Global Warming Debunked Again

Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by TheChatch, Apr 25, 2015.

  1. soulfly

    soulfly Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Seattle MarinersSeattle SeahawksBarcelonaSeattle SupersonicsSeattle SoundersSeattle Kraken

    :laugh:

    Dude is writing a fucking op-ed. He's also known for such brilliant pieces as:

    Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims
     
    Guns, bro, Merica and 3 others like this.
  2. RWisoursavior

    RWisoursavior Formerly DannyObrienIsOurSatan

    Taylor claimed that global warming will "benefit, rather than harm, human health and welfare."

    He also is a lawyer with no scientific background.

    The Heartland
    Institute in which he works for is funded by fossil fuel companies and known for such gems as "interestingly, the Heartland Institute also denied that cigarettes kill, stating that "smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects."

    More in depth about James Taylor/The Heartland Institute: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545#heartland
     
    Guns and cutig like this.
  3. Vito Corleone

    Vito Corleone deluxe member
    TMB OG
    Florida State SeminolesIowa HawkeyesChicago BullsMinnesota Vikings

    i dont even know where to begin at disputing that article
     
    Merica likes this.
  4. Fran Tarkenton

    Fran Tarkenton Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Wake Forest Demon Deacons

    its sad you have to make everything partisan

    expect more from a kid with a 36 SAT, 1400 SAT, and Cam War Eagle Counselor on his resume
     
    Guns, Barves2125 and Iron Mickey like this.
  5. soulfly

    soulfly Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Seattle MarinersSeattle SeahawksBarcelonaSeattle SupersonicsSeattle SoundersSeattle Kraken

    I see it's already been addressed.
     
  6. Vito Corleone

    Vito Corleone deluxe member
    TMB OG
    Florida State SeminolesIowa HawkeyesChicago BullsMinnesota Vikings

    Denying and disproving irreversible science and data is really tough guys, give him a break
     
    cutig likes this.
  7. Hoss Bonaventure

    Donor
    Arkansas RazorbacksSt. Louis CardinalsHouston RocketsDallas CowboysSneakers

    • The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.
    We all know medical science is the junkiest of junk sciences.
     
  8. Duck70

    Duck70 Let's just do it and be legends, man
    Donor
    Oregon Ducks

    I hope this guy enjoys the fiery pits of hell, because that is where the Pope said climate change deniers are heading.
     
    bro, Merica, CaneKnight and 3 others like this.
  9. cutig

    cutig My name is Rod, and I like to party
    Donor
    Clemson TigersNebraska CornhuskersCarolina Panthers

    Scientists? :idk:
     
    Redav likes this.
  10. Iron Mickey

    Iron Mickey is this thing on?
    Donor TMB OG
    Arkansas RazorbacksSouth Carolina GamecocksChelseaReal Salt Lake

    Libs*
     
    soulfly, IAHusk and OHW like this.
  11. Redav

    Redav My favorite meat is hotdog
    Donor

    Known liberal organization NASA.
     
  12. cutig

    cutig My name is Rod, and I like to party
    Donor
    Clemson TigersNebraska CornhuskersCarolina Panthers

    Eagerly awaiting the publication by The Market though, so we know what the ultimate decision is
     
  13. Iron Mickey

    Iron Mickey is this thing on?
    Donor TMB OG
    Arkansas RazorbacksSouth Carolina GamecocksChelseaReal Salt Lake

    Tmbrules is busy making that market he will brb
     
    Guns, Merica, Fran Tarkenton and 2 others like this.
  14. Name P. Redacted

    Name P. Redacted I have no money and I'm also gay
    Donor
    Kansas State WildcatsSeattle Kraken

    brolift nice gif m8 2 bad i used it like 3 months ago
     
    timo96 and Joe_Pesci like this.
  15. Van Earl Right

    Van Earl Right Allllllllllllllllllll Day, Errrrrrrrrrrrry Day

    I've seen the latest NASA report on the ice caps.

    Is there another report on an ice shelf, or am I just imagining things?
     
  16. brolift

    brolift Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Kansas State WildcatsBarAndGrillBig 8 Conference

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Emma

    Emma Wisconsin Sports
    Donor
    Wisconsin BadgersMilwaukee Brewers altMilwaukee BucksGreen Bay Packers

    Eliason: Senator, we’re going to talk about your book for a minute, you state in your book which by the way is called The Greatest Hoax, you state in your book that one of your favorite Bible verses, Genesis 8:22, ‘while the earth remaineth seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease,’ what is the significance of these verses to this issue?

    Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.
     
  18. soulfly

    soulfly Well-Known Member
    Donor
    Seattle MarinersSeattle SeahawksBarcelonaSeattle SupersonicsSeattle SoundersSeattle Kraken

    Translations for days
     
  19. Vito Corleone

    Vito Corleone deluxe member
    TMB OG
    Florida State SeminolesIowa HawkeyesChicago BullsMinnesota Vikings

    He's only the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

    Bangladesh will drown but its ok cuz J.C. got our back
     
    goose, bro, Prospector and 1 other person like this.
  20. Merica

    Merica Devine pls stop pointing out my demise. :(
    Donor
    Auburn TigersAtlanta BravesPittsburgh Steelers

    [​IMG]
     
    Guns, jhooked, goose and 4 others like this.
  21. OZ

    OZ Old balls

    This sounds like the kind of guy that would favor nuclear disarmament by just blowing the entire arsenal of all the countries by dropping them off some random islands in the Pacific.
     
    Merica, Emma and Iron Mickey like this.
  22. Merica

    Merica Devine pls stop pointing out my demise. :(
    Donor
    Auburn TigersAtlanta BravesPittsburgh Steelers

    It's amazing to me that people understand that a few nuclear weapons going off could cause the destruction of the earth with their fallout, but they can't understand how dumping a shitload of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere could cause the same sort of effect over time.

    Climate is all about the composition of the atmosphere, the distance and exposure from your star, the tilt of your axis, and the weather/sea patterns. We can partially control only one of those aspects. Swim Cantore is a regular poster in the Space thread and is obsessed with weather. I have no idea how he can close his ears to that fact because he obviously understands all of it.
     
    #226 Merica, Jun 1, 2015
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2015
    Prospector and OZ like this.
  23. Vito Corleone

    Vito Corleone deluxe member
    TMB OG
    Florida State SeminolesIowa HawkeyesChicago BullsMinnesota Vikings

    But volcanoes and Al Gore has made money off this research

    and dont forget God wouldn't let us destroy the planet unless it was his plan
     
    Prospector and Iron Mickey like this.
  24. Merica

    Merica Devine pls stop pointing out my demise. :(
    Donor
    Auburn TigersAtlanta BravesPittsburgh Steelers

    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/20-year-old-launch-world-s-first-ocean-cleaning-system-2016

    [​IMG]

     
    a.tramp, bro and SuckMyD like this.
  25. Tobias

    Tobias dan “the man qb1” jones fan account
    Donor
    North Carolina TarheelsAtlanta BravesCharlotte HornetsNew York GiantsManchester CityNational LeagueBarAndGrill

    a.tramp, OHW, OZ and 1 other person like this.
  26. * J Y *

    * J Y * TEXAS
    Donor TMB OG
    Texas LonghornsTexas RangersSan Antonio SpursDallas Cowboys

    Yea he wasn't trying to get fracking banned. Did you read the article?
     
  27. tmbrules

    tmbrules Make America Great Again!
    Donor
    Clemson TigersChicago CubsCincinnati RedsChicago Bears

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-...ater-climate-change-june#sthash.NmmbgbxN.dpuf

    New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

    The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)


    On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."

    [​IMG]As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles."

    Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, "I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?"

    Ultimately, ABC delayed the air-date for Earth 2100 and the one-hour show didn't debut until June 2, 2009. The program showcased the terrible impact of global warming from 2015 through 2100. In the special, a "storm of the century" wiped out Miami. Other highlights included a destroyed New York City and an abandoned Las Vegas. By 2084, Earth's population will apparently be just 2.7 billion.

    [​IMG]On June 13, 2008, ABCNews.com promoted the special by hyperventilating, "Are we living in the last century of our civilization?" Unlike the 2015 predictions, that suggestion hasn't (yet) been proven wrong.

    Seven years later, the network has quietly ignored its horribly inaccurate predictions about 2015. When it comes to global warming claims, apparently results don't matter for ABC.

    A partial transcript of the June 12, 2008 GMA segment is below:






    GMA
    6/12/08
    8:34am

    CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called "Earth 2100." We're asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don't save our troubled planet. Your reports will actually help form the backbone of a two-hour special airing this fall. ABC's Bob Woodruff will be the host. He joins us now. Pleasure, Bob.

    [​IMG]BOB WOODRUFF: You too, Chris. You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.

    [NOTE: ABC provides no graphics or identification for any of the following individuals/activists featured. Identifications taken discerned from web article.]

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE #1: The public is sleepwalking into the future. You know, sort of going through the motions of daily life and really not paying attention.

    JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we're not doing it.

    [Graphic: Welcome to 2015]

    PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we've still failed to address the climate problem.

    JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We're going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.

    UNIDENTIFIED "REPORTER:" Flames cover hundreds of square miles.

    UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE #5: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don't know really know where the end is.

    UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #2: Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.

    UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #3: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are
    rising.

    HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There's about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows.

    ...

    CUOMO: I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?

    WOODRUFF: It's very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you've got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You've got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we're approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it.

    ...

    WOODRUFF: But the best of these regular reports that come from people that are watching, we're going to put those on, all of this on our two-hour production that's going to happen in the fall. And we just want more of these people to watch. And we've gotten already some remarkable interviews from these people. And just take a quick look.

    UNIDENTIFIED TEENAGER: It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.

    SECOND UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gas reached over $9 a gallon.

    THIRD UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm scared [bleeped] right now, but I have to get this out.

    WOODRUFF: So the producers actually work with those people that send in their ideas into the website. And then we're just hoping that the goal is ultimately get these ideas very soon.

    CUOMO: Lovely. Bob Woodruff. Thank you very much. You can find out much more about how you can be part of this exciting and important show. You can go to Earth2100.tv. Earth2100.tv or you can go to ABCNews.com.
     
  28. Redav

    Redav My favorite meat is hotdog
    Donor

     
  29. tmbrules

    tmbrules Make America Great Again!
    Donor
    Clemson TigersChicago CubsCincinnati RedsChicago Bears

  30. TheChatch

    TheChatch Big Paws On A Puppy.
    Donor
    Boston Red SoxDenver BroncosColorado AvalanceNorth Carolina TarheelsDeVry FarvasPortland Trail BlazersOregon Ducks

    Sorry, tmbrules your post did not clear the source vetting committee of socialist TMB users. Better luck next time.
     
    tmbrules, tradercane and PSU12 like this.
  31. Redav

    Redav My favorite meat is hotdog
    Donor

    I usually try to avoid political agendas in my "news." :idk:
     
    Guns likes this.
  32. TheChatch

    TheChatch Big Paws On A Puppy.
    Donor
    Boston Red SoxDenver BroncosColorado AvalanceNorth Carolina TarheelsDeVry FarvasPortland Trail BlazersOregon Ducks

    Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.

    But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.

    “While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.

    And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature.

    “The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.”

    The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures.

    Global ocean temperatures are estimated both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines, and by thousands of buoys – floatation devices that sit in the water for years.

    The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships’ engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common. The result, Karl says, is that even if the world’s oceans are warming, the unadjusted data may show it not to be warming because more and more buoys are being used instead of ships. So Karl’s team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. They also double-checked their work by making sure that the readjusted buoy readings matched ships’ recordings of nighttime air temperatures.

    The paper came out last week, and there has not been time for skeptical scientists to independently check the adjustments, but some are questioning it because of how much the adjusted data vary from other independent measurements.

    First, it disagrees with the readings of more than 3,000 “ARGO buoys,” which are specifically designed to float around the ocean and measure temperature. Some scientists view their data as the most reliable.

    The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in 2003. But Karl’s team left them out of their analysis, saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic.

    In an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data “if scientific methods can be found to line up these two types of temperatures together … (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) … This is part of the cumulative and progressive scientific process.”

    Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments.

    The satellite data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karl’s adjusted data.

    “The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com.

    “We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years,” he said.

    Karl said satellite data also have issues, including “orbital decay, diurnal sampling, instrument calibration target temperatures and more.”

    Spencer said he agreed that those are issues, but they are less problematic than using data from thousands of ships and buoys. He added that there are a couple of satellites monitoring temperature at any given time, and that they are used to check each other.

    Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted.

    Some climate scientists applaud Karl’s adjustments and say they debunk the idea that the Earth has stopped warming.

    “[This] points out just how small and fragile a notion that was,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com

    Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper.

    “I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.”

    But skeptics say Karl’s adjusted data is the outlier that conflicts with everything else. “Color me ‘unconvinced’,” Curry wrote.
     
    tradercane likes this.
  33. SuckMyD

    SuckMyD Well-Known Member

    All I know is that the water level in downtown Miami is 1-2 feet higher than it was ~130 years ago. And that Miami Beach is digging up entire roads in South Beach to install newer water pumps to help prevent the frequent flooding that occurs there. I don't know if that's on pace with projections or not, but it's...interesting?

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article11113340.html
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article7957323.html
     
  34. RWisoursavior

    RWisoursavior Formerly DannyObrienIsOurSatan

    The Global Warming "Pause" Never Actually Happened

    Observational estimates provide a more accurate means of assessing oceanic temperature changes and show clear decadal signals that are robust across different analyses and clearly significant relative to observational errors. Our findings support the idea that the Indo-Pacific interaction in the upper-level water (0-300 m depth) regulated global surface temperature over the past two decades and can fully account for the recently observed hiatus. Furthermore, as previously shown for interannual fluctuations, the decade long hiatus that began in 2003 is the result of a redistribution of heat within the ocean, rather than a change in the net warming rate.


    http://gizmodo.com/the-global-warming-pause-never-actually-happened-1716701502
     
    Merica likes this.
  35. Big Apple Duck

    Big Apple Duck Craving a chimichanga
    Donor
    Oregon Ducks

    Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
    (Dont know why two spoiler boxes are showing up. The second one is the email)

    ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

    The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

    “Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

    However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

    Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

    Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.

    Advertisement
    In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981, when the company was considering the development of south-east Asia’s biggest gas field, off Indonesia.

    That was seven years ahead of other oil companies and the public, according to Bernstein’s account.

    Climate change was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

    By that time, it was clear that developing the Natuna site would set off a huge amount of climate change pollution – effectively a “carbon bomb”, according to Bernstein.

    “When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions,” Bernstein wrote.

    The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.

    “What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

    “One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”

    Bernstein’s response, first posted on the institute’s website last October, was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Wednesday as part of a report on climate disinformation promoted by companies such as ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Peabody Energy, called the Climate Deception Dossiers.

    Asked about Bernstein’s comments, Exxon said climate science in the early 1980s was at a preliminary stage, but the company now saw climate change as a risk.

    The document, a 17-page primer on climate science produced by Bernstein’s advisory committee, discounts the alternate theories about the causes of climate change promoted by climate contrarian researchers such as Willie Soon, who was partly funded by Exxon.

    “The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change,” the advisory committee said.

    The 1995 primer was never released for publication. A subsequent version, which was publicly distributed in 1998, removed the reference to “contrarian theories”, and continued to dispute the science underlying climate change.

    Kenneth Kimmel, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said ExxonMobil and the other companies profiled in its report had failed to take responsibility about the danger to the public of producing fossil fuels.

    “Instead of taking responsibility, they have either directly – or indirectly through trade and industry groups – sown doubt about the science of climate change and fought efforts to cut emissions,” he wrote in a blogpost. “I believe that the conduct outlined in the UCS report puts the fossil fuel companies’ social license at risk. And once that social license is gone, it is very hard to get it back. Just look at what happened to tobacco companies after litigation finally pried open the documents that exposed decades of misinformation and deception.”

    Keil, the ExxonMobil spokesman, confirmed that the company had decided not to develop Natuna, but would not comment on the reasons. “There could be a huge range of reasons why we don’t develop projects,” he said.

    Full text of scientist’s email
    Below is the text of an email from Lenny Bernstein to the director of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), who had asked for ideas to stimulate students for an ethics day announced by the Carnegie Council.
    Alyssa’s right. Feel free to share this e-mail with her. Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.

    Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions.

    The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.

    In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.

    Political battles need to personify the enemy. This is why liberals spend so much time vilifying the Koch brothers – who are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas. In climate change, the first villain was a man named Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (In another life, he was instrumental in getting the US Holocaust Museum funded and built.) Pearlman’s usefulness as a villain ended when he died of lung cancer – he was a heavy smoker to the end.

    Then the villain was the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a trade organization of energy producers and large energy users. I was involved in GCC for a while, unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality. (That effort got me on to the front page of the New York Times, but that’s another story.) Environmental group pressure was successful in putting GCC out of business, but they also lost their villain. They needed one which wouldn’t die and wouldn’t go out of business. Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.

    Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.

    I could go on, but this e-mail is long enough.
     
    Barves2125 and RWisoursavior like this.
  36. tmbrules

    tmbrules Make America Great Again!
    Donor
    Clemson TigersChicago CubsCincinnati RedsChicago Bears

    And we have a thread talking about global warming. pffft


    Global freezing: A ‘mini ice age’ is on the way by 2030, scientists say

    Some 15 or so years from now, the “polar vortex” might not sound so bad.

    European scientists warn that by 2030, a decade of winters with deep freezing temperatures could bring about a “mini ice age” the likes of which hasn’t been seen in 370 years.

    Researchers at Northumbria University, led by Professor Valentina Zharkova, used mathematical models to predict solar activity will drop by 60% and trigger plunging temps around the world. The last time this happened was between 1645 and 1715,the Independent reported.

    More testing will be needed, but Zharkova is confident about her outlook.

    “Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” she said.

    Sound familiar? Former NASA consultant and space shuttle engineer John Casey has been known to voice similar concerns. In fact, he wrote a book called “Dark Winter”in which he warns of crop failures and food riots.

    “We don’t have 10 years,” Casey once told Newsmax. “We’ve squandered during President Obama’s administration eight years ... and we didn’t have eight years to squander.”
     
    Moxin24 likes this.
  37. TheChatch

    TheChatch Big Paws On A Puppy.
    Donor
    Boston Red SoxDenver BroncosColorado AvalanceNorth Carolina TarheelsDeVry FarvasPortland Trail BlazersOregon Ducks

    Does this mean Miami won't be under water :(
     
    a.tramp likes this.
  38. Tobias

    Tobias dan “the man qb1” jones fan account
    Donor
    North Carolina TarheelsAtlanta BravesCharlotte HornetsNew York GiantsManchester CityNational LeagueBarAndGrill

    one.
    million.
    dollars.
     
  39. TheChatch

    TheChatch Big Paws On A Puppy.
    Donor
    Boston Red SoxDenver BroncosColorado AvalanceNorth Carolina TarheelsDeVry FarvasPortland Trail BlazersOregon Ducks

    Ice age sounds fun. Skiing every weekend. Trips to Alta, Sun Valley, Vail, And Beaver Creek all the time. Love it.
     
  40. tmbrules

    tmbrules Make America Great Again!
    Donor
    Clemson TigersChicago CubsCincinnati RedsChicago Bears

    And your beer would never get hot.
     
  41. Moxin24

    Moxin24 Show me that smile
    Staff Donor
    Michigan WolverinesDetroit Lions

    This works out for everyone. Liberals get to be right about climate change. Conservatives get to be right about it not being man's fault.
     
  42. BamaNug

    BamaNug The journey itself is the point
    Donor
    Alabama Crimson TideAtlanta BravesNew Orleans Saints

    Winter is coming
     
    a.tramp, Llama, Moxin24 and 2 others like this.
  43. lhprop1

    lhprop1 Fullsterkur
    Staff Donor
    Minnesota Golden Gophers

    If there's one thing everyone can agree on, it's that every single climate model to date has been wrong. 30 years ago, they said we'd have glaciers in our back yards right now. 20 years ago, they said Miami would be under water right now. 10 years ago, they said global temps would be 5 degrees hotter today. None of it worked out the way the models predicted and they covered damn near every future scenario except what we actually have today: Life as usual.

    Of course, California's in a drought, but that's probably just God's way of smiting them for being a bunch of hedonistic liberals.
     
    MoJo, killerwvu and tmbrules like this.
  44. lhprop1

    lhprop1 Fullsterkur
    Staff Donor
    Minnesota Golden Gophers

    Good. I can live in my fish house.
     
  45. Moxin24

    Moxin24 Show me that smile
    Staff Donor
    Michigan WolverinesDetroit Lions

    This what I've been saying to liberals for years. Its not that I don't think climate change is a real thing, and its not that I don't think man has something to do with it, but if you spend the better part of last quarter century 1-making outrageous claims about what's going to happen and 2-mocking anyone who disagrees with you as being stupid, you better be right and so far they haven't been.

    Its what happens when people who don't know shit about science (that is 98% of us) regurgitate with supreme fucking confidence something they don't understand.
     
    tmbrules, lhprop1 and TheChatch like this.
  46. TheChatch

    TheChatch Big Paws On A Puppy.
    Donor
    Boston Red SoxDenver BroncosColorado AvalanceNorth Carolina TarheelsDeVry FarvasPortland Trail BlazersOregon Ducks

    97.8% of SCIENTISTS, THOUGH!!!!!!