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.

 

Former ExxonMobil Scientist Says the Company Has Long Known of Its Climate Change Impacts

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I found a couple of articles that suggest that the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the reality and risks of human induced climate change.

Former ExxonMobil Scientist Says the Company Has Long Known of Its Climate Change Impacts

The Climate Deception Dossiers

This is interesting because on public discussion boards across the world wide web, there are often heated debates between those of us who are concerned about human impact on this planet's climate and environment versus those who do not accept this and have a plethora of excuses, fallacies, and concerns of hidden agendas they cling to as fallback positions(i.e. AGW is a hoax to raise our taxes!!!).

I think anyone who is well traveled and able to think freely can see we are causing great changes to this planet, and perhaps it is time to make changes, possibly drastic changes in an attempt to keep this planet hosptitable for our offspring.
edit on 17-7-2015 by jrod because: nand




posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I've always found it odd that the discussion would speak of a con only being on one side of the debate. Obviously, where there is attention, there are parasites, and no good reason to think they won't be on all sides.

I trust you've been aware that the oil companies scientists were bought and paid shills, the same as MonSatan and every other major corporation with an interest to conceal the truth behind their piggy bank.

There's been a lot of threads tonite I've noticed about climate change. I'm curious what your take is on the mini-ice age cycle that scientists were recently going on about supposedly set to kick off in a decade or so.
edit on 18-7-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

One side????

There are many sides of the debate, mostly to what extent is of change is human activity causing.

However, the articles I provided show that fossil fuel companies have knowingly misled the public on the true nature of the damage their industry has created. It also shows they have paid millions in campaigns to mislead the public's perception about what the scientific consensus is concerning the impact on the environment and atmosphere.

The mini-ice age is neigh is something that I seriously doubt, I actually would not be the least bit surprised that mini ice age is near story is being pushed by certain groups aforementioned in this thread already.
edit on 18-7-2015 by jrod because: late, need sleep



posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

No disagreements in your post. I may not have worded my thoughts too well? Meh, I seem to be having difficulties getting through to people tonite. Maybe some noms can help.

S + F



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

I edited that response to include a mention of the mini ice age that has been trending.

What big oil is doing is not that different than what big tobacco did it terms of lying and hiring their own panel of experts and shills to deceive the public on the harm their product is causing.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Maybe so, here's a source with some interesting tidbits



However, many scientists are not convinced. Georg Feulner, the deputy chair of the Earth system analysis research domain at the Potsdam Institute on Climate Change Research, has studied the effect a solar minimum might have on Earth's climate. His research has shown that temperature drops correlated to a less intense sun would be insignificant compared with anthropogenic global warming, according to the Washington Post.

Regarding the Maunder Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that man-made global warming won't be trumped.
Link

I'm also not sure about the 1.3C. It could be closer to 2C in the 2030s.

Here's another source:



The reason behind Zharkova’s claim of lowered temperatures, beginning around 2030, was that her team’s new solar cycle model predicted that there would be a 60 percent drop in magnetic energy from the Sun. Looking at the magnetic wave patterns predicted by their model, the team predicted that there would be fewer sunspots over the next two solar cycles: Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022, and Cycle 26, which runs from 2030 to 2040. This indicates less solar magnetic energy during that time.

"In Cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other - peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun," Zharkova said at the conference. "Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder Minimum’."

The problem with this prediction, says Plait, and in comparing what’s about to happen with the 17th century Maunder Minimum, is that a drop in the magnetic activity of the Sun will only have a marginal effect on its light/heat output. He explains at Slate:

"There has been research asking what would happen if it is weak next time and concludes it will have moderate localised effects - not global cooling. In fact, the very first line of the abstract of that paper is this: 'Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming.'"
Link

So a decrease in magnetic output, but minimal effect on heat/energy output.
edit on 19-7-2015 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
If a Maunder Minimum does trigger a mini ice age countries that have gained energy independence with renewables will have the most stable economies.

Colder temperatures would mean that many oil reservoir would become inaccessible while demands for oil especially for heating would rise.

Even if demands could be met the cost would skyrocket, but countries like Costa Rica that are 100% energy independent because of renewables wouldn't be affected. They shouldn't be a target either. They should be exempt from wars fought over resources.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

There are other threads that discuss the Maunder Minimum, so lets keep that discussion over there.

This thread is about Big Oil and their knowledge of harm they are causing the local environment and how they pay shills to confuse the public perception of what the scientific consensus is on man made climate change and the risk associated with continually burning fossil fuels.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
I found a couple of articles that suggest that the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the reality and risks of human induced climate change.

Former ExxonMobil Scientist Says the Company Has Long Known of Its Climate Change Impacts

The Climate Deception Dossiers

This is interesting because on public discussion boards across the world wide web, there are often heated debates between those of us who are concerned about human impact on this planet's climate and environment versus those who do not accept this and have a plethora of excuses, fallacies, and concerns of hidden agendas they cling to as fallback positions(i.e. AGW is a hoax to raise our taxes!!!).

I think anyone who is well traveled and able to think freely can see we are causing great changes to this planet, and perhaps it is time to make changes, possibly drastic changes in an attempt to keep this planet hosptitable for our offspring.


The argument that they cling to about this "tax scam" is their single greatest weapon they use...to try to instill fear in regular folks that someone is out to get their money. It reminds me of the vote in Washington state last year about GMO labeling. It just blew my mind that the people would actually vote this down but the reason was simple...the GMO corporates spent a lot of money on the campaign to convince the public that prices in the grocery store would go up because companies would have to spend extra money labeling their products. What a bunch of crap...as if they aren't already placing a label on a product. So, it would cost more to add a few extra words of print on those labels. lol. It's the same goes for the oil and gas industry destroying this planet. They are spending a lot of money to convince regular folks the government wants their money via carbon taxes. lol. Sadly, it works. I can't believe how many people can deny how fast we are heading for a train wreck with global warming. Every day there are headlines splattered across the news in regards to extremely destructive storms, outrageous temps, warming oceans, increasing volcanoes, massive sinkholes, strange and mysterious disease outbreaks, crazy animal behaviour and animal die offs, etc. And yet, so many gullible people will cling to the idea that all of this activity is normal and survivable. Good luck, mankind. You're going to need it so long as the ExxonMobils of the world continue running things.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

It does seem a bit hopeless at times trying to have an intelligent discussion about this topic.

The 'tax scam' argument in these discussions in nothing but an established fall back position.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
This is almost tin hat worthy, but it appears to me that throughout the public forums and social media platforms on the 'net, there is an agenda to flood the forums with misleading articles, skewed opinion pieces, and forum posts that there may be an agenda to confuse ill informed person about what the scientific consensus of man's role in our changing climate is.

I'll use the great clean-up of the Great Lakes as an example where we recognized a problem and worked collectively together for a partial restoration of what had been destroyed by progress, development, and greed.



new topics

top topics



 
12

log in

join