The Royal Society vs. Exxon’s astroturf

[AmateurFlix]

Bull Shit. Exxon's lies get a lot more leverage because they hire professional firms like Fleshman Hillard and others that have made a science of playing the media. All they need is a legitimate sounding "study" from a legitimate sounding journal and the media swallows it hook line and sinker. The media reports it as a scientific controversy and the scientific community keeps saying there is no controversy.

I don't know where you read all these published accounts of dissent. They don't appear in my local newspaper. They don't appear on my local TV news. I rarely read about them in magazines. The media coverage seems to portray it as being nearly unanimous, and almost never mentions the controversy at all.

Let me add to this (and I think this is where we will agree) if the proposed solution was to live like the Amish (and I know some environmentalists support this) I'd be screaming "FUCK THAT...."

Agreed. Although surprisingly the Amish are making use of solar panels at a much higher rate than any other group in the world Surprised the heck out of me when I learned that, apparently it's not the electricity they are opposed to, but rather the electric wires making them reliant on the outside world.

[EonBlue]

You have any real studies to back that up? So far you have only found ONE (that hasen't even started yet) and in the video they say C02 causes warming they just don't know how much. Well, that is what I've been saying this entire fucking time.

The CERN study is based on research done by Henrik Svensmark.

The SKY experiment

Sure CO2 may cause warming. The question is how much and how much contributed by man. So far the evidence suggests that we need not cripple the economy for the tiny portion contributed by man. There is no runaway greenhouse effect in our future. It would have already happened a long time ago.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of CO2′ will have ‘little impact’ on temps” Watts Up With That?

No they are not. About 1/2 of them are base on real quantifiable measurements.

What quantifiable measurements?

Do you have a PhD in climatology? Are you a scientist? What are you qualifications? You studied this? In what context?

No. But I do have a university degree in earth sciences which included courses on atmospshere and climate. I understand the basics of this stuff much better than the average person including Al Gore.

I have been following this debacle for almost 20 years and have been on both sides of the fence.

What are your qualifications?

Smug and condescending is acting like you know better than every single scientific body of national or international standing.

No, smug and condescending relates to how you deal with others on an individual basis. I don't know better than any scientific body but referring to others who might does not make me smug or condescending.

Who is being the alarmist?

You are. The economy is already being adversely affected by bad policy based on inconclusive science. Yet the climate models of the alarmists so far have failed.

[NobleSavage]

The CERN study is based on research done by Henrik Svensmark.

The SKY experiment

Sure CO2 may cause warming. The question is how much and how much contributed by man. So far the evidence suggests that we need not cripple the economy for the tiny portion contributed by man. There is no runaway greenhouse effect in our future. It would have already happened a long time ago.

Ok, so you found one study that might cast doubt? Since there are literally THOUSANDS of studies done on this every year wouldn't it be great if there were a literature review or a synthesis report that looked at ALL the data and made some conclusions? Oh, that's right the most respected journal in the world DID do that.

Maybe the Journal of Science got it wrong? It's possible, nobody is perfect. How about we bring in a few other countries because the Science Journal is kinda USA centric. Oh yeah, that is what the IPPC report was.

But we all know how the other countries in the world want to bring down the US and force socialism on us, so why don't we commission our own National Academy of Science to come up with a literature review and policy recommendations. Oh, that is right they did.

Well, maybe all these synthesis reports just don't have the latest data. Well, maybe we should do it one more time just to be sure? Oh, yeah, the Copenhagen conference just did and the results are fresh off the press. 2500 participants from 80 countries, 1400 scientific presentations. We are talking an all star line up from Yale, Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge, Tokyo, Beijing.

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years - because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I don't doubt that there is the occasional study that casts doubt on this. But the preponderance of the evidence over and over and over again shows that you are just wrong.

Ok, you have a university degree in earth science so I guess you understand how authority of citation works? In science as you know, the number of other scientists who cite you work is what lends your findings authority. And where your work is cited is also very, very, important. Not all journals have the same weight.

It's the same model that Google uses for page rank, they just copied the science model. So please let me know the names of your publications and I'll check into the weight of your authority on this issue.

In the mean time your straw man arguments and cherry picking of data does the world no good.

[AmateurFlix]

Why would you cite evidence of their failure as proof of their competency?

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice.

This tells me that they lack a firm understanding of the subject being studied, or else it wouldn't be "progressing faster than was expected", it would instead match their predictions.

[GForce]

There is a new emerging trend that blames the meltdown of wall street on computer generated trading models devoid of human gut feel or intervention or just plain common sense. Could the same thing happen with climate models? Too much reliance on computers. All you have to do is leave one small factor out or have a measure be off slightly and what result?

Regardless, there are all kinds of things happening throughout the planet that are deemed to be bad by the scientific community. So do we continue to do nothing or do we attempt to curtail what we believe the causes of such changes. You would thing that if curtailing would yield new technology regardless of cost in the long term it would be beneficial to mankind.

[NobleSavage]

Why would you cite evidence of their failure as proof of their competency?


This tells me that they lack a firm understanding of the subject being studied, or else it wouldn't be "progressing faster than was expected", it would instead match their predictions.

Sorry, I was being lazy and copypasted form a press release or something. The actual report reads:

Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many
aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC
range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving
beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary
society and economy have developed and thrived
These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean emperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme
climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will
likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible
climatic shifts.

Climate Change Congress – University of Copenhagen

[NobleSavage]

Regardless, there are all kinds of things happening throughout the planet that are deemed to be bad by the scientific community. So do we continue to do nothing or do we attempt to curtail what we believe the causes of such changes. You would thing that if curtailing would yield new technology regardless of cost in the long term it would be beneficial to mankind.

Bingo. We can completely take GW out of the equation and make sound policy choices concerning the environment. I see it as long term planning, we need to foster a homegrown industry that has a future. We need to lock in the IP and patents on this new tech and then sell it to the world.

[GForce]

Although I cannot write with such authority as NS and AF. I can posit about how humans seem to have changed little. At one time, I believe, during the middle ages they thought tomatoes were poisonous and none would eat them. Even after somebody took the plunge and ate one and survived such a poisonous fruit there were still those that chose to believe that they were still poisonous.

So perhaps someday in the not so distant future when we are looking for higher ground, when Venice is an underwater attraction or where I live now becomes beachfront property there will be those amongst us that will still not believe and perhaps attribute such phenomenoms to some arcane conspiracy by some secret society.

[GForce]

Bingo. We can completely take GW out of the equation and make sound policy choices concerning the environment. I see it as long term planning, we need to foster a homegrown industry that has a future. We need to lock in the IP and patents on this new tech and then sell it to the world.

It took world war II and a militant progressive machine from Germany to push this country to recruit scientists from all over the world to accelerate the development of the nuclear bomb and a few other things that tilted the scale to the west's favor. What will it take to light that fire under our asses now?

[EonBlue]

Ok, so you found one study that might cast doubt? Since there are literally THOUSANDS of studies done on this every year wouldn't it be great if there were a literature review or a synthesis report that looked at ALL the data and made some conclusions? Oh, that's right the most respected journal in the world DID do that.

Maybe the Journal of Science got it wrong? It's possible, nobody is perfect. How about we bring in a few other countries because the Science Journal is kinda USA centric. Oh yeah, that is what the IPPC report was.

But we all know how the other countries in the world want to bring down the US and force socialism on us, so why don't we commission our own National Academy of Science to come up with a literature review and policy recommendations. Oh, that is right they did.

Well, maybe all these synthesis reports just don't have the latest data. Well, maybe we should do it one more time just to be sure? Oh, yeah, the Copenhagen conference just did and the results are fresh off the press. 2500 participants from 80 countries, 1400 scientific presentations. We are talking an all star line up from Yale, Berkeley, Oxford, Cambridge, Tokyo, Beijing.

No, there a lot more studies that cast doubt, but why should I do your homework for you?

And I understand the "consensus" and the positions of the journals and societies. But that still doesn't mean they can't be wrong since all of their positions are based on the assumption that CO2 is the main driver for warming and that man is the main driver for CO2. On top of that their conclusions are based on flawed computer models that are based on those assumptions. The fact that people who are way smarter than you or me still have enough doubts to look for other causes, despite the positions of all the "highly regarded" journals, etc., should tell you something.

Besides, if those journals and societies are run by people who share your mindset, what chance do you think a paper that goes against the grain has of being published? Slim to none I'd bet. Just look at that recent Copenhagen conference where the Canadian polar bear expert was denied entrance because they didn't like what he had to say. There's your consensus for you. The alarmists treat sceptics like they are infidels trying to get into to Mecca.

Anyways, here is a good paper from a reputable source though I'm sure you'll look for an Exxon connection somewhere:

APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

I don't doubt that there is the occasional study that casts doubt on this. But the preponderance of the evidence over and over and over again shows that you are just wrong.

I'm not really in the position to be wrong about any of this stuff because I'm just referencing the work of other people. If you feel they are wrong you will have to take it up with them.

These sites have lively comment sections that you can join in on to try and convince some sceptics:

Watts Up With That?
http://www.climateaudit.org/

In the mean time your straw man arguments and cherry picking of data does the world no good.

The only thing that won't be doing the world any good are bogus cap and trade scams based on inconclusive science.

Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many
aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC
range of projections. Many key climate indicators are already moving
beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary
society and economy have developed and thrived
These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean emperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme
climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will
likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible
climatic shifts.

Actually, most of these indicators are coming in well below the IPCC projections. These claims of extreme and rapid changes are all part of the alarmism that is being funded and driven in part by insurance companies and companies like GE, whose CEO is one of Obama's financial advisors, who have a lot to gain from mandated CO2 reduction. The IPCC has failed to get even their short-term projections right yet we are supposed to reconfigure our entire economy based on their long-term projections? That's just plain crazy.

[NobleSavage]

APS Physics | FPS | Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

From your own organization:

American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

July 22, 2008 - APS Reaffirms Climate Change Position

I'll touch on your other points as I get time today.

[EonBlue]

Just an FYI:

A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research.

“Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean” Watts Up With That?

[NobleSavage]

Just an FYI:



“Surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean” Watts Up With That?

Right, but you are cherry picking. Have you read the other several thousand studies in other more prominent journals? I haven't. I'm not a scientist and I barely understand the studies. However, for me it's not emotional or political. I just go with the consensuses view of mainstream science. If that changes, I'll change my stance.

For your position to work you need a conspiracy. Which doesn't work because the journals (as you just demonstrated) do accept and publish things that are contrary to the dominant theory.

I know the wingnuts want a conspiracy, it's plainly demonstrated by the hyping of the polar bear dude that got kicked out of the Copenhagen conference. The story seems to confirm the persecution and suppression narrative that the AGW crowd jerks off to.

I have no idea why they chucked out the polar bear dude. I figure the Telegraph is probably only telling part of the story. If you go to his University website, he does not dispute GW, he just thinks there are an abundance of Polar Bears. Ok fine, we have plenty of polar bears... which is insignificant to the general science here.

What I find 100 times more egregious is someone outside corporation trying to manipulate the process. Like Exxon did in 2002. Where was your outrage then?

The head of the international scientific panel on climate change, which has called for urgent action to curb global warming, was deposed yesterday after a campaign by the Bush administration, Exxon-Mobil and other energy companies to get him replaced.

US and oil lobby oust climate change scientist | World news | The Guardian

[whitey]

Yes, because this US need to get the fuck off of fossil fuels for about 1000 reasons. For all the good things about capitalism it sucks at planning much past the next quarter. The fossil fuel industry is a dead end.

On the other hand, the renewal energy sector has an unlimited future. It's small, very entrepreneurial, and the US excels at this kind of thing. Can-do-garage-startups made silicon valley and if we play our cards right we can do the same thing with alt energy. We need a new economic driver to fix the economy and "green" could very well be it.

I'd much rather give the alt energy a level playing field (through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax) than hand out cash grants.

Unfortunately, Waxman-Markey puts entrepreuneurial firms, inside the US, at a significant competitive disadvantage. In Germany and China, there is much more entrepreneurial energy behind renewable energy. If Waxman et. al. passes, the entreprenuerial focus will remain in those two countries and India.

As far as Cap & Trade, I think it is a far less preferable option to alternative policies but better than Waxman-Markey, which is more of an authoritarian economic management bill with a small Cap & Trade component.

[Webby]

Wow, a whole $2.9 million.

The financial level is meaningless unless taken in context.

This funding was thru the "ExxonMobil 2005 Giving Program" (classic bs name!) where 39 organizations in the US were provided $2.9 million by Exxon and where these organizations were allegedly misrepresenting the science of climate change on their websites.

The figure of $2.9 mill was not a summary of all contributions by Exxon towards promoting their agenda, but simply a summary of 39 websites where Exxon have already admitted the level of their funding in their own reports/accounts.

Although this specific instance relates to a sampling of US organization funding, Exxon has similar issues in other countries.

Obviously the total Exxon agenda budget would make that $2.9 mill look like a grain of sand since it involves far more than just 39 websites. This is just another example of how much crap exists on Internet websites which purport to be authoritative.

[AmateurFlix]

I was more getting at the point that attributing public skepticism regarding this topic to the efforts of a handful of oil companies seems very improbable considering those efforts find an extremely limited audience and are almost never published or broadcast by the popular news media, while on the other hand those same venues do publish - and frequently - opinions which seek to validate the theory of GW. Add to that the number of pop culture references which overwhelmingly make reference to the same, doomsday scenario movies involving global warming, etc, which makes any efforts by the anti's seem miniscule in comparison.

If the GW faithful were to have what they seem to want - complete and total censorship of any information which runs contrary to their own message - I sincerely doubt if the level of skepticism would change very much.

[NobleSavage]

If the GW faithful were to have what they seem to want - complete and total censorship of any information which runs contrary to their own message - I sincerely doubt if the level of skepticism would change very much.

And there you have it... the persecution and suppression narrative.

[AmateurFlix]

And there you have it... the persecution and suppression narrative.

And there it is again... an attempt to ridicule the mere mention of scientists with opposing views being suppressed.

[NobleSavage]

And there it is again... an attempt to ridicule the mere mention of scientists with opposing views being suppressed.

They aren't suppressed the get published as EonBlue just demonstrated. If it's good science the journals will publish it. And then from time to time the journals, societies, and various organizations look at the thousands and thousands of studies and take a stance based on the all the evidence.

And I just gave a real example of suppression going on but it was by Exxon and the AGW crowd.

[NobleSavage]

Unfortunately, Waxman-Markey puts entrepreuneurial firms, inside the US, at a significant competitive disadvantage. In Germany and China, there is much more entrepreneurial energy behind renewable energy. If Waxman et. al. passes, the entreprenuerial focus will remain in those two countries and India.

As far as Cap & Trade, I think it is a far less preferable option to alternative policies but better than Waxman-Markey, which is more of an authoritarian economic management bill with a small Cap & Trade component.

I'm not familiar with the legislative specifics of the bill. I'd have to read it to have any kind of opinion. My argument is for the abstract concept of cap and trade if done correctly.

Do you have any specific example of how it hurts small biz? Or where in the bill I should look?