“There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration

[longview]

So how is it that when she makes money off her scientific opinions, she’s supposedly respected for it , but when other scientists do it, it just makes their work less credible?

When your predictions cannot be supported with the empirical data, that is how you lose credibility.

 

[longview]

No, she is a denier. History isnt going to be kind to people like that.

Actually I think people will see her like the people who stood against Eugenics, when it was very popular!

 

[NolanVoyd]

Actually I think people will see her like the people who stood against Eugenics, when it was very popular!

Lol.

 

[ataraxia]

When your predictions cannot be supported with the empirical data, that is how you lose credibility.

Exxon scientists' predictive models from the 1970s were among the first to truly see the danger, and have proven uncannily accurate. That's the power of science. Talk about credibility.

Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating

www.theguardian.com

 

[PoS]

The letter includes signatures from politicians and lobbyists.

Doubling down on shoot the messenger fallacy. Keep being you.

 

[longview]

Lol.

BUt there were people who critised Eugenics.

 

[Geoist]

Doubling down on shoot the messenger fallacy. Keep being you.

Keep being on the wrong side of history. It's what you conservatives are best at.

 

[longview]

Exxon scientists' predictive models from the 1970s were among the first to truly see the danger, and have proven uncannily accurate. That's the power of science. Talk about credibility.

Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating

www.theguardian.com

No, the Exxon models of the 1970's showed the enormous range of simulation outputs.
By the way the study that shows the accuracy of those past models, used TCR.
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

We compared observations to climate model projections over the model projection period using two approaches: change in temperature versus time and change in temperature versus change in radiative forcing (“implied TCR”).

What this means is that any models that uses ECS is likely to be wrong!

 

[longview]

Keep being on the wrong side of history. It's what you conservatives are best at.

There are people who line up with the crowd, and those who follow the data.
Catastrophic AGW is the wrong side of History just like Eugenics was.
It is not that the concept of AGW is false, but that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2
is set too high in most of the future projections.

 

[Geoist]

There are people who line up with the crowd, and those who follow the data.
Catastrophic AGW is the wrong side of History just like Eugenics was.
It is not that the concept of AGW is false, but that the climate's sensitivity to added CO2
is set too high in most of the future projections.

For the millionth time, I really don't give a shit about your personal quibbles with the CO2 data. It's obvious you'd rather wallow in the mud with the grifters and conspiracy theorists.

 

[Lord of Planar]

So how is it that when she makes money off her scientific opinions, she’s supposedly respected for it , but when other scientists do it, it just makes their work less credible?

I don't agree with the way you are running back my words.

She is not giving into the agenda driven push. It's probably been two decades now since she called out the agenda. They don't like the fact she exposed the agenda for what it is.

How do you respond at your work place when given tasks to do that you disagree with? Do you do them to keep your job, or do you refuse and take a chance of losing your job?

Writing papers is different in specifics but the same in how you accomplish your work. Many scientists get money for their time and boost their resumes for papers written. When it comes to the Climate Sciences, there is almost an endless supply of grant money for writing papers. But to get these grants, you have to tailor work work, which contributes to your livelihood, to what the people holding the purse strings want.

If you were eager to boost your resume for papers and the extra money for your time spend, would you do what amounts to a contract job, to the specifications of what the organization is paying you to do, or would you write a paper that contains inconvenient material for the climate, and risk never getting another contract from them?

In almost every paper I have read, I thouigh the scientists did a great job in finding the material and presenting it in a manner to satisfy what the contract (grant) was intended to do.

 

[longview]

For the millionth time, I really don't give a shit about your personal quibbles with the CO2 data. It's obvious you'd rather wallow in the mud with the grifters and conspiracy theorists.

History will tell!

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, she is a denier. History isnt going to be kind to people like that.

LOL...

You are indoctrinated enough to believe that.

You have obviously never heard her speak about global warming. She is no denier. She fully believes that we are impacting the earth with greenhouse gasses and aerosols. She simply will not play games with science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When your predictions cannot be supported with the empirical data, that is how you lose credibility.

And she has credibility in spades.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually I think people will see her like the people who stood against Eugenics, when it was very popular!

Yes, I think history will treat her quite well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Exxon scientists' predictive models from the 1970s were among the first to truly see the danger, and have proven uncannily accurate. That's the power of science. Talk about credibility.

Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating

www.theguardian.com

Please show me from the Exxon studies where they explicitly claim we will damage the earth worse than any other venture we take.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Keep being on the wrong side of history. It's what you conservatives are best at.

In a world that in increasingly becoming more leftist... Look who writes the history now.

 

[ataraxia]

Please show me from the Exxon studies where they explicitly claim we will damage the earth worse than any other venture we take.

I am sorry but I don’t have access to the Exxon studies directly from the 1970s. If you do, let me know what they say.

But what I do know is that they are admitting they knew this stuff back then. Why would they be lying about that? Exxon is now saying on their website that the potential risks of climate change are high and they will no longer fund climate change denial groups. They are investing heavily in carbon recapturing technology and alternative energy sources- obviously ventures they think are less dangerous.

 

[ataraxia]

In a world that in increasingly becoming more leftist... Look who writes the history now.

It really sucks what the leftists did to the robber barons of the gilded age. What a travesty. Next thing you know they will even want children born to poor families to be able to get a basic education or something.

 

[NolanVoyd]

BUt there were people who critised Eugenics.

This is nothing like that.

 

[longview]

This is nothing like that.

It is exactly like that! Eugenics was a sudo-science, based in some actual science
but extended to inhuman results.
AGW is based on some actual science, CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
but how sensitive the climate is to added CO2 is almost pure speculation.
Which is why the IPCC says.
IPCC AR6 SPM

It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C,
natural drivers changed global surface temperature by –0.1°C to +0.1°C,
and internal variability changed it by –0.2°C to +0.2°C.

The GHGs contributed warming 1.0°C to 2.0°C, is that as close as they can get it?

 

[NolanVoyd]

It is exactly like that!

No, its totally disimilar.

 

[longview]

No, its totally disimilar.

They are both sudo-science being pushed as real science.

 

[NolanVoyd]

They are both sudo-science being pushed as real science.

Obviously they are totally different on that score.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Exxon scientists' predictive models from the 1970s were among the first to truly see the danger, and have proven uncannily accurate. That's the power of science. Talk about credibility.

Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating

www.theguardian.com

Funny how this revisionist history portrays Exxon only in a bad light. Knowing their product has an effect by research is being responsible. There is a market for fossil fuels that will remain regardless of what Exxon does.

Have you read this?

​

Our Views On Climate Change​

We care about the environment we live in and excellence in environmental performance is essential to our business. As such, climate change is an important issue to us -- one that we take very seriously. Because we take this issue seriously, ExxonMobil is taking actions now and working with others to create long-term solutions. Our views and actions will be guided by future learnings on fundamental science and technological achievements.​

​

​

ExxonMobil's Position on Kyoto​

Activists promote the idea that opposition to the Kyoto protocol equates to a lack of concern about climate change. This is simply not the case. Like many other companies, we do not believe Kyoto is the right approach. We fear it would impose dramatic economic costs in the developed world, while doing little to achieve its goal of addressing climate change since developing nations, which require most of the world's increased needs for energy to grow their economies, have no comparable commitments. In fact this position is supported by the recent report prepared by US National Academy of Sciences National Research Council panel on climate change. One of the 11 panelists recently wrote, "My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming."​

Media Statement - Global Climate Change.

.

perma.cc