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.

 

Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam

page: 2
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
hello, I have lost count of how many people I have emailed asking them to explain how less than %1.00 of the atmosphere (CO2) can heat up the other %99, still waiting for an answer from any of them. Last time I looked, CO2 is 383 parts per MILLION which is slightly over one third of one percent.


CO2 and other green house gases do not heat up the earth. Rather they provide insulation, trapping heat emanating from the Earth in the form of infrared light or radiation.

The temperature need only go up by 2-3 degrees and it will mean the coral reefs die and any animals that rely on them. Also, the vast majority of the Earth's population lives at sea level on the coast. If sea levels increase by a small amount, it will be sufficient to cause major flooding




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
1. Own huge quantities of a product
2. Make sure the product is rendered essentially useless
3. ????
4. Profit

Yeah that makes a lot of sense


Some other thread suggested that Russia is behind the leak. That makes more sense, because they've got the oil and gas and sure as hell want to sell it. If Copenhagen was a success then in just 20-30 years there'd be no big customers for Russia.

But yeah, Big Oil could also try to downplay AWG for the same exact reasons than Russia. But you're suggesting the opposite here.. ridiculous


Oh and p.s. There is no scam. AGW is very much real.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]



AGW is nowhere near being proven real, and those who think it is have only fallen prey to the typical drivel being spewed forth by politicians and activists.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
Well, let me stop you right there. Regardless of whether or not temperature increases are the result of humans or nature, rising CO2 traps heat and and thereby increases the growing season in northern countries such as the United States (Good). However, rising temperatures at countries located closer to the equator would shorten their growing season and decrease their food supply to significant extent. The countries that are "malnourished" and closer to the equator would not be better off with more CO2. Regardless, plants are not in need of additional CO2 right now, so a modest increase in it would not help them in any way.


What?! Plants are ALWAYS in NEED of CO2, and CO2 also reduces plants water intake, thereby improving their ability to endure heat, no?

Warming?


To put it another way, if we observe warming in the tropical upper troposphere, then the models predict that the contribution to warming at the surface that is caused by our greenhouse-gas emissions should be between less than half and one third of the warming seen in the upper troposphere. There is, of course, some greenhouse warming, indicated by the observed cooling of the stratosphere as less outgoing long-wave radiation reaches it. But the absence of the predicted “hot-spot” in the tropical mid-troposphere severely constrains the magnitude of the greenhouse warming.
scienceandpublicpolicy.org...


In other words, the amount of trapped heat has turned out to be less than expected by the alarmist computer models.

Additionally, cheaper fuel along with longer global grow seasons, coupled with greater photosynthesis, equals cheaper and more abundant food (supply & demand) with less costs to ship it worldwide, which should make up for the 'shorter' grow seasons in the tropics. Especialy if much of those global biodiesel food crops go back to growing food like they used to. Economics 101.

And besides, they have plenty of foods that grow only in the tropics. I'm down in USDA zone 9b, envious of all the things I'm just barely out of range of being able to grow here. Even if much of these could be argued 'away' as being tropical fruits & coconuts, cheaper fuel means all the better for them to trade their fruits for the staple crop we enjoys. Plus, if the average populace has more wealth overall (from NOT being taxed at ALL LEVELS of existence via global carbon tax), the more everyone can enjoy those pricey tropical fruits, meaning more demand for what the tropics produces.

Any questions?

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7
The temperature need only go up by 2-3 degrees and it will mean the coral reefs die and any animals that rely on them. Also, the vast majority of the Earth's population lives at sea level on the coast. If sea levels increase by a small amount, it will be sufficient to cause major flooding


How have the coral reefs survived history, then? The midiaevel warm period should have wiped them all out.
wattsupwiththat.com...

If you'd like, I can show you a CRU alarmist admit (in private) that warming was just as much in the MWP.

And FYI, coral can handle warm water. What they cant handle is rapid temperature changes (i.e. 4'F change in a matter of 20 minutes). But then again, reef fish dont enjoy such differences either. Marine Aquaria 101. Run a reef tank for 7 years and you'll know tha same.


MYTH:
The ideal reef tank temperature is between 76° and 78° Fahrenheit.

FACT:
The water temperatures of most of the reefs where your corals came from are a lot higher than 78° F. Read about it in: How High is Too High?
saltaquarium.about.com...



Whatever the warm water system, be it a fish only aquarium or a reef aquarium, the aquarium temperature needs to be kept stable, with only a small deviation from the design point. The majority of aquarists will employ heaters, and the rest chillers, or maybe both.
...
On the wild reef seawater temperature is for the most part stable throughout the year. Average temperatures on these reefs are 82 deg F *. Note that this is an average, meaning that some are cooler and some warmer. It gives an idea of where the temperature in an aquarium could be set. Setting the temperature in the aquarium to 82 deg F will give a general average temperature approximation. So is that the temperature to use? As said the temperature is an average – there are variances between reefs and there will be differences at various depths.
www.aquaristsonline.com...


Keyword: Acclimation.

And this Stanford study would seem to indicate reefs can infact handle warming:
www.int-res.com...

And since we've 'acidified' the water, it would seem they're surviving this also.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
1. Own huge quantities of a product
2. Make sure the product is rendered essentially useless after preparing for 3 decades to provide the alternatives to that product, effectively maintaining control over that sector of industry
3. ????
4. Profit

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]


Fixed.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
hello, I have lost count of how many people I have emailed asking them to explain how less than %1.00 of the atmosphere (CO2) can heat up the other %99, still waiting for an answer from any of them. Last time I looked, CO2 is 383 parts per MILLION which is slightly over one third of one percent.


Right. So 50 ppm's over the whatever-millenium average equals total catastrophic 'point of no return' (-Al Gore) global meltdown.

Hmm. THe funny thing is if you follow 'Al Gore's' logic, the Kyoto Protocol couldnt even dream of preventing Catastrophic Global Warming. Thats teh irony of it all. It would require a return to the pre-industrial age, globally, and we'd still endure decades of climate apocalypse (well the tropics would anyways).



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Wow, judging from some of the answers here, Exxon & Shell's latest attack campaign is working


Seriously guys, just look at the melting polar icecaps and coral bleeching...both signs of a warming planet. Nature by itself can't be responsible for it, because it didn't change in any way by itself that could cause those effects. So it's us...

The tobacco industry is the biggest funder of anti-healthcare-reform movements...so why is anyone surprised that the oil companies are funding campaigns against the climate change group? It's all about the $$$, always has, always will be. Just keep in mind that they don't have YOUR interests in mind, just their own financial interests!

No one in his right mind can seriously believe burning carbon fuel is good for the planet. If you do, you're either stupid, or only interested in getting cheap energy without thinking about the longterm costs. Just because you live in a place where climate change doesn't affect you as much, doesn't mean you insisting on cheap oil doesn't affect millions (billions) of other people. When the sea levels rise (and they are!!), and the Netherlands and large parts of Asia sink under water, don't forget to send them a "you're welcome" note, because their blood will be on your hands.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Are you serious? Prison Planet is really not such a great place to be looking for factual information mate, sorry that is just the way it is.

Business and Politics, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2002
Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change:Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry Link


The oil companies perceived climate change as a major threat, and, as predicted by
Gladwin and Walter, three of them adopted assertive responses; Exxon adopted
an adversarial political strategy while BP and Shell pursued more accommodative
and technologically oriented strategies


Moreover, companies are converging on the view that the flexible Kyoto mechanisms will provide only weak constraints on carbon emissions, reducing the cost of compliance. As a result, there are few rewards for proactively taking the risk of being a technological first-mover, and a resistant strategy that aggressively challenges policy may not be worth the cost in political and social legitimacy.


Politics Society 1998; 26; 337
Capital Contests: National and Transnational Channels of Corporate Influence on the Climate Change Negotiations

In the United States, corporate interests likely to be affected by climate change have made significant efforts to influence discourse over the issue. Fossil fuel interests have engaged in substantial public relations campaigns in the USA, targeting the public in general as well as policymakers, to highlight scientific uncertainties concerning global warming and emphasize the high economic costs of curbing emissions. More broadly they have attempted to construct global warming as the invention of antibusiness environmental extremists, while the UN is often depicted as a threat to American freedom and prosperity.


Social Problems, Vol. 50, No. 3. (Aug., 2003), pp. 348-373.
Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change
Policy


Although a diverse array of anti-environmental forces operates in the United States (e.g.,Austin 2002; Helvarg 1994), the American conservative movement is a critical segment of this countermovement (e.g., Austin 2002; Luke 2000; McCright and Dunlap 2000). While Timothy Luke (2000) suggests that opposition to global environmental policy-making in general and the ICyoto Protocol in particular comes from a varied conglomerate of conservative groups (e.g., wise use, property rights, etc.), we (McCright and Dunlap 2000) argue that conservative think tanks are the most influential anti-environmental countermovement organizations at the national level.


A key reason is that pursuit of environmental protection often involves government action that is seen as threatening economic libertarianism, a core element of conservatism. Yet, most environmental protection up to the present-such as regulations designed to control air or water pollution-was accomplished without posing a major threat to industrial capitalism, despite protests from the corporate sector.


Growing concern over global warming clearly poses a threat to the conservative movement's ideology and material interests. Specifically, the characterization of global warming as a major problem and the consequent possibility of an internationally binding treaty to curb carbon dioxide emissions are seen as direct threats to sustained economic growth, the free market, national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations-key goals promoted by the conservative movement. Given the success of the conservative movement in other policy areas in recent years (Blumenthal 1986; Diamond 1995; Stefancic and Delgado 1996), it seems reasonable to assume that the conservative movement would vigorously oppose internationally binding climate policies by challenging the environmental community's claims about the seriousness of global warming
and consequent need for ameliorative action.



Key players in the U.S. oil industry disagree over a plan to send workers to rallies to protest proposed climate-change legislation, industry groups said.

The American Petroleum Institute wrote to member companies asking them to stage up to 22 rallies protesting legislation that the API said would increase taxes on the oil industry and create a carbon-trading scheme, the Financial Times reported.
Link


Exxon Mobil Corp., the biggest U.S. oil company, said the Obama administration’s plan to treat carbon dioxide as a health hazard is the “least efficient and least transparent” way to cut emissions tied to climate change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s declaration yesterday on regulating carbon dioxide signals rules that would be more harmful to the economy and the oil industry than pending climate legislation in Congress, said Kenneth Cohen, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for public and government affairs.

“I don’t believe the EPA was set up to deal with a problem of this type, a regulatory challenge of this type,” Cohen said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Dallas bureau. “Every industrial activity will be affected by the decision.”
Link

The above are simply a quick taste of clear information regarding the bias pumped out by those industries and political parties opposed to taking action on climate change. Enjoy.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

How exactly are you going to extract billions of tons of CO2 from the air? Have we seen patents from Big Oil?

Also I think it would be far cheaper to just start using other sources of energy instead of keeping on burning oil and then cleaning up afterwards. We'll run out of oil relatively soon anyways and will then need those other sources..

Anyways nice idea for a conspiracy. Maybe it wasn't as ridiculous as I first thought. One problem remains thou.. AGW is real.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]


Funny, the graph for the proposed emissions reductions matches the decline of Peak Oil, oil production (Peak Oil equalling Peak Emissions). Why have a treaty to reduce emissions when they will go down on their own?

I don't know if GW (what does AGW stand for?) is real or not, but wouldn't a carbon "tax" be a convenient manner for disguising the reality of Peak Oil?

"Why are we getting less oil, why is our living standard falling so dramatically?"
"Because of those damn taxes! If only we didn't have so many taxes!"

This doesn't solve anything unto itself, but combined with various famines and vax programs, that might do the trick.

[edit on 8-12-2009 by jcrash]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Ad Hominem, and Straw Man. Try refuting the actual content. Did you even clicky any of it?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by Animal
 


Ad Hominem, and Straw Man. Try refuting the actual content. Did you even clicky any of it?


Sure my critique of PP is an Ad Hominem. My list of cited material however direct refutes his claims and explains an alternate point of view. Did you read my post? I suggest you do.
How can you be so sure it is not YOU who is being played?

[edit on 8-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Wow, judging from some of the answers here, Exxon & Shell's latest attack campaign is working


Seriously guys, just look at the melting polar icecaps and coral bleeching...both signs of a warming planet. Nature by itself can't be responsible for it, because it didn't change in any way by itself that could cause those effects. So it's us...


YOu completely skipped some of my prior answers tot eh coral issues. How about you take it from the IPCC?


Email 1257546975
Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.




The tobacco industry is the biggest funder of anti-healthcare-reform movements...so why is anyone surprised that the oil companies are funding campaigns against the climate change group?


Red Herring. Please respond to the actual the documents in the OP.



No one in his right mind can seriously believe burning carbon fuel is good for the planet. If you do, you're either stupid, or only interested in getting cheap energy without thinking about the longterm costs.


We've already discussed the economics of the issue. Please respond to some of that.


When the sea levels rise (and they are!!), and the Netherlands and large parts of Asia sink under water, don't forget to send them a "you're welcome" note, because their blood will be on your hands.


We've already discussed MWP, please respond to some of that!!!!

[edit on 8-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


"His" "Claims"?!?!?!?!

Please follow thru and read the actual documents before posting next time. It makes you look silly. And we've already discussed how the elites fund both sides of the wars. Read the thread.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by Animal
 


"His" "Claims"?!?!?!?!

Please follow thru and read the actual documents before posting next time. It makes you look silly. And we've already discussed how the elites fund both sides of the wars. Read the thread.


I looked at the Prison Planet article you cited. I was having fun laughing at the sources cited by the Prison Planet article all being Prison Planet products.

I have also read the thread.

So tel me, after the critiques I have gotten from you about not paying attention or reading what has been posted why have you still, after posting three posts directed to me, not responded the the MATERIAL that I posted?

Again I ask you, how do you know it is not YOU that is being played?



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


So youre saying that The “Copenhagen Communiqué” is the product of Infowars / PrisonPlanet?

'Infowars is biased against AGW (and they're 9/11 conspracy theoriests), therefore what they're saying is untrue and irrelelvent!'

Recall our past discussion about binaryism. It now seems to be preventing you from seeing both sides on this distinct issue/



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by Animal
 


So youre saying that The “Copenhagen Communiqué” is the product of Infowars / PrisonPlanet?


Nope.



'Infowars is biased against AGW (and they're 9/11 conspracy theoriests), therefore what they're saying is untrue and irrelelvent!'


Partially. Partially the fact that Inforwars and Alex Jones is a mouth piece for Libertarian Right leaning policy makers and shakers. That is why I posted the links I did. To try to show you that there exists a bias on the issue.

For example I posted this:


The oil companies perceived climate change as a major threat, and, as predicted by
Gladwin and Walter, three of them adopted assertive responses; Exxon adopted
an adversarial political strategy while BP and Shell pursued more accommodative
and technologically oriented strategies


So yes you do see Shell on the list you provided but how many other Oil Companies? The only ones you see are those who invested in alternatives, and these companies do not represent that majority. This highlights a key flaw in the argument put forth in the article you cited.

Then there is this:


In the United States, corporate interests likely to be affected by climate change have made significant efforts to influence discourse over the issue. Fossil fuel interests have engaged in substantial public relations campaigns in the USA, targeting the public in general as well as policymakers, to highlight scientific uncertainties concerning global warming and emphasize the high economic costs of curbing emissions. More broadly they have attempted to construct global warming as the invention of antibusiness environmental extremists, while the UN is often depicted as a threat to American freedom and prosperity.


Also pretty clear in what it is saying. And while companies like BP (Shell) may be putting stock into the obvious changing market, others are not.

There was also this, which I would relate directly to AJ, IW, and PP:


Although a diverse array of anti-environmental forces operates in the United States (e.g.,Austin 2002; Helvarg 1994), the American conservative movement is a critical segment of this countermovement (e.g., Austin 2002; Luke 2000; McCright and Dunlap 2000). While Timothy Luke (2000) suggests that opposition to global environmental policy-making in general and the ICyoto Protocol in particular comes from a varied conglomerate of conservative groups (e.g., wise use, property rights, etc.), we (McCright and Dunlap 2000) argue that conservative think tanks are the most influential anti-environmental countermovement organizations at the national level.

A key reason is that pursuit of environmental protection often involves government action that is seen as threatening economic libertarianism, a core element of conservatism. Yet, most environmental protection up to the present-such as regulations designed to control air or water pollution-was accomplished without posing a major threat to industrial capitalism, despite protests from the corporate sector.

Growing concern over global warming clearly poses a threat to the conservative movement's ideology and material interests. Specifically, the characterization of global warming as a major problem and the consequent possibility of an internationally binding treaty to curb carbon dioxide emissions are seen as direct threats to sustained economic growth, the free market, national sovereignty, and the continued abolition of governmental regulations-key goals promoted by the conservative movement. Given the success of the conservative movement in other policy areas in recent years (Blumenthal 1986; Diamond 1995; Stefancic and Delgado 1996), it seems reasonable to assume that the conservative movement would vigorously oppose internationally binding climate policies by challenging the environmental community's claims about the seriousness of global warming
and consequent need for ameliorative action.




Recall our past discussion about binaryism. It now seems to be preventing you from seeing both sides on this distinct issue/


And not you?

Still refusing to read the content I brought to the table to counter the claim your source is making? Eh, no big surprise. You tend to rant and not discuss.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
AND apparently you overlooked the fact that the CRU is partnered with Big Oil.

reply to post by Animal
 


I didnt know there was Libertarian leaning policy makers, well mor ehtan a tiny handful. In reality there are many who pay lip service, but as the Rep version of the healthcare bill is hardly better than the Dems, um yeah.

Well all know and expect for Big Oil to be against AGW, but here I've posted new information about them playing both sides (like tyrannical elites always do) and here youre still resorting to the same arguments you surely had before the new info. Whats your point? And you complained I didnt respond to your 'content' (which was exactly what you did first).

Right, we're all 'anti-environment'. Uh huh. More like anti-Environmental Extremist. As I've begged you so many time sin the past, PLEASE provide concise solutions and policies to the 'crisis' you like to scream about. How will we power our vehicles, do we need a global government to enforce things, how many people should starve, and so on. You always dodge this after shouting about the 'threat' for hours on end.

Any 10 year old schooled in the AGW issue alreayd knows about your Big Oil content.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
AND apparently you overlooked the fact that the CRU is partnered with Big Oil.

reply to post by Animal
 


I didnt know there was Libertarian leaning policy makers, well mor ehtan a tiny handful. In reality there are many who pay lip service, but as the Rep version of the healthcare bill is hardly better than the Dems, um yeah.

Well all know and expect for Big Oil to be against AGW, but here I've posted new information about them playing both sides (like tyrannical elites always do) and here youre still resorting to the same arguments you surely had before the new info. Whats your point? And you complained I didnt respond to your 'content' (which was exactly what you did first).

Right, we're all 'anti-environment'. Uh huh. More like anti-Environmental Extremist. As I've begged you so many time sin the past, PLEASE provide concise solutions and policies to the 'crisis' you like to scream about. How will we power our vehicles, do we need a global government to enforce things, how many people should starve, and so on. You always dodge this after shouting about the 'threat' for hours on end.

Any 10 year old schooled in the AGW issue alreayd knows about your Big Oil content.


And once again you rant and avoid the content I bring.

SHELL may be partnering with those investigating climate change but SHELL does not = BIG OIL mate. They are one of many.

When I said Libertarian I was typing without thinking, I meant to say the libertarian economic policies of the right wing, just like in the content I posted, go figure. . .

I have also offered solutions, here is one I have offered you before: end free-trade.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


I wouldn't worry about it. This past week they've been spamming the boards with the same emails from the CRU facility in a vain attempt to make it seem like these scientists orchestrated some massive conspiracy with tree rings and graph manipulation. Let's just ignore the fact that there is far more evidence of global warming and climate change even if you completely remove all of the CRU reports from the picture.

This is all politically motivated. They hate anything left leaning and even if you don't support cap and trade, apparently you're delusional because you take the research of the vast majority of scientists over some random conservative's high school equations and frantic Google searching that 'prove' otherwise.

I almost replied in the other thread showing 'Big Oil' behind the CRU data (which is untrue if you actually read what the emails are about. Do they even know what a studentship is? Yeah, the whole thing is definitely bankrolled by Shell if they may partially fund a program to pay for student internships, which we all know are incredibly expensive
)

I've even gone as far as to list and link sources for them for energy companies that run 100% alternative energy right now, as well as ways for them to reduce their carbon footprint to nearly nothing, but the posts go completely ignored. Know why? Because it solves the problem immediately and that's no fun when your team hasn't won yet!

I guess it's easier to sit in a chair and complain about the possibility of the system hurting you than it is to get yourself free of the system that's thoroughly screwing you over right now. Go figure!



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
I have also offered solutions, here is one I have offered you before: end free-trade.


We dont even have free-trade. All those groups such as NAFTA, WTO, etc are all managed trade, controlled by the multinational oligarch corporations. But I dont recall you saying that to me anyways, and how is that going to...

Oh, yeah, I do recall you saying that now. What was your version of it again? We've already discussed the weakness of such/




top topics



 
33
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join