The extraction industries knew for at least thirty years about the dangers of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They also knew that by the time the public woke up to the dangers (and overcame the resistance of the energy companies' lobbyists and lackeys[1], that it would be too late to prevent the damage from happening.
Fucking A right they should now be sued to the brink of bankruptcy! Just as they predicted that they would be.
______________________
[1] Looking at you, Scott Pruitt.
Spanks, But No Spanks
49 minutes ago
35 comments:
So, since you apparently believe in Glowball Warmenating, you are selling your airplane, your car, heating your house with wood or grass or peat or manure (gathered by hand), walking or biking everywhere, not flying commercial, only eating that produce which was carried to your locale, not trucked or shipped, turning off the lights in your house, etc.?
Gee, B, what was that you said about respectful, honest, discourse?
-Doug in Oakland
Contrary to the blather, peat, wood, and grass do not heat well and release more CO2. At least oil or gas can be very efficient so the amount needed is far smaller.
Some of the other things may help but as economies collapse it would be well to
partake in save for time needed to travel will not be available. people will be too busy washing cloths and trying to find enough to eat as there will be no economical transport.
Right now the world is in the crossroads of energy and what it supports.
So whats it gonna be, B? You have the questions how about some constructive ideas?
Eck!
Crimus, B, get a grip, will you? I pointed out the facts, namely that Shell Oil knew that burning fossil fuels would result in a warmer planet, they knew what the effects would be, and they chose to keep silent on the theory that by the time everyone else figured it out, it'd be past the tipping point.
They chose to help wreck the planet, the only home we have, for a short-term profit.
And for pointing that out, you feel it necessary to snark at me?
Frankly, that's kind of beneath you.
If you bought (and are still buying) the oil and gas that they sell, then you have no argument. If you believe that "they are wrecking the planet" then you, as a buyer/user, are helping them to do so. And I wasn't trying to snark, just pointing out that, again, if you really believe that there is a problem, then you should act like there is one. But no one does, really. We all continue to consume gasoline and diesel and natural gas in great quantities in order to keep our lifestyle.
ECK: At least wood, peat, etc is "recent" CO2, and not ancient dinosaur era "sequestered" CO2.....
BTW, have you all actually READ the document? I did, (It's only about 35 pages long) it really doesn't say much except what we have known for years. SOME folks say CO2 MAY cause an issue (and pretty much ignores H2O and CH4) and doesn't really give any conclusions. Pretty much what ALL climate papers say. Might, Could, May. Nothing really concrete. Just more Michael Mann type statements.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090/Document3.pdf
The 1998 memo is a series of scenarios, not, as suggested, a prediction....rather a suggestion that some of these scenarios could occur and that the corporate management should consider how they might deal with it.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html#document/p122/a415455
Read the documents, not the hype. It *isn't* as suggested in the article....just good management practices, really. Forward planning.
Here's a newer take from someone who is trying to do something real about it:
http://richmondconfidential.org/2018/04/03/climate-change-and-land-subsidence-pose-threat-for-coastal-bay-area/
-Doug in Oakland
And just for the record, I don't have a car, and PG&E currently gets 33% of its energy from renewable sources, many of which do not emit carbon, and California, the most populous state in the US is on track to get half of its energy from renewables by 2020.
It takes time to change things as huge and entrenched as energy production and consumption, and there actually are people doing something about it, and showing other states that it can be done, and how.
Dismiss us if you like, but at least we are trying.
-Doug in Oakland
No, B., not true. The current way the world is configured is the complaint. I, for one, have a home that uses less than 30% of the energy of the average in my neighborhood. My car gets decent gas mileage and I drive less than the area average each year. I have made some simple choices that help the situation, but I don’t have access to a number of other options. Now, you’re gonna say I should give up my job and move to a farm and live on wind and solar and my own produce, no. What we all should do is make educated choices to reduce our footprints, and not accept that these companies made a choice they KNEW was bad for the future but very good for them then. Now it’s time for them to cough up some of that loot to help make the future better.
As for your disdain for Global Warming, perhaps you should peek out of the echo chamber you are in and read some of the studies out recently that leave no doubt about climate and ocean levels. You want a fact that should convince you, the average location of tree types is migrating northward and westward and rates in excess of 30km per decade.
Actually, I think you'd find my carbon footprint is about half the average as well. And it was for 20 years.... even before it was popular.
All I am saying is that if you are going to excoriate the "energy" companies for selling oil, you should also blame yourself because YOU BOUGHT THAT OIL.
Ad for my disdain for Global Warming, there is no temperature data (that has not been manipulated) that shows a gain in mean temperature. None. Look at 10 year averages, not single years and you will see that. Look at decent scientific studies of climate and you will see that there is no warming trend either. No one can point to any studies where the methodology and data are transparent and show a trend of warming.
Plus, really, who says the climate today, or in 1800, or 1700 is the "correct" climate?
Please, show me those studies you discuss. I'd like to see them.
What am I suppose to believe, B, you or the lying polar vortexes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex
Also
Arctic sea ice extent for March 2018 averaged 14.30 million square kilometers (5.52 million square miles), the second lowest in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record. This was 1.13 million square kilometers (436,300 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average and 30,000 square kilometers (11,600 square miles) above the record low March extent in 2017.Extent at the end of the month was far below average in the Bering Sea, as it has been for the past several months, and slightly below average in the far northern Atlantic Ocean and Barents Sea. Ice extent was slightly above average in the Sea of Okhotsk.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
From your previous remarks on evolution, it would seem your understanding of science is less than optimal.
B., try starting at https://skepticalscience.com
B. - Please show links to how the data was manipulated or the manipulated data itself so we can validate your claim. Breitbart will not be acceptable.
Sorry, was gone all day having a life.....
Skepticalscience.com? And you claim MY sources are poor? Really?
But here are some sources that you should accept:
Temp data manipulations
https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/#13141c361843
Sea Ice:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2017/11/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
There's LOTS more on both topics if you care to look for it.
In short, here's the cliff notes:
Australia and and US climate data scientists, led by NOAA and NASA, have been increasing the temp data by about 2 degrees C for each of the past 15 or more years. They have deleted the original data and substituted their increased temps.
Arctic sea ice has been lower (and higher) in recorded history. Much lower than it is now. It increased last year to well above the 30 year average.
Science, people. Science. Data doesn't lie. If you wish to worship at the Church of Michael Mann, that is fine. Call it faith that mankind is destroying the planet. The science shows otherwise. Our impact (so far) has been minimal. The variations of the sun account for more than all mankind's efforts. The VOLCANOES spew more greenhouse gasses than mankind does. And, so far, the climate models cannot even work for the past 30 years, much less 50 years into the future. When the climate models work for even a few years in to the future come talk to me. SO far, none of them have even come close to reality.
And we are back to, if y'all think burning fossil fuels is the issue, then act like it. Stop burning fossil fuels. Change your lifestyle. Use less oil. Start walking, stop driving or flying or eating things that are trucked into your locale. Otherwise YOU are the problem as much as the Big Oil Companies....'Cause you are buying their products.
You have nothing peer-reviewed, and a gigantic conspiracy theory(what has sea ice in the Antarctic have to do with Arctic sea ice?) Antarctica is a continent, whilst the Arctic region is mostly open sea covered by ice in the winter.
I stand by my estimation of your scientific understanding.
OK, lets do nothing and see what happens.
-Doug in Oakland
No, B., I provided a link to a site that has links to studies that show the data on warming in response to claims there is none. You claim to read for comprehension, but discard the links to paper after paper showing climate change is happening and instead accept the papers of the less than 3% of people in the field who argue it is false. The problem is, these 3% are mostly employees or contractors of companies with interests in climate change not occurring, and with no record of published, peer reviewed, studies and/or who have a proven axe to grind.
Your most laughable claim, the “changing of the data”, is so bogus that a child can see through it. If you were making a log of temperatures using data set X, and then found that data set X failed to provide an accurate temperature because the equipment wasn’t working correctly, would you refuse to conprrect the data? You do if it disproves your employers position...
Hyy, if you wish to dispute published reports from NASA folks that they have, indeed, changed the temp data, then that, again, shows you are living on faith rather than reality. And the "scientists" even destryed the original temp data. What conclusions one can draw from that are conjecture.
We are faced with the response here that every Global warming advocate gives when faced with real data...Deny Deny Deny. If you bother to do some research, you'l find that sea ice and temp data are NOT what you claim. Please also note that sea ice has, again, been both greater AND lesser in the 1900's. Much greater and much lesser. You call me a denier, yet you cannot even look at yourself with the same lens.
Sad, that.
And, once more, if you really believe that fossil fuels are destroying the planet, why don't y'all start living like you believe that?
I've been doing so for my entire adult life, B. Never owned an automobile, owned a motorcycle for three years.
So I'm gonna take it back to a comic I saw that said "What if it's all a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
http://arlohemphill.com/2011/08/10/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing/
-Doug in Oakland
Just to tag onto Doug, it’s like believing in a God or not. What’s the downside in believing?
Global warming. What’s the downside in believing? Costing someone more money vs living in a healthier environment?
Dale
" Costing someone more money vs living in a healthier environment? "
I've yet to meet a socialist who is afraid to spend someone else's money.....
Whose money are the Swedes using to finance their socialism, B?
,
Sorry I couldn’t convey the thought correctly. I guess what I should have typed is that it could cost a person more money out of their own pocket vs that same person living in a healthier environment. But I figured you’d comprehend the meaning of what I wrote.
Had nothing to do with socialism. You twisted the essence of what I wrote.
Dale
B., the “changing numbers” you refer to were observations that were proven erroneous because of equipment sett8ngs and calibrations. Once the determination was made that these errors occurred, a method was devised to correct the errors, based upon accurately recorded data. This was applied, and the resulting numbers are more accurate than ever, sorry they don’t support your head in the sand attitude.
This was applied, and the resulting numbers are more accurate than ever, sorry they don’t support your argument.
Fixed it for you.
Please don't make me reach for the card deck.
CP: Odd that those corrections we all UP...and in so many parts of the earth....and for the same timeframe. One would think that equipment and especially calibration/installation errors and such would have a more or less even distribution of both positive and negative errors.
Please, tell me you aren't believing that ALL the errors,in ALL the thermometers were such that the average temp was increased? You are much smarter than that.... At least you appear to be so.
Dale: I am apparently stupid. I still fail to see your point....costing someone *else* money is easy to do....and to do so on an unproven theory, with models that don't work, using demonstrably falsified data seems to be wrong...But, again, most people find it easy to spend other folks money.
B, the glaciers are in on the AGW scam as well:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/glacial-lakes-portraits-of-vanishing-glaciers-slide-show/
B: So my money doesn't count and yours does?
-Doug in Oakland
Well, B., when the error is in a satellite component that causes a systematic underestimation of sea level temperatures, it DOES make sense. Surely you can understand when a single measuring device is proven erroneous in a specific way, the correction would be consistent, eh?
Doug: Spend all your money on AGW stuff you want. Just stop spending MINE.
Especially when it all goes to studies to prove that we need more studies, or to make my energy and transportation cost more than it needs to to fix what cannot be proven or even demonstrated. Again, when you base your assumptions on models that cannot predict today's climate conditions based on the past 50 years of data, you cannot expect me to buy your story of what *might* happen in the next 50 or a hundred years. Remember, there is no money in saying "It won't be bad"...or "all is well". No one gets grants for that....
CP: The "corrections", if you would bother to look, were in ground stations across the US and in Australia (and, to a lesser extent, IIRC, Africa). All due to "Installation Errors" all of which were approximately the same amount...and all corrections that made the current record hotter. Plus there is the "Corrections"in the data from the past that made the past cooler.
Odd that all those corrections were all in the same direction, innit? And that they all made the past "cooler" and the present "hotter".....
The satellite corrections were, as far as I know, valid. and on the order of .1 degree, not whole degrees C.
DA: Scientific American gave up all it's credibility long ago. It's like quoting the "Lancet" or "Nature". Sad, really what happened to those publications. Of course, all those publications were "peer reviewed" and all that....
B, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Science still requires an explanation for the shrinking glaciers, if it’s not AGW. If you have one, now is the time to share it, instead of engaging in the tactic of “poisoning the well”, which is usually used by people who mistake invectives for reasoning.
So, B., does that mean you accept the satellite corrections? Because, if you do, it shows global temperatures climbing more rapidly recently, in line with predictions...so much for it’s bullshit. The other corrections are NOAA applied corrections, with full disclosure and massive peer review, to account for the urban heat island effect and changes in equipment used (mercury thermometers to electronic, etc). The correction was calibrated via a 10 year project of weather studies at “pristine” locations, which allow comparison with the stations needing correction. Additionally, a number of stations have moved, some multiple times, and that had to be factored in and accounted for.
Now, go ahead and make your accusations, but the facts are in, we are destroying the carrying capacity of the planet.
" we are destroying the carrying capacity of the planet"...
Which has nothing to do with AGW.....
Now we see your true beliefs.
"Peer reviewed" has become synonymous with "toe the approved party line"...it no longer means anything. WHich I find sad, because it onece meant that someone had actually read your paper and your methods of research made sense and could be replicated. Which todays Climate Change "science" cannot....mostly because the data are fudged...And, again, show me where a single model can predict where we are today using data from the '50's through the 2000's. Not a single model works...And we have pretty good data for those decades.
And, again, if y'all believe what you claim, then why don't you live like it?
Riding a bus is still burning hydrocarbons. Buying food that is trucked or otherwise shipped in same same.
I'll consider believing it when those who cry that Something Must Be Done start living like they believe it.
Explain the melting glaciers, B. That’s how science works. You say AGW isn’t real because of peer review, fine. You still have to
give an alternative theory to explain why the glaciers are melting.
AGW and planetary carrying capacity are related, and a reduced carrying capacity means wars, that where my beliefs are. B., your insistence the global warming is false, and your blind insistence that “peer review” is somehow related to a vast conspiracy to do something, shows who has an agenda here.
DA: I don't have to give *You* anything....I simply treat you like you treat me.
CP: "Peer reviewed" has, for many years, simply meant that it follows the'approved" line of thought. It once meant that your article had been reviewed for accuracy and scientific method and reproducability in the experiments.....the AGW folks gave that up years ago. Now if an article or study doesn't toe the party line (see also:"politically correct") then it doesn't get published.
If you were a scientist or an engineer you'd understand.
I'm outa this thread, you get the last words.
Post a Comment