I am trying to decide if you are really that dumb or just trolling.
The Science is Settled: Big Oil Openly admits Climate change was real.
- Thread starter poker
- Start date
I have no idea what kind of cognitive disconnect is necessary to believe that there is more money in climate research than there is in the oil industry.
How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation
Activists say Democratic climate proposals won’t be able to pass until lawmakers put a stop to oil companies trying to rebrand themselves
www.theguardian.com
And back to the original thread topic.
Big oil admits the science is correct.
JL of course says that they are only saying that for political reason. So, he said it was a quite logical assumption (then edited that part of his reply.) So, if that were true, then Big Oil went to court and lied to federal judge, to protect its own interests. That is what the scarecrow king is telling us. All his charts, and numbers, and graphs told him there is no way the oil companies actually agreed with the science.
So… since John has inadvertently openly admitted he knows the oil companies would lie to us for self preservation, why would I believe anything they have ever said about the science?
And if they are telling the truth now… then they lied about it before. Still, known liars.
I will stick with the consensus of the majority of the scientific community. The current MIT climate science department. NASA.
Big oil admits the science is correct.
JL of course says that they are only saying that for political reason. So, he said it was a quite logical assumption (then edited that part of his reply.) So, if that were true, then Big Oil went to court and lied to federal judge, to protect its own interests. That is what the scarecrow king is telling us. All his charts, and numbers, and graphs told him there is no way the oil companies actually agreed with the science.
So… since John has inadvertently openly admitted he knows the oil companies would lie to us for self preservation, why would I believe anything they have ever said about the science?
And if they are telling the truth now… then they lied about it before. Still, known liars.
I will stick with the consensus of the majority of the scientific community. The current MIT climate science department. NASA.
I don't remember his name but I think that was a politician in B.C. who
got himself into trouble for openly questioning climate change. I think he
was either from the Liberals party or the NDP.
Being a research scientist myself though not in the area of climate
science I can probably provide a more informed opinion if not
answer to the question of whether the science of climate change
which predicts continuing CO2 emission generated by human activities
to be a cause of recent natural disasters and future climate catastrophe.
My response to such a question is merely to say the science is as correct
as the model employed to make the predictions.
It will be helpful if those who want to examine critically
predictions of climate change based on results of
climate modelling would gain some experience in
the science of modelling first. If you already have a
background in chemistry and physics I'd recommend a study
of the basics of statistical mechanics covered in a standard
textbook followed by trying out exercises in 'Computer Simulation
of Liquids' by Allen and Tildesley to pick up the techniques of
modelling in physical science. Completion of these studies won't
qualify you as a climate scientist. Hopefully you may still be sufficiently
enlightened to realise how dinky the kind of climate models like
the one in the Exxon papers that allegedly confirmed climate scientists'
prediction of warming is. I am of the view that it doesn't matter whether
the models of climate change are correct. I don't even think they should
be made relevant to world's environmental policies.
Last edited:
Its all part of the act.
The oil & gas industry is now trying to admit that climate change is happening but its not as bad as things like Germany not having natural gas this winter.
That places like Pakistan would complain about poverty and not the fact that 1/3 of their country is under water due to oil & gas caused climate change.
They already have impacts on climate policies in many
parts of the democratic world. The result so far has been
continuation of rising carbon emission which in all likelihood
will remain the case into the immediate future. The only scenario
wherein climate change predictions are truly relevant and taken
seriously is for the world to prepare for humanity's extinction.
Remember Jimmy Carter's energy program wasn't aimed to
fight climate change. The world doesn't need climate change
to plan ahead to wean itself of fossil fuel and for the transition
to renewable energy.
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand your argument.
You just want to not mention climate change because you think it would sell better to the public?
oops!
townhall.com
Come on, Hurricanes, Get With the Climate Change Program
The Weather Channel notified us on August 31 that Rare Hurricane Season August Shutout Possible.
townhall.com
I have no problem with climate change being an issue openly
discussed or debated. In my view it has been politicised to a point
that further promoting the issue isn't helpful with resolving the real
issues the world is facing.
#1. Climate policy
The underlying assumption is man can control the climate
Which is absurd
Even more bazzar is thinking taxation & central planning are the tools to use
#2 Climate models have been shown to be brutally inaccurate
Tney can not even replicate the past
Using a broken model for any policy is damn foolish
Our understanding of our extremely complex, non-linear, dynamic & chaotic climate system is no where near complete enough to model correctly
#3 Climate model scenarios RCP8.5 have been shown to be impossible to achieve and internally inconsistent
Yet it is the basis for the scary catastrophic climate propaganda
& the basis for politicians to push their climate change agenda which is not about climate
#4. The models are flawed due to the underlying assumption that a trace gas measured in parts per million is the control knob for climate
see #2
So to answer your question directly:
No
Last edited:
yep
imagine the benefit if even a fraction of the resources which have funneled into "Climate Change" had been directed to real world problems such as improved education for 3rd countries or access to clean drinking water
He keeps going back and forth on whether he is way smarter than all those scientists or whether the entire scientific community is part of a conspiracy to turn everyone communist.
Like drinking water for those in Pakistan? Wonder why so many people don't have clean water right now?
You believe the climate policies of Trudeau, Biden and the rest
of the western world would help those without access to safe
drinking water in Pakistan and the rest of the developing world?
Yes, fighting climate change will reduce the impact that extreme weather events and changing climate will have on people living in poverty or in food-insecure places.
They won't help reverse the problems of institutional poverty but they will slow the growth.
(not specifically endorsing specific policies put forward by Biden or Trudeau)
