Unmasking Climate Deception - Fossil Fuel Companies' Deceptions Revealed

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.
....

Well written in regards to the OP and the problem we are facing with ignorance, a lot of it apparently being the willful variety.

originally posted by: jrod
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.

LOL, you first agreed with me and then disagreed not only with me, but even with your first assertion...

You sir, are very confused.

A majority of scientists who don't agree with the AGW claim are not being paid by oil companies to distort the science...

Let me ask you this. Do you have any idea how many scientists work for oil companies?...

Do you have any idea how many scientists work FOR oil companies yet they are AGW proponents?... There are quite a few I assure you.

I can also assure you that everyone who is posting in this thread, even you, has to use oil for one reason or another. Does that prove anything?

How about discussing the SCIENCE itself?... No?... You rather make assumptions that everyone who doesn't get paid by AGW agencies, AGW groups, and even AGW proponents must be wrong meanwhile everyone who gets paid by proponents of the AGW claim must be right...

I have even seen AGW proponents in here claim that because a scientist USED to work for oil companies that his/her statements about climate change are wrong and he/she is somehow still being paid to be against AGW...

a reply to: jrod

It is far different. Cigarettes are a want, not a need. People like to smoke, or become addicted and then just want to smoke. They don't NEED to smoke.

We NEED oil. Oil has allowed us to evolve into the modern world we are now. We are slowly increasing the efficiency of green energy, but we still NEED oil.

Do you think its suspicious that nearly every climate scientist who agrees with AGW is on the government's payroll?

If you were an oil company don't you think you would support the most well known scientist that disagrees with AGW, regardless of whether or not it's true?

I will give you another example, because I have seen you make this comparison many times and it is obviously ingrained really deep into your brain matter...

If the Oil reserves were used up, and the Oil companies just decided one day, "These people are so annoying, it's not even worth it anymore", and stopped drilling...what would happen?

Do some research on the amount of our energy grid that relies on things that are NOT green energy related. Research how many cars, buses, trucks, boats, tractors, manufacturing facilities, etc...rely on oil.

Now think about cigarettes. What would happen if cigarette companies stopped making cigarettes tomorrow. NOTHING!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.
....

Is the answer really that obvious when there is MORE funding for scientists who side with the AGW claim than those who oppose it?

If you were to ignore, like you are, the fact that the AGW scientists have been caught lying ON THE SCIENCE, they have been caught TAMPERING temperature data. They have been caught DELETING raw temperature data, etc, yet they must be right?...

That's like claiming that despite the fact that the majority of GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are wrong, that they must be right...

a reply to: Danke

Nobody thinking rationally is proposing we go cold turkey off oil tomorrow, because it makes no sense. Scientists are calling for annual reductions in CO2 emissions. Don't you think that's entirely different?

We don't NEED to waste as much food, or energy as we do in the USA. What we have is a lot of luxury in this country. Yes, a lot is locked in vital resource needs for the time being, but that doesn't mean more aggressive measures couldn't be taken.

Meh, it's so depressing talking about this stuff in 2015. As has already been pointed out, a lot is already baked into the cake for the next 20-30 years, and yet that's (in my assessment) when we'll be long passed the point of no return.

I realize these debates can go on forever, and neither side will convince the other of much. I'm sure every person passionate about this topic means well. meh

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

Wow! You're quite lost.

Allow me to shut you down real quick (except I know you'll keep pouting in EMOTIONAL CAPS)

That mini ice-age thing, sensational nonsense. Let's look what the scientists actually think about it:
...

Take your garbage elsewhere, and stay on topic.

You didn't shut anything down, sorry to say...

That "scientist" you quoted is giving the "worst case scenario"... And so far the "worse case scenario hasn't panned out.

Again...


Also, notice how your article states many scientists don't agree, but they just name one. Not to mention that the argument put forth to disagree with the new model is to put faith in old models which ARE WRONG...

Oh and btw, before someone tries to use my statements above against me... I know that solar models are different from GCMs, yet GCMs use assumptions and old solar models that "the sun doesn't contribute much to warming and it's simply greenhouse gases which contribute the most"...

in fact, even the greenhouse model as proposed by the AGW proponents is wrong. CO2 is not the major contributor, WATER VAPOR is. And when water vapor levels increase due to a warming of the Earth, which began in the 1600s, natural CO2 levels also change.

Too many people assume that because they see CO2 levels move at present almost unison with temperatures that it must be CO2 is the cause of the warming, when that is not true. It is know that natural CO2 levels change with temperature. Meaning that NATURAL CO2 levels are an effect, and not a cause of temperature changes.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Of course it's different, I was using hyperbole in a theoretical situation to try and open some eyes.

If you want to talk food waste and energy waste that is fine with me. Those are two things that I am very passionate about reducing. This isn't the thread for it though.

The AGW alarmist crowd is putting out 20 new studies everyday about how we are the problem and that it's our fault the world is going to end. Ask yourself two questions...how is that helping the situation, and why is so much propaganda being put out.

This thread is trying to paint a picture like their is some huge big oil funded climate denial movement when in reality there isn't. The fact is that you can go on google news and find HUNDREDS of global warming/climate change alarmist articles EVERY DAY regarding new studies about how we are all going to die.

How is that helping? Like you said, it has already been pointed out that we are all going to die, so why are we spending billions of dollars on climate science research? We need to spend that money on something meaningful like green energy technology/infrastructure.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Take your garbage elsewhere, and stay on topic.

You have no idea what you have just done.

a reply to: Danke

It's just really annoying that you continue to use hyperbole, because it's being used as a talking point in which I'm supposed to take it seriously. You can't have it both ways.

The point is that even in the face of insurmountable change, you can't give up entirely. Even if we don't currently have all the solutions, you can attempt to take it one step at a time, and hope the means arises as you move forward.

Your post is painted as such that it's difficult to tell where the exaggerations end, and what truth can remain. Sorry, I can't take it too seriously.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wow, I can't believe you continue to even try. It's just so ludicrous. .1c is the estimated effect of the "mini ice-age". Let's see your "science" backing up your claims. Oh you don't have any, just ludicrous assertions. There was not just one scientist, I have two sources, with a different individual quoted from each. Would you like more? Okay

Peer-Reviewed Research Says Global Warming will Continue
There have been several studies in recent years investigating what impact another grand solar minimum would have on global surface temperatures, since solar research suggests it's possible we could be due for another extended solar minimum. Generally these studies will run climate model simulations under a given greenhouse gas emissions scenario with stable solar activity, then run the same scenario with the sun going into a grand minimum, and look at the difference in resulting global surface temperature changes.

Using this approach, Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) (PDF available here) estimated that another solar minimum equivalent to the Dalton and Maunder minima would cause 0.09°C and 0.26°C cooling, respectively.

Jones et al. (2012) (PDF available here) arrived at a nearly identical result, with cooling from another Dalton and Maunder minimum at 0.09°C and 0.26°C, respectively. Similarly, a new paper by Anet et al. (2013) found that a grand solar minimum will cause no more than 0.3°C cooling over the 21st century.

Consistent with these previous studies, Meehl et al. (2013) (PDF available here) estimate a Maunder Minimum would cause about 0.26°C cooling, but as soon as solar activity began to rise again, that cooling would be offset by solar warming. This is a key point, because a grand solar minimum would not be a permanent change. These solar minima last for a few decades, but eventually solar activity rises once again. Thus any cooling caused by a solar minimum would only be temporary.

The cooling effect of a grand solar minimum can also be estimated very easily without the aid of climate models, because the change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is directly proportional to the temperature change it causes. Performing this calculation yields the same result as the model-based research: approximately 0.3°C cooling from another Maunder-type grand solar minimum. Click here to see the details behind the calculation.

Link

There you are. Multiple studies over the last 5 years have concluded the same damned thing. The maximum effect is less than the best projections for global warming.

Finally, I don't much like snopes, but this makes a pretty clear case outlining how this nonsense got started. You got fooled. Get over it.

Rumor Has It

Now, this is a big opportunity for you here. Are you going to show you can be an adult and admit you were wrong, or are you going to continue on and on and on with the ALL CAPS emotionally driven nonsense.

a reply to: infolurker

Right because the real agenda behind it is Agenda 21 and their solution is bike trails. I can tell you that there is money ear marked for a bike trail along highway 89 from Gardiner to Livingston, and I ask who is going to ride a bike along that trail in -39 degrees with a foot of snow and ice????

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Many of the issues involved with the modeling is simply the sampling rate for their data.

Think of it as the difference between HiFi audio and an mp3. The IPCC is essentially trying to reconstruct a song from fragmented data points while political activists (from all sides) are screaming in their ear.

Furthermore many of their models require turning data into variable dependent (Carbon) functions and then linearizing (like only using the positive values for the function, y(squared)=x).

The problem is incredibly complex and the models clearly need a lot of work as the real temperatures are falling outside reasonable margins of error.


Further, the insistence on average temperatures as being a valid gauge may backfire as it is a highly misleading statistic.

-FBB

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wow, I can't believe you continue to even try. It's just so ludicrous. .1c is the estimated effect of the "mini ice-age". Let's see your "science" backing up your claims. Oh you don't have any, just ludicrous assertions. There was not just one scientist, I have two sources, with a different individual quoted from each. Would you like more? Okay

Peer-Reviewed Research Says Global Warming will Continue
There have been several studies in recent years investigating what impact another grand solar minimum would have on global surface temperatures, since solar research suggests it's possible we could be due for another extended solar minimum. Generally these studies will run climate model simulations under a given greenhouse gas emissions scenario with stable solar activity, then run the same scenario with the sun going into a grand minimum, and look at the difference in resulting global surface temperature changes.

Using this approach, Feulner & Rahmstorf (2010) (PDF available here) estimated that another solar minimum equivalent to the Dalton and Maunder minima would cause 0.09°C and 0.26°C cooling, respectively.

Jones et al. (2012) (PDF available here) arrived at a nearly identical result, with cooling from another Dalton and Maunder minimum at 0.09°C and 0.26°C, respectively. Similarly, a new paper by Anet et al. (2013) found that a grand solar minimum will cause no more than 0.3°C cooling over the 21st century.

Consistent with these previous studies, Meehl et al. (2013) (PDF available here) estimate a Maunder Minimum would cause about 0.26°C cooling, but as soon as solar activity began to rise again, that cooling would be offset by solar warming. This is a key point, because a grand solar minimum would not be a permanent change. These solar minima last for a few decades, but eventually solar activity rises once again. Thus any cooling caused by a solar minimum would only be temporary.

The cooling effect of a grand solar minimum can also be estimated very easily without the aid of climate models, because the change in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is directly proportional to the temperature change it causes. Performing this calculation yields the same result as the model-based research: approximately 0.3°C cooling from another Maunder-type grand solar minimum. Click here to see the details behind the calculation.

Link

There you are. Multiple studies over the last 5 years have concluded the same damned thing. The maximum effect is less than the best projections for global warming.

Finally, I don't much like snopes, but this makes a pretty clear case outlining how this nonsense got started. You got fooled. Get over it.

Rumor Has It

Now, this is a big opportunity for you here. Are you going to show you can be an adult and admit you were wrong, or are you going to continue on and on and on with the ALL CAPS emotionally driven nonsense.

You do realize that the estimates of a maunder minimum cooling effect from your studies would cancel out a large portion of the measured warming right?

-FBB

Interesting documentary on research done by Denmark team concerning cosmic rays and weather. Sadly no-one is interested in real science, UN wants their 250 billion a year world tax, banks want to trade carbon derivatives and big oil wants to rid the world of coal so they can profit billions by selling their gas to electric utilities companies.

Everybody be a winner except the taxpayer and the environment again.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

out of curiosity, what is your alternative plan?

You sure always take the side of bad guys

What about releasing hidden energy technology

Oh yeah you'll just say it doesn't exist

a reply to: glend

Interesting documentary on research done by Denmark team concerning cosmic rays and weather.

Anything you find particularly interesting about it?

Sadly no-one is interested in real science

Are you sure? Are you aware of what the IPCC has looked at in terms of cosmic rays and weather (not to mention climate)?

a reply to: justQ

Oh yeah you'll just say it doesn't exist

And... You'll say it does? Why?

a reply to: Phage

Anything you find particularly interesting about it?

The coverage of low clouds, not high, determines the amount of energy the earths surface receives from the sun. There is a strong correlation between low cloud coverage and cosmic rays. Increased cosmic rays causes greater cloud coverage which causes global cooling. When the sun is more magnetically active it blocks cosmic rays from reaching the earths surface, thus less clouds, global warming.

Are you sure? Are you aware of what the IPCC has looked at in terms of cosmic rays and weather (not to mention climate)?

IPCC head Pachauri was too busy sexually harassing his 29-year-old research analyst to look into cosmic waves!

a reply to: glend

There is a strong correlation between low cloud coverage and cosmic rays.

Are you sure?

When the sun is more magnetically active it blocks cosmic rays from reaching the earths surface, thus less clouds, global warming.

Maybe, or not. Has the Sun been more "magnetically active" in the past 30 years? Doesn't seem so.

IPCC head Pachauri was too busy sexually harassing his 29-year-old research analyst to look into cosmic waves!

What are cosmic waves?