It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists Team Up With Climate Deniers To Take Down Science Education.

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Millers


Hi mc_squared,


Hi.


Practically all of the "big five" oil multinationals accept the science as settled and support large scale climate policy action including a carbon tax.


I’m aware most energy companies make public statements, and to some extent even actions, in support of environmental initiatives on climate change. I’ve seen plenty of Rex Tillerson speeches for example, and hey I’m glad he agrees with my views. Revenue-neutral carbon tax >> cap ‘n’ trade.

But just because these companies often say one thing in public, or post pictures of themselves hugging bunny rabbits and bragging how green they are on their homepage, does not mean there aren't other motives in play underneath the surface.

How many politicians do you know that talk from both sides of their mouth? The 2nd paragraph of the New Yorker article you linked me to describes Obama supporting clean energy while simultaneously reassuring Oklahoma that under his administration America’s drilling like it’s never drilled before.

Meanwhile here’s another quote from that article:


In the past decade, the leading recipient of ExxonMobil PAC contributions has been Representative Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, who has held senior positions on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where most legislation affecting the oil industry originates.


So ExxonMobil publicly supports a carbon tax, yet what’s their favorite politician’s position on it?

Barton, Scalise lead effort opposing job-killing carbon tax


I don’t understand then how you can justify this statement:


The argument, that skepticism in climate science mainly exists because of a secretly funded denial industry, falls apart here. It was never valid in the first place.


…when I have already shown plenty of explicit evidence in this thread of that secretly funded denial industry. I could show you much more, like how a consortium of fossil fuel interests paid off a number of skeptic-for-hire scientists to help them do this:



Or how the American Petroleum Institute directly created fake climate science operatives to help spread skeptic propaganda, and derail efforts to curb greenhouse emissions:




But are you going to tell me all these leaked documents and secret memos are invalid, because according to their public profile - these companies are all smiles and sunshine with the climate legislation…??



See here’s the thing – this whole issue at its very core is about public relations. These companies didn't become such successful businesses without becoming masters of PR. For them to come out and directly oppose stuff like this would be public perception suicide. It would not look very becoming of oil companies to just outright deny mainstream science. This is exactly why they do it through 3rd party channels like The Heartland Institute instead.

Putting on a positive public face not only makes them look good, it makes their consumers feel less guilty about using their product if they support some token initiative or something. It also allows them to hedge their bets on policy. Even though they have been caught repeatedly working behind the scenes to derail much of the policy altogether, these companies aren't stupid either. They know what’s coming down the pike one way or the other, and they know eventually they’ll have to deal with the consequences, so they are thinking forward on this as much as anyone else.

Beyond that I’m sure there are some people and departments in these organizations that do just genuinely have good intentions. It’s not like it’s all black and white, corporations are 100% evil, or corporations are 100% saintly fair-playing capitalists. But to try and rationalize that they have no sinister agenda just because everything’s hunky-dory in their public statements is pretty damn silly and naive.

The evidence for this is everywhere. You just have to look a little deeper than the official company motto is all.

That's what ATS is all about.




posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Though I also ask you. Why is global warming more important than all the pollution we are dumping into our fresh waters? More important than all the deforestation? The destruction of entire ecosystems just to make a quick buck? If you ask me, man made global warming (regardless of its veracity) is just the tip of the iceberg. We can't fix one problem without addressing all of them.


You’re right, but global warming is not mutually exclusive from all these other problems. Deforestation alone is estimated to contribute up to about 15% of carbon emissions. Huge CO2 pumping industries like the Alberta tar sands pollute the waterways and destroy local ecosystems.

But for the most part just talking about “pollution” can be a somewhat superficial exercise. It’s often a very abstract and localized problem that’s hard to build a lot of momentum against, at least outside of regional politics. Sure you might be against polluted water tables in India, but enough to really get up and protest over it?

Global warming meanwhile is a universal problem that has the potential to unite all these individual pollution issues into one common rallying point, and galvanize the entire planet into true cohesive action. In my opinion this is one of the very biggest reasons why industries and establishment shills fear the phenomenon so much, and are working so much harder to convince you it’s not a big deal. They fear the consequences of a self-conscious and united planet much more than a warming one.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Ok, so the signature for "man made CO2" in the atmosphere is usually measured by C13/C12 isotope comparisons, correct? Since man made CO2 is (usually) less rich in the C13 isotope than natural CO2, we look for a variability in the concentrations of each isotope. And of course, there has been some variability. But the problem lies with the the fact that the natural (not man made CO2) variability of CO2 lines up exactly with the variability we have seen. So if naturally this relationship varies at the exact same rate as the variability we have seen, then how can anyone claim that it is man made CO2 that has caused the increase in CO2 concentration?

It's a fact that we are emitting more than 29 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. The Earth's atmosphere is estimated to weigh in at 5,148,000 gigatonnes. In April, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was 400 ppm, and since CO2 weighs a bit more than other atmospheric components, it has to be adjusted by multiplying the volume by the mass, or 1.5191, giving a total mass of 3,128 gigatonnes of CO2. Approximately 7 years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 383ppm, for a mass value of 2,996 gigatonnes of CO2. That's an additionally 18.86 gigatonnes annually. It doesn't just mysteriously disintegrate, so what's happening to it?

As to the 'percent that is man' versus 'percent that is nature' well... let's say you have two glasses of water. One has food dye in it, representing man's contribution of CO2. Another is uncolored and filled to the brim, representing nature's CO2. Also, this second glass is far larger. If you ever so slowly pour the first glass into the second, does the clear or the dyed water flow out over the rim?


It is cycled out of the atmosphere (both the natural and man made). Your analogy uses a glass without a hole in the bottom which would represent the fact that the atmosphere cycles out CO2 every century (really every day, but just for the sake of argument I'm going with century). Some centuries there is a net surplus, some centuries there is a net loss of CO2.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: jrod
We will likely double the CO2 count in less than 100 years from today.



By double I meant using 280ppm as a starting point. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that will will likely have CO2 around 560ppm in 100 years unless something drastic happens with humanity and the world.

I will go ahead and call this my prediction.


Fair enough, simple misunderstanding.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Your argument is about the talking points, not the science. You've remained mute on the science.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
It is cycled out of the atmosphere (both the natural and man made). Your analogy uses a glass without a hole in the bottom which would represent the fact that the atmosphere cycles out CO2 every century (really every day, but just for the sake of argument I'm going with century). Some centuries there is a net surplus, some centuries there is a net loss of CO2.

Yet, last I saw, only about 4% of atmospheric CO2 can be traced to human activity - even though we've added that much in only seven years.

Our CO2 is getting cycled out while nature's CO2 is rapidly accumulating, because the sinks ain't big enough for both.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Dfairlite
It is cycled out of the atmosphere (both the natural and man made). Your analogy uses a glass without a hole in the bottom which would represent the fact that the atmosphere cycles out CO2 every century (really every day, but just for the sake of argument I'm going with century). Some centuries there is a net surplus, some centuries there is a net loss of CO2.

Yet, last I saw, only about 4% of atmospheric CO2 can be traced to human activity - even though we've added that much in only seven years.

Our CO2 is getting cycled out while nature's CO2 is rapidly accumulating, because the sinks ain't big enough for both.


Yep, but luckily the sinks change sizes often. More CO2 increases plant growth and size, sediment forms more rapidly, etc. And this all goes without even mentioning the fact that the earth has not warmed for nearly 18 years now, despite the increasing CO2 output by human beings.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite
18 years without warming? That's silly.

Of the 134 years on record in that link, 0 are significantly cooler while 9 are significantly (>2σ) warmer:
1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013
edit on 21Sun, 03 Aug 2014 21:49:36 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I see, avoid the real argument (about negative feedback mechanisms) and try to discredit the details.

Seems we have a conflict of data: according to www.remss.com... there has been no warming of the monthly global mean in the lower troposphere for 17 years and 10 months. Or the discrepancy comes from you (and NASA) including ocean data to beef up the numbers. That would be all well, but the problem is this (from your link): "base period: 1951-1980." What happened in 1980? Well, NASA has the answer:



Prior to the 1980s measurements of sea surface temperature were derived from instruments on shorelines, ships and buoys. The first automated method of gathering sst was by measuring water flowing through the input ports of ocean faring ships. While this method obtained a significant quantity of useful SST data there were some shortcomings. The depth of the input ports of different ships can vary greatly from ship to ship. In a stratified ocean these different depths can have different temperatures. This method also resulted in rigorous sampling along major shipping routes but a dearth of information about the vast majority of the world's oceans.


Kind of odd, isn't it, that they would choose to use a base period whose end happens to coincide with a new way of measuring more of the ocean and doing so more accurately?

But "trust them," you'll say. "They know what they're doing." Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but either way I have a better idea!

If we are going to have at the temperature argument lets take a look at the recorded temperatures over a larger period of time so we can get a more accurate view of what's been predicted vs what's been happening.

Let's go back to 1990. The IPCC did it's first assessment report that year and predicted, due to CO2, an increase in temperature of 2.8C per century (their confidence of this prediction, in their own words: substantial confidence). Well now we are 25 years into that and we've seen how much warming? the equivalent of 1.4C per century (half of the IPCC prediction). But hey, maybe they had missed something.

So the IPCC revised their estimates down in the near term. They predicted that from 2005-2014 we would see warming in the equivalent of only 1.7C per century. So what happened? We have seen warming of 0.0C according to RSS and UAH data. The poor IPCC can't catch a break.
edit on 4-8-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite
You've mentioned feedback mechanisms approximately twice in this thread. Negative feedback mechanisms in this post, and positive feedback mechanisms once on the last page. Supposing the previous post is related to that, perhaps you would entertain the idea that I would not necessarily argue over a detail I know little about?

Here's something you can play with, easily looking at different data sets (thanks Miller
). BEST is in there, too. You can even set data ranges. Starting the date 17 years ago (1997), there is only one data set that does not show a warming trend: RSS, your source. Every other data set supports a warming trend. Move the date to 18 years ago (1996), and suddenly RSS shows warming! Weird, right?

Play with the numbers a bit, see what I mean. Pruning the data sets to specific ranges can distort reality.
edit on 0Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:32:41 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

That's odd, UAH and BEST have also recorded the pause, but not on skeptical science (OT: of which, that site is neither). It's interesting that the RSS, UAH, and BEST links on SS under 'references' are broken links.

Here's a plot of the UAH dataset:
www.reportingclimatescience.com...

Here's the BEST web page where they are trying to explain away the pause in warming. It's odd of them to do that even though there has been no pause (according to you) isn't it? I mean, if there was no pause, wouldn't they just ring the bell saying there was no pause?

Yes, I understand that just picking a small number of years can result in a distortion of reality. Which is why I went back to the initial IPCC report and how off it was, then their revision and how off it was. My point is that they don't know a damn thing, yet they claim to.


edit on 4-8-2014 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite
Data seems to stop in 2013, so it's probably an older page that isn't well maintained. However, I see no difference between that chart and the trend calculator chart generated with the same settings (13 month(??), full data range). The trend calculator chart has less visual reference in it - no gridlines, for example - so it might be hard to see that it's the same. In a browser window, you can drag the edge of your browser to give you a visual reference point and so far as I can tell, everything seems to match. The chart you reference does not show a trend anywhere, though (the +0.27 in Dec. 2013 is literally what the temperature was compared to the baseline).

The 'pause' is only reflected in certain data sources, during specific time frames. There is more going on than meets the eye. Although I differ with the word 'is' as it should be 'was' with regard to the solar minimum that occurred between 2003 and 2010, there's also this:

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) addressed the warming pause issue in its 2013 climate report, pointing out that the Earth is going through a solar minimum and that more than 90% of the world's extra heat is being soaked up by the oceans, rather than lingering on the surface.


In the last 134 years, the average monthly surface temperature has fluctuated from as low as -0.84 degrees Celsius (Jan 1893) to as high as 0.93 degrees Celsius (Jan 2007). The average annual surface temperature has fluctuated less, from a low of -0.46 degrees Celsius (1909) to a high of 0.66 degrees Celsius (2010). Again, statistical outliers - years that are so far outside the standard deviation of temperature from the mean of the past 134 years - include 9 of the last 16 years. That's rather exceptional.

Cooling trends have happened before - in these last 134 years, even. From 1880 to around 1920, plotting that range would show a cooling trend. Same thing from 1940 to 1970. We're a heck of a lot warmer than those times these days. Always be skeptical about cherry picked dates. There's a reason they fixated on the period including those exceptionally hot years as the holy grail of global not-warming, and it has little to do with honesty.
edit on 22Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:39:06 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

So, in short, you're not sure why they would try to explain the pause in warming if it didn't exist. Ok, Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join