Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Big Oil and the Global Climate Change movement

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin



    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,059 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,059 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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.”


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ 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 ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    THAT IS Cheefulspring, no doubt ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 944 ✭✭✭ Triangle


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,481 ✭✭✭ washman3


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ 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'?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    But if all other things are the same, and man made CO2 increases by 15% dont you think there is a clue there as to why the earth is getting hotter ?

    For clarity let me do this:

    FACTS ALREADY ESTABLISHED
    1. You believe that CO2 levels have risen.
    2. You believe man is largely to blame for the increased CO2.

    TO ESTABLISH
    1. You believe CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas ?
    2. You believe the earth is globally getting hotter/more energy in the atmosphere ?

    Can we work on the to establish list please, hopefully this approach will help with clarity.

    Lets keep all the conspiracy out of this and focus on the important stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ Aretheymyfeet


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    But if all other things are the same, and man made CO2 increases by 15% dont you think there is a clue there as to why the earth is getting hotter ?

    For clarity let me do this:

    FACTS ALREADY ESTABLISHED
    1. You believe that CO2 levels have risen.
    2. You believe man is largely to blame for the increased CO2.

    TO ESTABLISH
    1. You believe CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas ?
    2. You believe the earth is globally getting hotter/more energy in the atmosphere ?

    Can we work on the to establish list please, hopefully this approach will help with clarity.

    Lets keep all the conspiracy out of this and focus on the important stuff.

    Fine. I dispute the claim that the tiny amount of carbon in the atmosphere is causing the earths climate to heat to a dangerous tipping point level.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's potency is up for debate.

    Global mean temperatures rose from the 1970s to circa 2000 and have been relatively flat since then despite continued rising carbon levels. Global temperatures have always fluctuated and are never static. Correlation does not equate to causation either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    OK so lets focus of greenhouse gases, nothing else.

    So you don't believe any science on greenhouse gases, or just the science on CO2 ?

    How about Boyles law we could start there ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ Aretheymyfeet


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    OK so lets focus of greenhouse gases, nothing else.

    So you don't believe any science on greenhouse gases, or just the science on CO2 ?

    How about Boyles law we could start there ?


    I didn't say that. I questioned it's potency or actual effect in relative terms. You'll find that a large proportion of the oft quoted '97% of scientists consensus' is actually made up of scientists who agree carbon has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, but do not necessarily buy into the alarmist view that this is driving the globe towards a climate catastrophe. It's a matter of degrees. Wearing a coat will make you warmer but it won't necessarily result in you suffering from heat exhaustion or heat stroke.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    You are expanding it too much.

    I am just talking about the gases themselves, you have obviously looked into it, which science do you trust, what warming co-efficients do you agree with ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 944 ✭✭✭ Triangle


    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'?

    Lol, I have looked into it myself and have huge self belief.but I'm open to having my opinion corrected if I've misunderstood something.
    Maybe contacting an environmental scientist and asking then to explain the points you don't understand would be a better way to spend time. There are plenty out there.

    Unfortunately, I can't debate this with you as we both lack serious knowledge on the situation for it to be of any use.


  • Registered Users Posts: 109 ✭✭ Aretheymyfeet


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    You are expanding it too much.

    I am just talking about the gases themselves, you have obviously looked into it, which science do you trust, what warming co-efficients do you agree with ?


    How am I 'expanding it too much'? I am merely questioning the relative effect of such greenhouse gases and the significance of just one of those gases. The global climate is hugely complex with multiple factors affecting global temperatures such as the earths rotation and tilt vis a vis the sun, solar flares, clouds, even volcanoes. To simplify it all down to one single component, a gas which only makes up just 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere, is a massive over simplification of such a complex system. We also have times in the earths history when carbon levels were dramatically higher, yet temperatures were significantly lower than today. The Climate has also changed repeatedly throughout the earth's history without any human carbon input.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    You keep on bringing in lots of other things in your reply. You asked me to dispute your science yet you wont tell me what you believe other than expanded general statements.

    We already established that the quantity does not matter, or are you happy to swallow that tiny tiny cyanide pill, I mean such a small quantity cant possible make any difference ?

    I am asking what science you believe regarding the strength of greenhouse gases, thats all, nothing else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭ SlowBlowin


    The main gases in the atmosphere have zero greenhouse effect, this effectively means your percentages are irrelevant.

    The main greenhouse gases are CO2 and water vapor.

    The water vapor in in equilibrium with the water cycle.

    The thing thats changing is the co2.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,059 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia


    How am I 'expanding it too much'? I am merely questioning the relative effect of such greenhouse gases and the significance of just one of those gases. The global climate is hugely complex with multiple factors affecting global temperatures such as the earths rotation and tilt vis a vis the sun, solar flares, clouds, even volcanoes. To simplify it all down to one single component, a gas which only makes up just 0.0391 percent of the earth's atmosphere, is a massive over simplification of such a complex system. We also have times in the earths history when carbon levels were dramatically higher, yet temperatures were significantly lower than today. The Climate has also changed repeatedly throughout the earth's history without any human carbon input.

    Unless you’re a trained atmospheric scientist (and you definitely are not) You don’t have the knowledge to question the science behind climate change, and you definitely do not have the knowledge to conclude that you know more about it than every single credible scientific organization on the planet


Advertisement