Big Oil and the Global Climate Change movement

Aretheymyfeet

How do any of the climate alarmists explain the seemingly contradictory prevalence of old Big Oil interests at the very heart of the Global Climate Change movement?

SlowBlowin

I don't see the contradiction. They realize their core business is going end of life so are looking for the next big thing... its not the sentiment, its the cash.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I don't see the contradiction. They realize their core business is going end of life so are looking for the next big thing... its not the sentiment, its the cash.

Interesting. So you accept that the global climate change movement has been created and nurtured by Big Oil interests for decades then? Yes, it's not the sentiment, but neither is it the cash alone, though the 'Greening of the global economy' is going to provide a serious multi Trillion dollar windfall for the very financial and corporate interests who the climate activists naively believe they are battling. It's about power, and absolute power at that.

Why should we trust anything the global climate change movement says when it's been created by the very interests it claims to be fighting? Why should anyone trust the IPCC Reports when the terms of reference for the IPCC reports for the IPCC were drafted by a lifelong Big Oil multimillionaire? Why should we gift them absolute power whilst impoverishing billions?

SlowBlowin

Lesser of two evils.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Lesser of two evils.

Is it though?

You haven't answered why we should believe the alarmist view of the climate when it's clearly been created by those interests. If it's a complete hoax, surely the impoverishing of billions and the creation of centralised global tyranny is a tad worse than simply carrying on as we are, no?

SlowBlowin

No

SlowBlowin

Is that it ?

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Is that it ?

I might ask the same question. Simply 'No' doesn't really cut it. Might you care to explain why you believe impoverishing billions and creating a global tyranny in the control of the current transnational capital class is better than ignoring a hoax and avoiding the aforementioned horror show?

SlowBlowin

Can you use smaller words please.

I am from Kerry.

Is the question not "do you believe in climate change", and you are just arguing about some peripheral stuff ?

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Can you use smaller words please.

I am from Kerry.

Is the question not "do you believe in climate change", and you are just arguing about some peripheral stuff ?

Apologies, totally understand. I'll try again, though I'm not sure your fellow Kerry men wish to be lumped in with you on this.

The Climate change narrative has been created by sociopathic financial interests intent on global dominance. You don't appear to dispute this. Yet, you wish to hand these sociopaths absolute control over every aspect of life on earth based on this narrative, resulting in the impoverishment of billions. Might you have an argument in favour of your stance to convince myself or others not to simply ignore or completely reject everything the climate change movement represents?

Akrasia

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

How do any of the climate alarmists explain the seemingly contradictory prevalence of old Big Oil interests at the very heart of the Global Climate Change movement?

You’re talking absolute nonsense. The energy industry are at the heart of climate change denial

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Can you use smaller words please.

I am from Kerry.

Is the question not "do you believe in climate change", and you are just arguing about some peripheral stuff ?

Also, the question is almost never "do you believe in climate change". Almost everybody does. The issue is the influence of man on our climate.

Carbon makes up 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere. About 3.75% [15 ppm] of that 0.0391% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the approximately 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration. Therefore, manmade carbon emissions form approximately 0.0014625% of the earth's atmosphere, yet Athropogenic Climate Change fanatics would have us believe that by controlling/regulating this one single element, we can control the entire earth's climate. Let's just ignore Ocean cycles, tilt of the earth's axis, clouds, water vapour, volcanoes, Sun's solar cycles, Sun's solar flares etc which have driven climate change for millenia, until now. It's actually quite a ludicrous claim when looked at objectively.

Aretheymyfeet

Akrasia wrote: »

You’re talking absolute nonsense. The energy industry are at the heart of climate change denial

Ok. So, perhaps you can tell us, for example, who drafted the terms of reference for the IPCC? Who founded the World Wildlife Fund? Who is supporting Extinction Rebellion? Who are Greenpeaces biggest donors?

Let me guess, the msm provided you an article about Exxon and their climate change studies from decades ago? Tell us, where did Exxon come from?

Have you heard of 'astroturfing'?

SlowBlowin

What do you mean by climate change movement ?

I believe in climate changed based on my own observations, am I part of this narrative ?

I am not aware of any group intent on global dominance, other than Google etc.

I am aware of big oil companies and financial institutions who use the environmental movement as an opportunity to further their own interests, there is nothing new in that. Am I happy about it, No, but then thats what big business does. But if the end goal is achieved, climate change being taken seriously, then I would say its the Lesser of two evils, that's just simple logic.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

What do you mean by climate change movement ?

I believe in climate changed based on my own observations, am I part of this narrative ?

I am not aware of any group intent on global dominance, other than Google etc.

I am aware of big oil companies and financial institutions who use the environmental movement as an opportunity to further their own interests, there is nothing new in that. Am I happy about it, No, but then thats what big business does. But if the end goal is achieved, climate change being taken seriously, then I would say its the Lesser of two evils, that's just simple logic.

Ok. Fair enough. The global climate change movement that has emanated from the Stockholm, Rio and Paris Conferences which are creating a supranational global governance structure unimpeded by democratic accountability or controls serving the interests of the current transnational capital class into perpetuity. Think of them as being like The European Coal and Steel Community to today's EU, and it's future Federalised Superstate form.

I have asked a few questions above which point the way to show just how pervasive these interests have been in creating and/or nurturing everything from the IPCC, who's reports the anthropogenic climate change theory is based on, to the UNEP, the WWF, Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion etc..

What other really big players are there in the global climate change movement?

You keep saying the lesser of two evils. If there is no anthropogenic climate change, or it is effectively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, not only is following this alarmist view not the lesser of two evils, it is the Evil.

SlowBlowin

Your science/logic is all wrong.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a lad in Mr. Kinsella's science class he told us of an experiment he did in university, where excess magnesium metal was burned in an air sample and all residue collected and analysed. This allowed an accurate, for the period, measurement/confirmation, of the co2 levels at the time. The result was about 0.0340.

Now the level, you say, is 0.0391, thats an increase of 15% in my lifetime.

Co2 has a much higher greenhouse effect than a lot of other gases, so just judging by quantity is not logical you need to take into account its effect. For example If, perish the thought, you were slipped an cyanide pill, it would only be a tiny thing (avg human 62000g, weight of cyanide pill 300mg) which is 0.0048 % of a human YET still causes a lot of effect.

So something that has a massive effect has gone up 15%, and whats to blame, well thats obvious..

So all you impressive numbers (8 decimal places) you posted are pretty meaningless.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Your science/logic is all wrong.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a lad in Mr. Kinsella's science class he told us of an experiment he did in university, where excess magnesium metal was burned in an air sample and all residue collected and analysed. This allowed an accurate, for the period, measurement/confirmation, of the co2 levels at the time. The result was about 0.0340.

Now the level, you say, is 0.0391, thats an increase of 15% in my lifetime.

Co2 has a much higher greenhouse effect than a lot of other gases, so just judging by quantity is not logical you need to take into account its effect. For example If, perish the thought, you were slipped an cyanide pill, it would only be a tiny thing (avg human 62000g, weight of cyanide pill 300mg) which is 0.0048 % of a human YET still causes a lot of effect.

So something that has a massive effect has gone up 15%, and whats to blame, well thats obvious..

So all you impressive numbers (8 decimal places) you posted are pretty meaningless.

Hmmm, Mr 'Kinsella' might be disappointed by your logic. You properly state that something with a very poisonous harmful effect can be harmful in even tiny doses. What you fail to do is explain how a minute increase in overall Carbon levels due to human activity could be so catastrophic. The natural variants in carbon levels are greater by some degree. Please explain how about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the 0.0391% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere controls the entire climate of the earth? Do you believe reducing manmade carbon emissions to zero will stop climate change? Or, if you believe it'll slow it, by how much do you reckon?

Also, your point about manmade carbon emissions being the primary driver of global climate change primarily relies on the IPCC reports, the terms of reference for which were drafted by a corrupt lifelong Big Oil Man Maurice Strong.

I might add, Carbon is the very basis for all organic life. Life, as we know it, is carbon based. Without carbon dioxide in our air there would be no photosynthesis to bring us the trees, plants, and carbohydrates we need to live, plants could not grow and all animal life would consequently die. Without CO2 trees wouldn't produce oxygen. Carbon is essential for life, yet you treat it as a poison.

SlowBlowin

Its not a minute increase, I am not going by reports, just the 15% I have witnessed in my life so far.

Not going by any reports at all, so no effect on my "argument".

Edit: No need for any biology or chemistry lessons, just assume I am OK there.

SlowBlowin

Let me try and condense my logic for you.

I have spent my working life in technical industries there where progress was made studying "cause and effect".

In my fife time I have seen CO2 levels rise by 15%

What could cause this effect, what has changed that could make such a large effect ?

I have concluded its the activities of man.

Thats, it no reports etc......

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Let me try and condense my logic for you.

I have spent my working life in technical industries there where progress was made studying "cause and effect".

In my fife time I have seen CO2 levels rise by 15%

What could cause this effect, what has changed that could make such a large effect ?

I have concluded its the activities of man.

Thats, it no reports etc......

Eh, nobody is disputing that CO2 levels have risen. What is disputed is the claim that the rise in CO2 levels attributable to manmade emissions is driving the entire global climate into catastrophe. This is unproven, despite many believing otherwise. 'I have concluded its the activities of man'. Oh, ok.

nthclare

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Let me try and condense my logic for you.

I have spent my working life in technical industries there where progress was made studying "cause and effect".

In my fife time I have seen CO2 levels rise by 15%

What could cause this effect, what has changed that could make such a large effect ?

I have concluded its the activities of man.

Thats, it no reports etc......

So in effect was the planet divided up into 100 area's and they came up with an average of 15%.

Seriously I don't believe that.

Wanderer78

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grills former Exxon scientists on oil giant's climate change denial

worth watching

https://twitter.com/i/status/1187719206562910209

Aretheymyfeet

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grills former Exxon scientists on oil giant's climate change denial

worth watching

https://twitter.com/i/status/1187719206562910209

Yeah, naughty Exxon. Exxon originates from the Standard Oil group (the largest oil refiner in the world of its time) which was established and owned by John D Rockefeller, widely considered the wealthiest American of all time, and the richest person in modern history. Standard Oil was broken up into numerous major oil companies such as Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco etc...

Godfrey A. Rockefellar helped Prince Bernard Of the Dutch Royal family (major shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell to this day) establish the World Wildlife Fund.

Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Rockefellar Family Fund has also focused it's Environment programme almost exclusively on climate change.

David Rockefellar sat on the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and later served as its Chairman. He also founded the Trilateral Commission. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 at David Rockefellar's estate in Bellagio, Italy.

The United Nations Headquarters in New York sits on land donated by the Rockefellar family.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller during an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting, 1991.

Aretheymyfeet

Maurice Strong was the single most significant public figure in the creation of the global climate change movement. Strong commissioned the Report 'Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet' and then established the Stockholm Conference, the first time numerous countries were brought together to discuss the global environment. He then established the UNEP and was its first executive director. Strong was one of the Commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development. He was appointed Secretary General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development known as the Earth Summit in Rio. Strong drafted the Terms of Reference for the IPCC, whose studies are being relied upon to support the claims of human carbon emissions driven global climate change. He was a Co Founder of the 1001 Club, a group of elite bankers and corporatists (major polluters), which is the piggy bank of the World Wildlife Fund.

Strong, an associate of David Rockefellar (Rockefellars of Standard Oil fame, see above comment) since his early twenties, was involved in Dome Petroleum, Ajax Petroleum, Norcen Resources, AZL Resources, Ontario Hydro, and of course he headed up Petro-Canada at the request of Pierre Trudeau, father of Justin.

Strong, a self described "socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology", came to see that the key to his vision was “environmentalism”, the one cause the UN could harness to make itself a truly powerful world government.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong

Wanderer78

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Yeah, naughty Exxon. Exxon originates from the Standard Oil group (the largest oil refiner in the world of its time) which was established and owned by John D Rockefeller, widely considered the wealthiest American of all time, and the richest person in modern history. Standard Oil was broken up into numerous major oil companies such as Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Amoco etc...

Godfrey A. Rockefellar helped Prince Bernard Of the Dutch Royal family (major shareholders in Royal Dutch Shell to this day) establish the World Wildlife Fund.

Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. … In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Rockefellar Family Fund has also focused it's Environment programme almost exclusively on climate change.

David Rockefellar sat on the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and later served as its Chairman. He also founded the Trilateral Commission. The Club of Rome was founded in 1968 at David Rockefellar's estate in Bellagio, Italy.

The United Nations Headquarters in New York sits on land donated by the Rockefellar family.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller during an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting, 1991.

...so global warming is a hoax or conspiracy theory?

Aretheymyfeet

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...so global warming is a hoax or conspiracy theory?

Eh, neither. Global warming and cooling and climate change are real, always have been, since the dawn of time and long before man inhabited the planet. The alarmist claim that manmade carbon emissions are the driver of global climate change and are pushing the world towards catastrophe is unproven. The claim though, is being used to progress the agenda of the 'elite' transnational capital class and their desire for absolute power and centralised global control.

Wanderer78

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh, neither. Global warming and cooling and climate change are real, always have been, since the dawn of time and long before man inhabited the planet. The alarmist claim that manmade carbon emissions are the driver of global climate change and are pushing the world towards catastrophe is unproven. The claim though, is being used to progress the agenda of the 'elite' transnational capital class and their desire for absolute power and centralised global control.

both agree and disagree, more disagree to be honest. yes our climate has always warmed and cooled by its own accord, but in my opinion, theres sufficient evidence to show that our activities have put this natural cycle out of order, and has the potential to cause catastrophic problems for all living beings. yes controlling forces and entities, particularly plutocratic elements of our societies, have played, and continue to play pivotal roles in how this is playing out, unfortunately these forces, as you say, have little or no interest in the overall well being of our societies, and are more interested in power and control, but its also important to include, we effectively are a part of these controlling forces, as most of us interact with these forces on a daily basis.

Aretheymyfeet

Wanderer78 wrote: »

both agree and disagree, more disagree to be honest. yes our climate has always warmed and cooled by its own accord, but in my opinion, theres sufficient evidence to show that our activities have put this natural cycle out of order, and has the potential to cause catastrophic problems for all living beings. yes controlling forces and entities, particularly plutocratic elements of our societies, have played, and continue to play pivotal roles in how this is playing out, unfortunately these forces, as you say, have little or no interest in the overall well being of our societies, and are more interested in power and control, but its also important to include, we effectively are a part of these controlling forces, as most of us interact with these forces on a daily basis.

Likewise, both agree and disagree, more disagree too. The evidence that man is polluting the water, air, soil etc is plentiful. The evidence for carbon being this key factor tipping the entire global climate over a precipice, not so much.

'we effectively are a part of these controlling forces, as most of us interact with these forces on a daily basis'. Not really. Whether you like it or not, we're the 'herd'. I'm guessing you, like I, are not a particularly powerful person. As Carlin said 'it's a big club and you ain't in it'.

Akrasia

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Ok. So, perhaps you can tell us, for example, who drafted the terms of reference for the IPCC? Who founded the World Wildlife Fund? Who is supporting Extinction Rebellion? Who are Greenpeaces biggest donors?

Let me guess, the msm provided you an article about Exxon and their climate change studies from decades ago? Tell us, where did Exxon come from?

Have you heard of 'astroturfing'?

I have no intention of chasing your paranoia down rabbit holes. If you want to make claims you need to cite some sources to back them up

SlowBlowin

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

'I have concluded its the activities of man'. Oh, ok.

OK, so you are not a fan of Occam's razor then, that makes sense, so its the most far fetched convoluted plot that is most likely, gotcha.

Aretheymyfeet

Akrasia wrote: »

I have no intention of chasing your paranoia down rabbit holes. If you want to make claims you need to cite some sources to back them up

Of course, you much prefer your conditioned hysteria. Please dispute a single fact I have presented. Are you questioning Maurice Strongs role in creating the global climate change movement? Or is it his lifelong involvement with Big Oil you dispute? Or maybe you doubt the role the Rockefellars of Standard Oil fame have played in funding the movement and its narratives? What exactly do you dispute, we can discuss that? At present you're just waffling on about rabbit holes to comfort your own cognitive dissonance.

SlowBlowin

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Of course, you much prefer your conditioned hysteria. Please dispute a single fact I have presented. Are you questioning Maurice Strongs role in creating the global climate change movement? Or is it his lifelong involvement with Big Oil you dispute? Or maybe you doubt the role the Rockefellars of Standard Oil fame have played in funding the movement and its narratives? What exactly do you dispute, we can discuss that? At present you're just waffling on about rabbit holes to comfort your own cognitive dissonance.

CLUEDO: OK I am going to call it, you are CheerfulSpring from the 911 thread.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK, so you are not a fan of Occam's razor then, that makes sense, so its the most far fetched convoluted plot that is most likely, gotcha.

Nah, I'm a fan of objectively provable facts and evidence based reasoning. Your position appears more belief and faith based. But yeah, you're the reasonable one engaging in an hysterical movement based on an unproven theory promoted by vested interests seeking to radically change any and every aspect of life on planet earth and condemn billions to impoverishment and brutal suffering. How very woke of you.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

CLUEDO: OK I am going to call it, you are CheerfulSpring from the 911 thread.

Oh, what's this game? I have never been on boards until yesterday so, no. Aren't you glad I've joined the party?

SlowBlowin

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Nah, I'm a fan of objectively provable facts and evidence based reasoning. Your position appears more belief and faith based. But yeah, you're the reasonable one engaging in an hysterical movement based on an unproven theory promoted by vested interests seeking to radically change any and every aspect of life on planet earth and condemn billions to impoverishment and brutal suffering. How very woke of you.

Well my personal judgement is that you (and your brand new account) are part of a PR campaign funded by the Big Oil to discredit the people and their logical beliefs.

There you go, now I am thinking like you.

I have already shown your poor understanding of the maths you presented, you have obviously never worked in any technical background and are just a sensationalist with nothing better to do, unless you are doing this for a living ?

And dont talk to me about how I am influenced, how can you know, you can't possibly know ? Never seen that Swedish kid's speech, I have no TV only internet, don't believe in BBC or CNN, live off grid, I still think you are from the 911 thread.

TimeToShine

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grills former Exxon scientists on oil giant's climate change denial

worth watching

https://twitter.com/i/status/1187719206562910209

I'm not seeing a grilling here to be honest. She's just reading facts we already know off a sheet and the Exxon guys are acquiescing without hesitation.

OT, It's not "Big Oil & Gas" anymore, they are referring to themselves as "Big Energy" and "embracing the challenge of the energy transition". Half of the renewable energy projects you see around are being funded by a subsidiary of one of the big boys. Any drop off in demand for oil and gas in Europe/US will be met by surges in Asia - the game stays the same, all that changes are the pieces.

RE: Climate change - it's happening, no doubt about it, but the atmosphere like the human body is an extremely complex organism with countless feedback loops, to directly correlate man-made emissions with the increase in CO2 and correspondingly believe that if we limit our emissions we abate CO2 levels is an extremely simplistic view to take.

SlowBlowin

TimeToShine wrote: »

RE: Climate change - it's happening, no doubt about it, but the atmosphere like the human body is an extremely complex organism with countless feedback loops, to directly correlate man-made emissions with the increase in CO2 and correspondingly believe that if we limit our emissions we abate CO2 levels is an extremely simplistic view to take.

OK so you agree its happening, and the ONLY source of CO2 that we can control is man made pollution, which has risen 15% in recent years, and you are all arguing that we shouldnt cut down CO2 pollution ?

Yes it is a simple solution, there is a saying about that:

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Well my personal judgement is that you (and your brand new account) are part of a PR campaign funded by the Big Oil to discredit the people and their logical beliefs.

There you go, now I am thinking like you.

I have already shown your poor understanding of the maths you presented, you have obviously never worked in any technical background and are just a sensationalist with nothing better to do, unless you are doing this for a living ?

And dont talk to me about how I am influenced, how can you know, you can't possibly know ? Never seen that Swedish kid's speech, I have no TV only internet, don't believe in BBC or CNN, live off grid, I still think you are from the 911 thread.

Hilarious. Care to provide any evidence for your defamatory claim that I am 'part of a PR campaign funded by the Big Oil to discredit the people and their logical beliefs'? I have presented objectively verifiable facts confirming the role played by Big Oil interests in creating and promoting the global climate change movement. You haven't actually disputed a single fact I have presented.

No, you haven't 'already shown your poor understanding of the maths you presented'. Again, you believing something doesn't necessarily make it so. You need to support your position with objectively verifiable facts. I have presented plenty. You, none. As I said, your position appears belief and faith based.

I understand it's upsetting for you to not be able to properly dispute my facts as presented. The world you believe in is cracking at the seams. Quick, comfort yourself by retreating to your beliefs.

Akrasia

TimeToShine wrote: »

I'm not seeing a grilling here to be honest. She's just reading facts we already know off a sheet and the Exxon guys are acquiescing without hesitation.

OT, It's not "Big Oil & Gas" anymore, they are referring to themselves as "Big Energy" and "embracing the challenge of the energy transition". Half of the renewable energy projects you see around are being funded by a subsidiary of one of the big boys. Any drop off in demand for oil and gas in Europe/US will be met by surges in Asia - the game stays the same, all that changes are the pieces.

RE: Climate change - it's happening, no doubt about it, but the atmosphere like the human body is an extremely complex organism with countless feedback loops, to directly correlate man-made emissions with the increase in CO2 and correspondingly believe that if we limit our emissions we abate CO2 levels is an extremely simplistic view to take.

The extremely simplistic view is that the atmosphere is complex therefore you shouldnt believe in the scientific consensus

What isnt simplistic is the science behind the climate change consensus, which is in fact founded on decades of rigorous research by thousands of the foremost experts in their fields

Akrasia

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Hilarious. Care to provide any evidence for your defamatory claim that I am 'part of a PR campaign funded by the Big Oil to discredit the people and their logical beliefs'? I have presented objectively verifiable facts confirming the role played by Big Oil interests in creating and promoting the global climate change movement. You haven't actually disputed a single fact I have presented.

No, you haven't 'already shown your poor understanding of the maths you presented'. Again, you believing something doesn't necessarily make it so. You need to support your position with objectively verifiable facts. I have presented plenty. You, none. As I said, your position appears belief and faith based.

I understand it's upsetting for you to not be able to properly dispute my facts as presented. The world you believe in is cracking at the seams. Quick, comfort yourself by retreating to your beliefs.

I doubt you are being paid, you're just one of the useful idiots who has been manipulated by the paid shills and science denial bloggers to go off and repeat the nonsense they have filled your head with.

There are always going to be crackpots who believe in grand global conspiracies, you just happen to be one of them

"Question everything" (except never question anything that casts doubt on the conspiracy itself)

Aretheymyfeet

Akrasia wrote: »

The extremely simplistic view is that the atmosphere is complex therefore you shouldnt believe in the scientific consensus

What isnt simplistic is the science behind the climate change consensus, which is in fact founded on decades of rigorous research by thousands of the foremost experts in their fields

Except, it's not. The claim of manmade carbon emissions being the key driver of catastrophic climate change is hinged on the deeply flawed IPCC reports. I have already mentioned the fact the terms of reference for the IPCC were drafted by lifelong Big Oil Man Maurice Strong. I could also mention the ClimateGate scandal you seem to so wilfully ignore.

Those emails revealed the scientists at the centre of the carbon based climate change theory proponents to have been engaged in the following misbehaviours;

Manipulating the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth’s temperature;

Not disclosing private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;

Suppressing evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);

Disguising the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;

Professor Frederick Seitz, formerly president of the National Academy of Sciences who in 1996 wrote in The Wall Street Journal, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led up to this (1995) IPCC (Second Assessment) report.”

Those events included the deletion of 15 passages from the document that had been approved by all 28 contributing authors who expressed considerable doubt about man-made global warming including these two:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increase in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed) to  (man-made) causes.”

TimeToShine

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK so you agree its happening, and the ONLY source of CO2 that we can control is man made pollution, which has risen 15% in recent years, and you are all arguing that we shouldnt cut down CO2 pollution ?

Yes it is a simple solution, there is a saying about that:

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

I know what Occam's razor is, and I assure you I have plenty of experience in the energy field. Have you ever considered the idea that the more you know about this topic, the more you realize you don't know? Applying Occam's razor to a complex biological organism is, again, a very narrow-minded view to take.

Let's assume you're right - how do we replace all of this fossil fuel energy? Have you asked a power system engineer how we expect to replace all of this dispatchable fossil generation with intermittent renewables and no seasonal storage? How we keep a stable first world electricity system without using gas? How do we, as you say, "cut down CO2 pollution" while ensuring that people maintain the standard of life they've grown accustomed to? Who is going to fund these projects? Oil and Gas are tried and tested forms of energy generation, people with money invest in these projects because they made returns, how do you convince them to take huge risks on hydrogen/long term batteries? How do you think their shareholders will react? Even putting this all aside, we have a booming Asia to contend with, a growing middle class in China for instance who see our standard of life and want the same, what do you propose?

At the end of the day we have a rapidly growing population, all of whom want the same standard of living, which means a huge increase in energy demand. Nobody argues that we shouldn't cut down on CO2 pollution but the question is how do you plug this every growing energy demand? If there was a silver bullet all the oil and gas majors would plough money into it but as it stands we don't have one, wind and solar barely put a dent in it on a global basis.

Carbon reduction is the new hot topic and the big companies know this, don't be fooled and bet against them. The likes of BP/Shell/Exxon will adapt and overcome when it makes sense financially because at the end of the day, as sad as it is, money talks. Those who disagree are welcome to move to a hut in Mongolia and do their part.

Aretheymyfeet

Akrasia wrote: »

I doubt you are being paid, you're just one of the useful idiots who has been manipulated by the paid shills and science denial bloggers to go off and repeat the nonsense they have filled your head with.

There are always going to be crackpots who believe in grand global conspiracies, you just happen to be one of them

"Question everything" (except never question anything that casts doubt on the conspiracy itself)

Calm down. Perhaps you could actually try dispute the numerous facts I have presented instead of just posting ad hominem attacks. Why is it so difficult for you believers to discuss the facts? What have I said that is false?

SlowBlowin

OK you said:

Carbon makes up 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere. About 3.75% [15 ppm] of that 0.0391% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the approximately 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.

I said when I was a lad it was 0.034% which is a 15% increase compared to current levels.

Can you explain where the other 96.25% came from (your figures) ?

Remember that this was at the exact same time when there was a exponential growth in fossil fuel use and population ?

You criticise the "simple answer" yet you and everyone else lives by it, you have to to survive. If you are driving down the road and the ride gets bumpy and the steering goes funny, do you assume part of the steering rack has fallen into the wheel, or maybe you immediately think tires flat, if its the latter why ?

Is it because its the most likely answer ?

SlowBlowin

THAT IS Cheefulspring, no doubt ?

Triangle

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Calm down. Perhaps you could actually try dispute the numerous facts I have presented instead of just posting ad hominem attacks. Why is it so difficult for you believers to discuss the facts? What have I said that is false?

Sorry, I've read the thread and haven't seen you post any scientific credentials, do you have any?
With something as complex as the environment, I'd definitely want to have years of knowledge behind me before I'd start looking into some figures and making up an opinion on what's happening..
Especially when that opinion is against the vast majority of people that work in and have worked in (for decades in some cases)
Coming into a small community, trying to validate your opinion is just ridiculous.

SlowBlowin

TimeToShine wrote: »

I know what Occam's razor is, and I assure you I have plenty of experience in the energy field. Have you ever considered the idea that the more you know about this topic, the more you realize you don't know? Applying Occam's razor to a complex biological organism is, again, a very narrow-minded view to take.

You misunderstand Ocam's razor.

Its the exact opposite of your current understanding.

Its the very large and complex issues to which it is suited best, as the possible analytical solutions are corresponding more complex.

Simple problems often have simple and obvious solutions, so Ocams razor need not be applied, although these simple solutions in themselves add further weight to the razors value.

Look it up and think about it.

TimeToShine

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You misunderstand Ocam's razor.

Its the exact opposite of your current understanding.

Its the very large and complex issues to which it is suited best, as the possible analytical solutions are corresponding more complex.

Simple problems often have simple and obvious solutions, so Ocams razor need not be applied, although these simple solutions in themselves add further weight to the razors value.

Look it up and think about it.

We are getting into a more pedantic discussion here but I think you misunderstood me - I don't disagree that the logical conclusion to draw is what you claim it to be. I am saying that in reality, bearing in mind that Occam's razor is a philosophical idea which was originally applied to concepts as an outcome guideline before proving them axiomatically, there are too many variables and feedback loops which feed into and out of this problem to apply Occam's razor as a be all and end all argument. Yes it is the correct conclusion to draw but you cannot base an argument on that. Pick an element of the discussion and specialize in it, be that climate/energy economics/oil and gas/geopolitics/electricity and make your case from there, otherwise nobody who actually understands this industry will take you seriously.

Aretheymyfeet

SlowBlowin wrote: »

OK you said:

Carbon makes up 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere. About 3.75% [15 ppm] of that 0.0391% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the approximately 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.

I said when I was a lad it was 0.034% which is a 15% increase compared to current levels.

Can you explain where the other 96.25% came from (your figures) ?

Remember that this was at the exact same time when there was a exponential growth in fossil fuel use and population ?

You criticise the "simple answer" yet you and everyone else lives by it, you have to to survive. If you are driving down the road and the ride gets bumpy and the steering goes funny, do you assume part of the steering rack has fallen into the wheel, or maybe you immediately think tires flat, if its the latter why ?

Is it because its the most likely answer ?

Eh, I think you've completely missed the point here. That's what they call a straw man. I have not disputed the fact that carbon levels have risen, nor have I disputed the fact human emissions are the main contributing factor in that rise. What I have disputed is the claim that manmade carbon emissions are driving the global climate to a catastrophic tipping point. That claim is unproven.

washman3

What ever happened to the 'hole' in the Ozone layer...??

Aretheymyfeet

Triangle wrote: »

Sorry, I've read the thread and haven't seen you post any scientific credentials do you have any?
With something as complex as the environment, I'd definitely want to have heard of knowledge behind me before I'd start looking into some figures and making up an opinion on what's happening..
Especially when that opinion is against the vast majority of people that work in and have worked in (for decades in some cases)
Coming into a small community, trying to validate your opinion is just ridiculous.

Sorry, are you trying to claim that debate on climate change is the preserve of climate scientists? The unproven theory you espouse and seek to radically change every aspect of life on earth on foot of, is open for all to debate. I suspect you're one of these 'voice of authority' types. The scientist says, the expert says, the priest says. Have you no faith in your own intellect to assess data yourself? It's this abdication of the responsibility to think for oneself, instead simply adopting and parroting the pronouncements of voices of authority, that lies behind much of the world's ills today. You should have more faith in yourself to understand issues.

Could you perhaps challenge any of the facts I have presented instead of simply saying 'the smart important person says it's so, so it must be so'?