The Science is Settled: Big Oil Openly admits Climate change was real.

[JohnLarue]

Forbes is not a science magazine

.
you did not read the article
you just want to cancel via what you think is the easist way

This was not Forbes data or research , or Forbes conclusion
you apprently are not even capable of identifying who needs to be canceled here

They have corporate clients who advertise.

Oh Boy, they should get jail time for that ???
Imagine the horror of it, a publication that has corporate clients who advertise ???

I did not cherry pick anything. I went to the government website who track the numbers.

six or seven nonsequental years supposidly showing a time series trend ?
its either cherry picked or it represents somthing else , the time axis is months, so again it shows when hurricane season starts
your silly little grapgh did not come with a conclusion or an explanation of what reprresents
In your frantic need to stop blasphomy , you misread it, it is not a sequentical yoy time seris

And stop claiming the inflation numbers are wrong. Unless you can show me the math the government did to account for inflation. It’s a standard formula actually. Stop spouting your jibberish.

Inflation Indexing « Construction Analytics (edzarenski.com)

Consumer Price Index (CPI), tracks changes in the prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services, including food, transportation, medical care, apparel, recreation, housing. This index in not related at all to construction and should not be used to adjust construction pricing.

Long-term construction cost inflation is normally about double consumer price index (CPI).

Never Mind the CPI, the Construction Producer Price Index Is Really Soaring | GlobeSt

Inputs to multifamily residential construction, excluding capital investment, labor, and imports, were up 20.1%. For single family homes, the increase was 20.4%. And non-residential construction? Up 21.5%. At 21.7%, commercial and healthcare was even higher.

another fly in your ointment

You just can not seem to get anything right
This is getting beyond commical and approaching cruel
time to stop embrassing yourself

 

[poker]

.
you did not read the article
you just want to cancel via what you think is the easist way

This was not Forbes data or research , or Forbes conclusion
you apprently are not even capable of identifying who needs to be canceled here


Oh Boy, they should get jail time for that ???
Imagine the horror of it, a publication that has corporate clients who advertise ???



six or seven nonsequental years supposidly showing a time series trend ?
its either cherry picked or it represents somthing else , the time axis is months, so again it shows when hurricane season starts
your silly little grapgh did not come with a conclusion or an explanation of what reprresents
In your frantic need to stop blasphomy , you misread it, it is not a sequentical yoy time seris


Inflation Indexing « Construction Analytics (edzarenski.com)





Never Mind the CPI, the Construction Producer Price Index Is Really Soaring | GlobeSt


another fly in your ointment

You just can not seem to get anything right
This is getting beyond commical and approaching cruel
time to stop embrassing yourself

I read the article actually….

And do you think Car and Drivers car of the Year will go too the biggest advertisers? Funny thing about money. It’s buys things. Like opinions. Like the $2600/day consulting fee from a former MIT professor that you use as source material.

I will repeat it again.

Big Oil admits the climate science has been correct. They knew. You are not allowed to say “Courts don’t determine Climate Science” because it becomes painfully clear you in fact did not read it. That was not a courts ruling.

I’ll tell who doesn’t determine climate science. You! As much as you hate my side… and all your political bias’…. You have been wrong the whole time. A blithering idiot rambling on a hooker board… and not even about hookers. What a waste of life. Seriously, think about what you’ve done.

That parties over. Pack it in. Find another subject to base your personality on. This one is over.

 

[oil&gas]

I will repeat it again.

Big Oil admits the climate science has been correct. They knew. You are not allowed to say “Courts don’t determine Climate Science” because it becomes painfully clear you in fact did not read it. That was not a courts ruling.

What is so astonishing about this change of heart of Big Oil?

So the director of public relations of Exxon upon hearing reports
of results from computer modelling of the impact of CO2 on earth's
temperature responded: "This sucks, people may have second
thoughts at the pump before filling up. Our revenue growth will be
hit big time..." and proceeded to order his subordinates to launch
a campaign on the safety of the company's products. Fast forward
3 decades when everyone is jumping on the climate change wagon
which includes shareholders of the company. The director would be
foolish to say climate science is wrong at the risk of inciting shareholders'
dissent. Other industries like aviation if taken to the court will also
accept climate change like the Big Oil.

 

[JohnLarue]

I read the article actually….

well then, reading and understanding must be two different things for you

And do you think Car and Drivers car of the Year will go too the biggest advertisers?

How long before a climate researcher's grant money stops flowing if he/she publishes a report skeptical of AGW?

Funny thing about money. It’s buys things. Like opinions.

and the price for your opinion was just media propaganda

Like the $2600/day consulting fee from a former MIT professor that you use as source material.

That is likley a bargin considering his accomplishments
Which apprently were impressive enough for him to be invited as an IPCC contributor
Lindzen was not paid for that
He quit in disgust when the Report for Policy makers did not reflect the science

I will repeat it again.

Big Oil admits the climate science has been correct. They knew.

Court testimoney is irelvant to determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis, That is only determined by experimental observation

You are not allowed to say “Courts don’t determine Climate Science”

What in the world is wrong with you ?

you do not get to redefine the scientific method
and you do not get to tell me what is allowed

because it becomes painfully clear you in fact did not read it. That was not a courts ruling.

read the thread headline , the one you started
& then get this through your head
Court testimoney is irelvant to determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis, That is only determined by experimental observation

I’ll tell who doesn’t determine climate science. You! As much as you hate my side… and all your political bias’…. You have been wrong the whole time. A blithering idiot rambling on a hooker board… and not even about hookers. What a waste of life. Seriously, think about what you’ve done.

Oh Boy!

Hows the new religion working out for you ?
get some professional help

That parties over. Pack it in. Find another subject to base your personality on. This one is over.

Science is never settled
I am currently content to continue to highlight your scientifc ignorance, despite some reservations that proving you wrong so many times is getting boring
Yourobstiance will not go unchallenged

I strongly recommned you take some grade 10 science classes to correct your misunderstanding of what validates a scienctific hypothesis
you will find "court testimont" missing from the answer

 

[Frankfooter]

How long before a climate researcher's grant money stops flowing if he/she publishes a report skeptical of AGW?

This argument is idiotic.

1) When Exxon and Shell used the scientists they paid, they came up with the same answers.
2) Larue infers that every country in the world's governments will only fund science that comes up with predetermined results on the climate, which is so incredibly ridiculous, impossible and conspiratorial.
3) Its a character assassination of the type he says is unfair, but this time on 99.9% of climatologists

Exxon's scientists:

 

[poker]

well then, reading and understanding must be two different things for you


How long before a climate researcher's grant money stops flowing if he/she publishes a report skeptical of AGW?

and the price for your opinion was just media propaganda


That is likley a bargin considering his accomplishments
Which apprently were impressive enough for him to be invited as an IPCC contributor
Lindzen was not paid for that
He quit in disgust when the Report for Policy makers did not reflect the science




Court testimoney is irelvant to determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis, That is only determined by experimental observation


What in the world is wrong with you ?

you do not get to redefine the scientific method
and you do not get to tell me what is allowed


read the thread headline , the one you started
& then get this through your head
Court testimoney is irelvant to determining the validity of a scientific hypothesis, That is only determined by experimental observation


Oh Boy!

Hows the new religion working out for you ?
get some professional help



Science is never settled
I am currently content to continue to highlight your scientifc ignorance, despite some reservations that proving you wrong so many times is getting boring
Yourobstiance will not go unchallenged

I strongly recommned you take some grade 10 science classes to correct your misunderstanding of what validates a scienctific hypothesis
you will find "court testimont" missing from the answer

Buts it’s not propaganda. It’s science.

What is so astonishing about this change of heart of Big Oil?

So the director of public relations of Exxon upon hearing reports
of results from computer modelling of the impact of CO2 on earth's
temperature responded: "This sucks, people may have second
thoughts at the pump before filling up. Our revenue growth will be
hit big time..." and proceeded to order his subordinates to launch
a campaign on the safety of the company's products. Fast forward
3 decades when everyone is jumping on the climate change wagon
which includes shareholders of the company. The director would be
foolish to say climate science is wrong at the risk of inciting shareholders'
dissent. Other industries like aviation if taken to the court will also
accept climate change like the Big Oil.

So. It your opinion, if I may paraphrase, that the oil companies opinions are now based on politics and how they may be seen in public.

Which raises the question… what motivated their old opinion that climate change was not being expedited by man? Just good will, and an eagerness to educate us poor schmucks who had fallen for NASA’s political lies?

 

[oil&gas]

Buts it’s not propaganda. It’s science.



So. It your opinion, if I may paraphrase, that the oil companies opinions are now based on politics and how they may be seen in public.

As far as I can tell Exxon never had an (official) opinion that climate
change is real or not. Exxon ended the support of the climate science
research of Martin Hoffert the scientist in AOC's inquiry who supposedly
testified to Exxon's denial of climate change. It was a business decision.
Exxon funded a variety of academic research projects. It is up to them to
decide whether those projects were against their interest. If they terminated
support of my research project I would be pissed off but I wouldn't say they were
anti-science. It may be worthwhile to point out Martin Hoffert's collaboration
with Exxon wasn't ended entirely. He and ExxonMobil along with a number of
scientists from various U.S. and Canadian environmental research institutes
published (2002 or 2003?) at least one more follow up of his earlier papers
supported by Exxon. Go figure out why none of those collaborating scientists
came forth to expose Exxon's oppression of climate science.

Setting a net-zero emission target by 2050 is also a business decision
of Exxon. It has as much to do with science as emission reduction targets
set by Trudeau, Biden and Anthony Albanese.

Which raises the question… what motivated their old opinion that climate change was not being expedited by man? Just good will, and an eagerness to educate us poor schmucks who had fallen for NASA’s political lies?

 

[Frankfooter]

As far as I can tell Exxon never had an (official) opinion that climate
change is real or not.

They did admit the science is correct in court.
Otherwise your statement is correct, Exxon's scientists told them climate change is real and caused by their products but instead of making this public they decided to hire tobacco lobbyists and spent hundreds of millions on disinformation.

 

[JohnLarue]

Buts it’s not propaganda. It’s science.

And one more time, you are not able to tell the difference as highlighted by your thread title

So. It your opinion, if I may paraphrase, that the oil companies opinions are now based on politics and how they may be seen in public.

Companies do not have opinions
They have positions.
Positions detrrmined by customer demand, supply, business development oppourtunities, risk mamangment and advise from public relations and legal personel

Which raises the question… what motivated their old opinion that climate change was not being expedited by man? Just good will, and an eagerness to educate us poor schmucks who had fallen for NASA’s political lies?

I am glad you asked that
A big organization like Exxon Mobil has numerous subsideraries, divisions, domestic & international (e.g Imperial Oil, Esso) etc
Over the years since J.D. Rockerfeller was forced to break up Standard Oil , they have bought and sold more companies than you could possible fathom
Hundreds of them, maybe a thousand

So they have had thousands of scientists over the years in various subs, departments , countries research projects etc
Most advising them CO2 was plant food , with the occassional alarmist producing a report in direct conflict with the previous 20 reports
Then along came JIm Hansen, the IPCC and ever increasing volume of propaganda, a natural turnover of personnel and most importantly, a never ending string of lawsuits.

Sadly they took the path of least resistance.
less courtroom time & $
Exxon Mobil will very likley be selling Fossil Fuels for the rest of your kids / grandkids life
and do not be surprised if a different management team @ Exxon Mobil comes out with a different position when the renewables experiment fails

 

[poker]

And one more time, you are not able to tell the difference as highlighted by your thread title



Companies do not have opinions
They have positions.
Positions detrrmined by customer demand, supply, business development oppourtunities, risk mamangment and advise from public relations and legal personel


I am glad you asked that
A big organization like Exxon Mobil has numerous subsideraries, divisions, domestic & international (e.g Imperial Oil, Esso) etc
Over the years since J.D. Rockerfeller was forced to break up Standard Oil , they have bought and sold more companies than you could possible fathom
Hundreds of them, maybe a thousand

So they have had thousands of scientists over the years in various subs, departments , countries research projects etc
Most advising them CO2 was plant food , with the occassional alarmist producing a report in direct conflict with the previous 20 reports
Then along came JIm Hansen, the IPCC and ever increasing volume of propaganda, a natural turnover of personnel and most importantly, a never ending string of lawsuits.

Sadly they took the path of least resistance.
less courtroom time & $
Exxon Mobil will very likley be selling Fossil Fuels for the rest of your kids / grandkids life
and do not be surprised if a different management team @ Exxon Mobil comes out with a different position when the renewables experiment fails

Some of what say is here is true. And then there is your added speculation. Yes… Co2 is plant food. It’s also a control knob.

The part about “the path of least resistance” is of course, pure speculation… based solely on your personal bias… which you cannot seem to decouple from.

First you pick your side. Then you choose your evidence. Sad.

And while you are likely looking for applause for your detailed explanation…. You failed to answer the question (or avoided it, again).

 

[basketcase]

And one more time, you are not able to tell the difference as highlighted by your thread title
...

I was recently watching a video about conspiracy theories. Though focussed on Qanon, it talked about how some people get so invested in their conspiracies that when the people who started it admit it is untrue, they just dig deeper into their claims simply out of embarrassment.

There is absolutely no doubt among scientists that human produced greenhouse gases are having a noticeable impact on our climate and that those changes will negatively impact society. The only discussions are about how much of an impact we're having and what (if anything) can be done to prevent the worst outcomes.

 

[Frankfooter]

So they have had thousands of scientists over the years in various subs, departments , countries research projects etc

larue is conflating internal research from Exxon scientists with external lobbyists hired to say climate change isn't real.
There is zero evidence that Exxon researchers found anything other than Exxon products cause climate change.

 

[JohnLarue]

Some of what say is here is true. And then there is your added speculation. Yes… Co2 is plant food. It’s also a control knob.

do not be redicolous, our climate is far to complex to be controlled by a trace gas measure in parts per million

The part about “the path of least resistance” is of course, pure speculation… based solely on your personal bias… which you cannot seem to decouple from.

Go to business school. learn something
it is a very logical explaination

First you pick your side. Then you choose your evidence. Sad.

Ah No, The evidence leads to the conclusion.
You just can not decipher evidence from propaganda
Let me guess, you saw the hockey stick and you have been a disciple ever since
Or you saw David Suzuki on the CBC and you were hooked
Please do not admit the moron Justin Trudeau fooled you?

And while you are likely looking for applause for your detailed explanation…. You failed to answer the question (or avoided it, again).

I answered it very well, report after report after report, over time, from different scientists some conficting others in conclusion, buy a new company, their reasearch conflcts with yous , buy a different company three months later, you get research reafirming your research


Its not like thay had one scientist who told them AGW is real and they tossed that report into a safe never to be opened

You can not seem to grasp the fact AGW is a theroy only, it is not a proven and repeatable physical law of nature
Thinking the science is settled is a display of scientific ignorance
Even worse is believely court testomony settles it (as per your thread title)

 

[poker]

do not be redicolous, our climate is far to complex to be controlled by a trace gas measure in parts per million


Go to business school. learn something
it is a very logical explaination



Ah No, The evidence leads to the conclusion.
You just can not decipher evidence from propaganda
Let me guess, you saw the hockey stick and you have been a disciple ever since
Or you saw David Suzuki on the CBC and you were hooked
Please do not admit the moron Justin Trudeau fooled you?



I answered it very well, report after report after report, over time, from different scientists some conficting others in conclusion, buy a new company, their reasearch conflcts with yous , buy a different company three months later, you get research reafirming your research


Its not like thay had one scientist who told them AGW is real and they tossed that report into a safe never to be opened

You can not seem to grasp the fact AGW is a theroy only, it is not a proven and repeatable physical law of nature
Thinking the science is settled is a display of scientific ignorance
Even worse is believely court testomony settles it (as per your thread title)

I have been to business school, thank you.

And “logical explanation” is one thing. The truth is another… nobody gives a shot of your speculation (fantasies) are based in logic. Bottom line is you don’t know.

Don’t worry though…. There are some people who think Trump was cheated out of the election, and will be reinstated soon. You are in good company. And fuck me, you should see their evidence!

 

[oil&gas]

..................................................
There is absolutely no doubt among scientists that human produced greenhouse gases are having a noticeable impact on our climate and that those changes will negatively impact society.

Scientific finding like this has little to no merit. Noticeable impact on climate
could mean more snow storms, one or two more hurricanes in the Gulf of
Mexico yearly and more powerful monsoons hitting India and the Philippines.
While climate change as such can be said to have negative impact on society it takes
prediction of certitude and of more explicit outcomes to incentivize change of
behaviour of world's citizens to reduce carbon footprint voluntarily.

Many years ago I came across people in an environmental consultant
company in Ontario involved in a modelling project undertaken to predict
the impact of growing emission of various pollutants on air quality
in the Pearl River Delta region in southern China. The company employed
some modelling software developed by the U.S. EPA to tackle the project.
From what I remember reliability of the model employed was verified by
comparison of predictions of the distribution of pollutants in various
regions in the past with data collected from monitoring pollution levels.
Don't know what came out of it but I presume the project was likely to be
successful as that little company was getting paid very good money.

For the climate modelling results to be of value it has to provide
us explicit predictions of events past and present. Merely saying
climate will be impacted by rising CO2 is not very enlightening.

The only discussions are about how much of an impact we're having and what (if anything) can be done to prevent the worst outcomes.

To my understanding climate research (climate change modelling I presume) predicted
global carbon emission has to be capped between 2020 and 2030 and reduced by as much
as 40 to 50% or the tipping point (beyond which climate change becomes irreversible) will be hit
within the decade. Climate catastrophe is predicted to follow irreversible climate change. I have
no idea how catastrophic the catastrophe will be like but it seems not bringing children
to the world is the smart thing to do.

 

[Frankfooter]

do not be redicolous, our climate is far to complex to be controlled by a trace gas measure in parts per million

Personal opinions about science are worthless.

Its also like arguing that a cyanide pill couldn't hurt you because its only a trace compound measured in parts per million.
Or alcohol in the blood....

 

[JohnLarue]

an environmental consultant
company in Ontario involved in a modelling project undertaken to predict
the impact of growing emission of various pollutants on air quality

Don't know what came out of it but I presume the project was likely to be
successful as that little company was getting paid very good money.

do you not see the issue when the sucess of a scientific study is determined by amount of money involved ?

Any chance the contracts keep rolling if the modelling shows very little impact on air quality ?

Then you would be talking about a different enviormental consulting company giving the modelling a go

 

[sniper5]

 

[toguy5252]

View attachment 168365

View attachment 168365

You are skeptical because you continue to accept fiction as fact.

"Sorry," the headline of writer Bryan Walsh’s story says, "a TIME magazine cover did not predict a coming Ice Age." He notes that the fake 1977 cover is a doctored version of a cover from 2007 with the same penguin picture but a different title: "The Global Warming Survival Guide."

 

[sniper5]

You are skeptical because you continue to accept fiction as fact.

"Sorry," the headline of writer Bryan Walsh’s story says, "a TIME magazine cover did not predict a coming Ice Age." He notes that the fake 1977 cover is a doctored version of a cover from 2007 with the same penguin picture but a different title: "The Global Warming Survival Guide."

THE CLIMATE CHANGES. That is all. Wtf is wrong with people? Adapt or die.