• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dem AG Targets 90 Conservative Groups in Climate Change Racketeering Suit

Opinion
[h=1]Is Attorneys’ General Mischief just the Tip of the Iceberg?[/h]Guest essay by Ari Halperin The recent escalation of rogue Attorneys General persecuting conservative political organizations and their real or alleged supporters suggests that Climate Alarmism has been playing a much wider role in politics than it seemed. The Left has been riding Climate Alarmism to muzzle and defund its opponents since at least 2000.…
 
Russell797 said:
I am fully aware of Svensmark's ideas concerning cosmic rays and cloud nucleation. The idea is deserving of research by other scientists. But don't suggest for a moment that the effect of solar variation on the flux of cosmic radiation is the cause of the current warming trend. There is no correlation at all. That's what you guys do. You distort science to fit your narrative.

Think tanks which try to distort and confuse the science in the public eye are lying to the public. The scientist say one thing, the think tanks another. Someone is lying. Intentionally deceiving the people and the government on a matter of significant public concern is at least unethical and more so criminal.
Click to expand...

A stellar revision of the story of life | Calder's Updates

https://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/a-stellar-revision-of-the-story-of-life/


Apr 24, 2012 - Climate Change: News and Comments and The Svensmark Hypothesis Svensmark's Cosmic Jackpot Today the Royal Astronomical Society in ...

". . . An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around. . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
You realize you are criminalizing dissent?
Click to expand...

No I don't realize that. What is criminal is lying to the public and the government. Exxon's own scientists knew of the threat their products created back in the 1970s, yet Exxon funded the misinformation champaign anyway. Conservative political think tanks created a narrative and funded a group of scientists to distort and lie to the public and government, sowing doubt in the public mind as to the integrity of climate science.

This isn't dissent, it's a manufactured narrative designed to obfuscate science and confuse people. I works very well. Science be damned. The welfare of people all over the world be damned. It's a crime against humanity.
 
Russell797 said:
Scientists don't label other scientists heretic. Do the work to reform the science and you will be acknowledged. Yes, all they do is question the current science but they do nothing to create a change in thinking. Your "heretic" scientists are basically ignored until and unless they bring something to the table. They do nothing but mud sling and hope something sticks. Unfortunately, some of it does in the mind of the general public. You are being duped.
Click to expand...
That is explicitly the label that attached to Dr. Judith Curry,
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues - Scientific American
 
Russell797 said:
No I don't realize that. What is criminal is lying to the public and the government. Exxon's own scientists knew of the threat their products created back in the 1970s, yet Exxon funded the misinformation champaign anyway. Conservative political think tanks created a narrative and funded a group of scientists to distort and lie to the public and government, sowing doubt in the public mind as to the integrity of climate science.

This isn't dissent, it's a manufactured narrative designed to obfuscate science and confuse people. I works very well. Science be damned. The welfare of people all over the world be damned. It's a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...
You need to read more on the story!
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/James Black 1977 Presentation.pdf
James F. Black sent a memo to Exxon leadership in 1977, saying CO2 could cause warming.
The idea was looked at, an a research program was implemented, on ocean uptake of CO2.
Do you know the internal memo was supposedly leaked by the Rockefeller foundation?
 
Russell797 said:
No I don't realize that. What is criminal is lying to the public and the government. Exxon's own scientists knew of the threat their products created back in the 1970s, yet Exxon funded the misinformation champaign anyway. Conservative political think tanks created a narrative and funded a group of scientists to distort and lie to the public and government, sowing doubt in the public mind as to the integrity of climate science.

This isn't dissent, it's a manufactured narrative designed to obfuscate science and confuse people. I works very well. Science be damned. The welfare of people all over the world be damned. It's a crime against humanity.
Click to expand...

It's what's called free inquiry, and btw, Exxon shared their data.
 
longview said:
You need to read more on the story!
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/James Black 1977 Presentation.pdf
James F. Black sent a memo to Exxon leadership in 1977, saying CO2 could cause warming.
The idea was looked at, an a research program was implemented, on ocean uptake of CO2.
Do you know the internal memo was supposedly leaked by the Rockefeller foundation?
Click to expand...

Thus the point is made. Exxon knew what they were doing, yet funded a narrative to deny it. Simple as that.
 
Russell797 said:
Thus the point is made. Exxon knew what they were doing, yet funded a narrative to deny it. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
What Exxon funded was research into CO2 uptake, and some sensitivity research.
Think about the bazaar world you have constructed, where conducting scientific research is labeled
as funding a narrative of denial.
If the Science were settled the range of the prediction would be much smaller.
 
Russell797 said:
What attempt to silence? Silence who? Scientists are not being silenced. Conniving, lying bastards who's only goal is to distort science are who is under investigation.
Click to expand...

The sci4ence is being distorted by the activist pundits, like the IPCC.

Have you ever actually read the research papers the pundits spin?
 
longview said:
What Exxon funded was research into CO2 uptake, and some sensitivity research.
Think about the bazaar world you have constructed, where conducting scientific research is labeled
as funding a narrative of denial.
If the Science were settled the range of the prediction would be much smaller.
Click to expand...

They only care about reciting their dogma. They don't care about those pesky facts.
 
longview said:
What Exxon funded was research into CO2 uptake, and some sensitivity research.
Think about the bazaar world you have constructed, where conducting scientific research is labeled
as funding a narrative of denial.
If the Science were settled the range of the prediction would be much smaller.
Click to expand...

No, what Exxon funded was a disinformation campaign designed and promulgated by political think tanks.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heartland Institute

Also, take note of the list of affiliated scientists. Reads like a who's who of climate science denial.
 
Russell797 said:
No, what Exxon funded was a disinformation campaign designed and promulgated by political think tanks.

ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heartland Institute

Also, take note of the list of affiliated scientists. Reads like a who's who of climate science denial.
Click to expand...
You do understand that Exxon is a very large corporation, and funds many areas or research, and philanthropic causes.
ExxonMobil Foundation
Since the 2014 number was $272 million, it shows how small a percent your blog says
Heartland received since 1998.
Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
You do understand that Exxon is a very large corporation, and funds many areas or research, and philanthropic causes.
ExxonMobil Foundation
Since the 2014 number was $272 million, it shows how small a percent your blog says
Heartland received since 1998.
Click to expand...

The source I gave is not up to date....Exxon's final acknowledged contribution to the Heartland Institute was more than 22 million by 2014.
Heartland is not a research organization. They are a political think tank, which like all such think tanks attempt to influence the political landscape according to their ideology. There are many such organizations, they happen to be the largest with a vested interest in shaping the minds of people in contrast to climate science. Many of it's same people argued against the Surgeon General's warning of the dangers of smoking on the behalf of the tobacco companies. Experts in both smoking and global warming...the same people mind you.
 
Russell797 said:
The source I gave is not up to date....Exxon's final acknowledged contribution to the Heartland Institute was more than 22 million by 2014.
Heartland is not a research organization. They are a political think tank, which like all such think tanks attempt to influence the political landscape according to their ideology. There are many such organizations, they happen to be the largest with a vested interest in shaping the minds of people in contrast to climate science. Many of it's same people argued against the Surgeon General's warning of the dangers of smoking on the behalf of the tobacco companies. Experts in both smoking and global warming...the same people mind you.
Click to expand...
It must be easy to use the same paintbrush for all things, but not all things are apple to apple comparisons.
Tobacco is a single source recreational product, with minimal actual benefit, and considerable bad side effects.
The fuel and other products from fossil oil, are the basis for our entire modern society.
We currently cannot support our population without the benefits of fossil fuels.
Will that change in the future? it has to, fossil oil, is a finite supply.
The when and why it will change, will be because the alternatives are the lowest cost path,
without government intervention, (roughly $90 a barrel oil).
I know you are down on Exxon, but ask yourself, what does Exxon sell?
The thing that they exchange money for, is not oil, but finished fuel products.
Their profits come from passing a raw material through a manufacturing process to produce
usable fuel for sale. Instability in the price and availability of that raw material (oil),
is the source of great business risk and expense.
Why would a large corporation expose themselves to this level of risk?
It is simply the current least cost path to profits, but it will not always be so.
Within the next decade or two, oil prices will come up, and when the profits for the
refineries to make their own feedstock exceed the profits for using crude oil, they will switch.
 
longview said:
It must be easy to use the same paintbrush for all things, but not all things are apple to apple comparisons.
Tobacco is a single source recreational product, with minimal actual benefit, and considerable bad side effects.
The fuel and other products from fossil oil, are the basis for our entire modern society.
We currently cannot support our population without the benefits of fossil fuels.
Will that change in the future? it has to, fossil oil, is a finite supply.
The when and why it will change, will be because the alternatives are the lowest cost path,
without government intervention, (roughly $90 a barrel oil).
I know you are down on Exxon, but ask yourself, what does Exxon sell?
The thing that they exchange money for, is not oil, but finished fuel products.
Their profits come from passing a raw material through a manufacturing process to produce
usable fuel for sale. Instability in the price and availability of that raw material (oil),
is the source of great business risk and expense.
Why would a large corporation expose themselves to this level of risk?
It is simply the current least cost path to profits, but it will not always be so.
Within the next decade or two, oil prices will come up, and when the profits for the
refineries to make their own feedstock exceed the profits for using crude oil, they will switch.
Click to expand...

1) the concept is not that they are equivalent, the concept is that heartland is an immoral think tank taking dishonest positions for money.

2) your argument about oil prices was also valid 20 years ago. Meanwhile, while the deniers muddy the waters, the tipping point may have been reached.
 
longview said:
It must be easy to use the same paintbrush for all things, but not all things are apple to apple comparisons.
Tobacco is a single source recreational product, with minimal actual benefit, and considerable bad side effects.
The fuel and other products from fossil oil, are the basis for our entire modern society.
We currently cannot support our population without the benefits of fossil fuels.
Will that change in the future? it has to, fossil oil, is a finite supply.
The when and why it will change, will be because the alternatives are the lowest cost path,
without government intervention, (roughly $90 a barrel oil).
I know you are down on Exxon, but ask yourself, what does Exxon sell?
The thing that they exchange money for, is not oil, but finished fuel products.
Their profits come from passing a raw material through a manufacturing process to produce
usable fuel for sale. Instability in the price and availability of that raw material (oil),
is the source of great business risk and expense.
Why would a large corporation expose themselves to this level of risk?
It is simply the current least cost path to profits, but it will not always be so.
Within the next decade or two, oil prices will come up, and when the profits for the
refineries to make their own feedstock exceed the profits for using crude oil, they will switch.
Click to expand...

All of that is correct, but there in another factor to consider which enters into the equation. You know what that is.

Regardless, to be very blunt, the cat is already out of the bag. No matter what we do to mitigate will be to little to late. Whatever ECS turns out to be is now pretty much locked in. We will double CO2 by about mid century relative to pre-industrial level. The world will not wean itself from fossil fuels fast enough. Cutting global fossil fuel usage in half by 2050 would not be sufficient and we know that ain’t gonna happen. I think with a concerted all out effort it could be done but the forces preventing that from happening seem insurmountable.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
All of that is correct, but there in another factor to consider which enters into the equation. You know what that is.

Regardless, to be very blunt, the cat is already out of the bag. No matter what we do to mitigate will be to little to late. Whatever ECS turns out to be is now pretty much locked in. We will double CO2 by about mid century. The world will not wean itself from fossil fuels fast enough. Cutting global fossil fuel usage in half by 2050 would not be sufficient and we know that ain’t gonna happen. I think with a concerted all out effort it could be done but the forces preventing that from happening seem insurmountable.
Click to expand...
Consider that neither the ECS level nor the idea that we will ever double the CO2 level are "locked in".
The current ECS levels are still all over the place, but is trending closer to 2 C than 3 C.
And the ECS is predicated on our ability to actually double the CO2 level, which means we would have to
find and burn more oil in the next 50 years, than we have so for to date.
The problem with that (maybe not a problem) is the easy oil has already been found and extracted.
The remaining oil is remaining, because it was not easy or cheap to extract.
The wave of fracking, produced a temporary surplus, but fracking shortens the useful life of oil reservoirs.
U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power - Bloomberg
 
longview said:
Consider that neither the ECS level nor the idea that we will ever double the CO2 level are "locked in".
The current ECS levels are still all over the place, but is trending closer to 2 C than 3 C.
And the ECS is predicated on our ability to actually double the CO2 level, which means we would have to
find and burn more oil in the next 50 years, than we have so for to date.
The problem with that (maybe not a problem) is the easy oil has already been found and extracted.
The remaining oil is remaining, because it was not easy or cheap to extract.
The wave of fracking, produced a temporary surplus, but fracking shortens the useful life of oil reservoirs.
U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

The doubling is 280ppm to 560ppm. That will happen sometime mid century. If ECS is 2C then by late century the baseline temperature will be some 2C higher than that caused by CO2 300 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom