Unmasking Climate Deception - Fossil Fuel Companies' Deceptions Revealed

originally posted by: Danke
Also, this is old news.

The Summer of 2015 is "old news"? You must be thinking of previous FOIA findings from 2007. This is brand new information.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The notion that the government of the world's near largest producer and largest consumer of fossil fuels would have a vested agenda pushing for anthropogentc global warming is preposterous.

It's just that responsible leadership sometimes is (at last resort) actually responsible and listens to scientific bodies which have informed government since 1900.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Greven

But what would you replace gas with? We still have to move around.

If there was an alternative, wouldn't we at least know about it by now?

Oh come on. We have the technology. If governments spent their billions in subsidies from old energy to homes and businesses instead and made people independent of the grid utilising wind and solar there would be no need for these huge centralised power stations. There is more than enough energy shining down and blowing past every single roof to replace centralised power generation. That energy can also re-charge your second car battery which you switch over when you get home.

And please don't drag out some old school economist who will state "micro generation cannot provide for our energy needs". Instead listen to the experts on this, quite a few are German. They will state that we are perfectly capable of generating all our energy using "green" technologies.

This hasn't happened because centralised power is taxable and controllable. Micro generation isn't taxable and it also empowers the people to be self reliant.

The unit cost of manufacture of green tech would plummet if it was taken seriously.

I am all about a better way. I tried to look into hydrogen, and was quickly set straight on that. Believe me, there are some smart people who are adamantly against seemingly anything other than what we do now. If there is a better way, we need to be doing it. I don't deny warming, I just don't buy we did it all, I still think it's possible it's how the Earth is reacting to itself. But I fix computers, so my opinion means exactly jack shIt. But If I am right, we aren't doomed, if I am wrong, then we are. Being a optimist, I sure hope I am right.

a reply to: mbkennel

Quite simply, it's a matter of (inter)national security at this stage. That trumps everything else. If the long-term think tanks thought we could go on polluting for a few centuries more (as some people bizarrely still think we have that much time), then the government would look the other way and be satisfied with corporate bribes. If everyone losses, and there's no reset button, well that's a larger incentive than marks on sheets of paper.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic



www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

www.youtube.com...

The only trustworthy scientist is the one who works for free! Isn't that what this thread is predicated on?

It's very telling that the last card AGW promoters have to play is to discredit the opposition over income sources. The subject matter is as empirical and unbiased as it gets, yet the arguments are devoid of data. Guess they had to give up on that when everybody realized the numbers were being altered to fit the theory.

originally posted by: markosity1973
Sadly, there are no surprises here from me.

In my high school years in the late 1980s and early 1990s I studied horticulture. As part of the curriculum, weather and climate came up.

We were shown that they began to question climate change in the very early 1970s. The first scientists to publish anything on the matter were discredited so inhumanely that it was repressed for at least another decade.

Our teacher was a firm green fanatic and we were shown a lot of evidence, even way back then that showed this was an alarming problem, totally manmade and avoidable if we did the right thing.

Shame nobody listens to these pioneers really.

Funny, now the ones saying it is NOT all us humans are the ones repressed, but of course no one wants us to ever dig into the realities of the Universe, or any OTHER possible causes not covered by the things we see used in everyday life.

Here is a reality for you, we are not in control, we do not make the decisions, we do not control the science, and no one actually knows all of the reasons for anything.

This is EXACTLY how it was planned, I believe the truth is not somewhere in the middle either, I think a lot more is going on than just your average WE CONSUME THEREFORE........ crowd believes.

What in the world makes you people think you actually know what you are talking about ?? That you have all the facts and can therefore make such sweeping statements that make it seem like we even know how the Universe works ??

Rest assured, some of us COULD find out, but who knows what the outcome would be to the rest of everyone ???

I imagine very soon we are going to have to, anyways.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Good find. It's beyond obvious that the REAL conspiracy is climate change denial coverup. Everything that the deniers say is wrong with climatology EXISTS in climate change denial science.

Funny, it also exists in 9/11 coverup deniers, and yet you are on both sides of the fence.

Easy too see that you can be had by the media, and claim coverup when in fact something IS being covered up.

And that is ALL of the facts associated with how the planet runs, PERIOD.

Whatever the government says is happening, you side with it, whether you like it or not.

Pretty Krazy if you ask me.

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
Can't deny the coming flood waters and stronger storms.

Those stock price profits will have to end sometime, and it will be when a major island nation is swimming in an extra 5 feet of water.

The earth doesn't have to deny this whole mess of stuff, it just handles things and carries on, we're the ones who will suffer.

Why can't we deny it ??

I have yet to see any of these floods that are supposed to have started hammering us 15 years ago.

Storms, the statistics are all over the map.

I would LOVE to see some evidence of higher tides wreaking havoc lol, but none can be found.

Good luck praying for it.

a reply to: Indigo5

Fracking is the dumbest procedure I think I have ever seen invented, and yet people would rather say stuff like...

WE ARE CAUSING ALL THE DAMAGE, as if anyone individually ever had a say in any of it.

Someone wants to destroy the water table for fun it looks like, but these yahoos want to believe its just common greed.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Climate change? If it comes from the mouth of a liberal or our government...it is a lie.

Or at least a twisted partial truth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh exactly, because SCIENCE always comes up with the result, and is NEVER messed with, derailed, or misused on purpose.

You should petition for "IN SCIENCE WE TRUST" to be printed on money.

Irony.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was just looking over your links, and didn't see anything substantial. They were able to come up with basically two guys linked to Exxon that have some sort of relevance in climate science. The other links on those pages went nowhere.

As for the OP source, the latest dossiers from UCS are laughable compared to climategate. The first dossier was talking about an email from a former Exxon employee that didn't even state any damning information. Another was showing a presentation showing the current war being waged against the fossil fuel industry. Not one slide showed anything nefarious other than to make people aware of increased taxes being forced onto them by these CO2 regulations. I see nothing wrong with that. If that is the best they have, that is truly pitiful.

The OP source literally shows that some scientists are on Exxon's payroll to push climate denialism. Which is EXACTLY what you are accusing all other scientists in the world of being for the government... Which is more likely, two scientists having no morals and letting cash dictate their science results or EVERY OTHER scientist being on the dole? I would have thought the answer was beyond obvious.

Almost all of the funding in the entire climate science community is payed for by tax payers around the world being distributed via different government organizations, and grants. So there really isn't much comparison in regards to corruption in the climate science community when you focus on where the money actually comes from. Do you really think someone is going to get funding from the federal government if the study they are working on goes against the IPCC?

Scientists don't receive funding for predetermined results. Scientists just pitch ideas for studies, get the grant money, conduct the study, then publish the results. There is no way the government could know ahead of time the direction the study is going in.

This isn't rocket science...this is climate science, which really needs to be reclassified as political science.

No, not really. Because of the science denialism conspiracy pushed by the oil industry, it is a political debate in THIS country and this country alone. Outside of this country, they've accepted this as real science already. Though keep buying into a blatant conspiracy.

Gee let me see, of course it all makes perfect sense, only TWO people are making money off of this debacle, and not all the rest.

They all just do this for free!!

And in no way does all scientific training affect the process they use that does not appear to allow them to come to anything that makes an actual FACTUAL conclusion.

I postulate that SCIENTISTS do not even know at what times, the calculations they use that were taught too them, are just as misleading and inherently so, too make sure the humans never quite figure it all out.

But of course no one can see that right, because they CANNOT!

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The notion that the government of the world's near largest producer and largest consumer of fossil fuels would have a vested agenda pushing for anthropogentc global warming is preposterous.

It's just that responsible leadership sometimes is (at last resort) actually responsible and listens to scientific bodies which have informed government since 1900.

LOL.

a reply to: ParasuvO
Way to flood this forum with useless posts that add nothing to the discussion.

It is those who wish to deny man's role in climate change who do not bring science to the discussions and resort to debate tactics and clever word play to make their point.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Humm, notice how the SCIENCE itself is not even mentioned but many assumptions are made trying to show this article by the UCUSA as a "CHAMPION FOR PEOPLE AND THE EARTH"...

Where is the ACTUAL SCIENCE MENTIONED?... Oh, and let's not forget, how many "predictions" from the AGW crowd have not come true?...

Articles like this one also tend to lead the AGW proponents to believe that every scientist who disagrees with the AGW claim must be "a pay shill"...

BTW, any mention about the latest solar model which is telling us that it seems the sun might be going into another period of very low activity causing another Little Ice Age on Earth by 2030?...

Scientists Warn Sun Will "Go to Sleep" in 2030, Could Cause Temperatures to Plummet

THAT IS SCIENCE... Not claims, assumptions, and half lies/half truths...

Did Soon TAMPER with data like the AGW scientists have been caught doing?... You know, like the data tampering by certain western organizations on the data from Russia, China, and other countries?...

Did Soon deleted raw temperature data that would allow scientists to have easier access to such raw data?... No, it was AGW scientists who did it...

I might not agree with everything that oil companies do, but how many resources/organizations out there are willing to fund research that does not tow the AGW party line?

Does that mean ALL scientists who disagree with the AGW claim are being paid by oil companies to lie, or to tell their side of the 'SCIENCE'?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No one ever said we think every scientists who disagrees with AGW is a shill, however it is suspicious that the majority of the scientists who are against the notion of AGW are bankrolled by big oil.

This really is not much different that the tobacco companies hiring their own experts in hope of protecting their product's profits.