance and worldwide slavery. That adults continue to push this scam with some degree of success is just one more bit of evidence that humans are a failed species. Humans are finished.
The political leaders, bureaucrats, faux scientists, crony businesses and sundry hangers-on who all benefit from this blatant ripoff of the rest of the community are becoming increasingly more frantic as the proportion of the public seeing it as nonsense and a rip off grows much larger.
I am perplexed at just what the NY AG thinks he can do to Exxon for exercising its politically guaranteed right to "free speech". The tobacco companies violated laws that are quite specific to substances deliberately ingested by humans -- food and drugs. Exxon's product is a known, substantial hazard to human health, but it hasn't denied the hazards of air pollution, only the science of climate change. As far as I know, given the protections of the 1st Amendment and the Supreme Court's policy on the "personhood" of corporations, there is no law against Exxon telling as many lies as it chooses in the course of protecting and marketing its business. Lying outside of court isn't illegal in this country, OBVIOUSLY, as we continue to not only tolerate, but clearly reward both individuals and corporations for blatant dishonesty. If they didn't do it in court or an SEC filing, I don't see what the AG can charge them with.