Hey CM, this is off topic but I have to ask for your response to Netanyahu's latest calls.
Are you still backing the Israeli government?
Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
Are you still backing the Israeli government?
I use far less than I used to.So when are you going to give up your use of fossil fuels and their products. Don't be an eco hypocrite
50 years of predictions that the climate apocalypse is nigh
For the past two weeks in Glasgow, Scotland, world leaders have gathered at COP 26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to listen to the same message: Disaster is just around the corner.nypost.com
More importantly, I don't pretend we aren't fucking up the environment.
franky's history of racism and support for terrorists and anti-semitic hate crimes
quoting the Palestinian Centre for Human Right who are linked to the PLPF terrorist organization
quoting btselem an anti-semitic website who was caught hiring holocaust deniers
franky again quoting from btselem who hires holocaust deniers using the anti-semitic term "Jewish Supremacy
racist towards me saying blacks cannot defend israel ignoeing the fact that over 180,000 black people reside in israel which includes 25,000
black americans. quoting jewish voice for peace that supports terrorism and was busted citing neo nazi and white supremacists websites
claiming that black persons cannot support Israel that have over 180,000 black people living there
justifying terrorists attacks against israeli and jewish civilians
supports the anti-jewish vandalizing of a business owned by a Jewish man and making excuses for it
promoting the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region.
apologist for hamas the terror group
defending the PLFP terror group
refuses to condemn anti-jewish hate crimes commited by anti-jewish gangs
refuses to condemn the anti-semitic attacks on jewish shoppers at a supermaket in Thornhill, Ontario Canada.
franky continues to sink deeper and deeper into anti-jewish terrorism. franky defends a mapping project in Massacheusets
anti-jewish activists create a list of jewish organzations for anti-semitic purposes
more anti-black racism
supports and defend anti-semitic actions at the University of Wisconsin
franky butturt at the definition of anti-semitism because he is one
franky defends a terrorist that was killed in a shootout with the IDF
defends hamas claiming that it is islamophobic to call hamas terrrorists
defending an anti-semitic terror supporting rally
defending a terrorist attack against a security guard(security guards are civilians)
still refuses to condemn hamas
post anti-black racism to deflect rom his support for terrorists and anti-jewish hate crimes
justified the murder of a security guard
franky resorts to slander defending the Fatah organization who admitted that they are a terrorist organization
continue to lie and slander
still lying and slander
still defending hamas
franky saying the intafada(terrorism and against israelis and jews) is resistance
defending a voilent anti-semitic organization "Within our lifetime"
defending hamas again
defending Rabab Abdulhadi, a San Francisco State University associate professor with a history of expressing support for terrorist groups
defending PFLP Terrorist organization
defending the Fatah organization that recently called for terrorist attacks against Israel
Franky defending the terrorists that were killed after shooting at the IDF
Franky defending an anti-jewish hate crime vandalism
citing an anti-semitic, terrorist supporter Sana Saeed
defending terrorist organzation calling themselves the lions den
refusing to condemn anti-jewish hate crimes in New York
Justifying the murder of civilians
franky supports the right of palestinians to commit terrorism against jews and israelis
justifying the killing of Israeli Civilians
franky's continued justification for terrorist attacks
promoting a youtube channel that promotes holocaust denialism, anti-semitic claims of jewish control, the khazaria myth, and terror apologism
franky used an anti-semitic term "Jewish Supremacy" which is used by white supremacists, neo nazis and other anti-jewish types to demonize jews
refusing to condemn an antisemitic grafiti on a Barcelona synagogue
which means he defend hate crime vandalism of synagogues
still refusing to condemn anti-jewish hate crimes in Barcelona and instead post content from CJPME An anti-jewish organization whose members
defaced products in a Jewish Store and claim jews are more loyal to Israel than Canada
evidence of CJPME inciting anti-jewish hate
franky defending terrorists in gaza launching rockets at civilians which are terrorism and war crimes
franky refuse to coondment anti-jewish hate crimes in an Australian University and instead linke to a hamas linked website
Franky refuse to condemn Hezbollah thugs who blasted a Hezebollah song at a Jewish School and instead resort to gaslighting
franky says terrorist supporters targetting jewish children with terrorist music is free speech
franky posting an image promoting terrorism and ethnic cleansing of Jews
franky defends terrorists shooting at a mother driving her kids
franky continues to justify terrorism against civilians driving cars with israeli plates and calling a 15 year old child a militant
franky calling civilian Jews terrorists
quoting the Palestinian Centre for Human Right who are linked to the PLPF terrorist organization
quoting btselem an anti-semitic website who was caught hiring holocaust deniers
franky again quoting from btselem who hires holocaust deniers using the anti-semitic term "Jewish Supremacy
racist towards me saying blacks cannot defend israel ignoeing the fact that over 180,000 black people reside in israel which includes 25,000
black americans. quoting jewish voice for peace that supports terrorism and was busted citing neo nazi and white supremacists websites
claiming that black persons cannot support Israel that have over 180,000 black people living there
justifying terrorists attacks against israeli and jewish civilians
supports the anti-jewish vandalizing of a business owned by a Jewish man and making excuses for it
promoting the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region.
apologist for hamas the terror group
defending the PLFP terror group
refuses to condemn anti-jewish hate crimes commited by anti-jewish gangs
refuses to condemn the anti-semitic attacks on jewish shoppers at a supermaket in Thornhill, Ontario Canada.
franky continues to sink deeper and deeper into anti-jewish terrorism. franky defends a mapping project in Massacheusets
anti-jewish activists create a list of jewish organzations for anti-semitic purposes
more anti-black racism
supports and defend anti-semitic actions at the University of Wisconsin
franky butturt at the definition of anti-semitism because he is one
franky defends a terrorist that was killed in a shootout with the IDF
defends hamas claiming that it is islamophobic to call hamas terrrorists
defending an anti-semitic terror supporting rally
defending a terrorist attack against a security guard(security guards are civilians)
still refuses to condemn hamas
post anti-black racism to deflect rom his support for terrorists and anti-jewish hate crimes
justified the murder of a security guard
franky resorts to slander defending the Fatah organization who admitted that they are a terrorist organization
continue to lie and slander
still lying and slander
still defending hamas
franky saying the intafada(terrorism and against israelis and jews) is resistance
defending a voilent anti-semitic organization "Within our lifetime"
defending hamas again
defending Rabab Abdulhadi, a San Francisco State University associate professor with a history of expressing support for terrorist groups
defending PFLP Terrorist organization
defending the Fatah organization that recently called for terrorist attacks against Israel
Franky defending the terrorists that were killed after shooting at the IDF
Franky defending an anti-jewish hate crime vandalism
citing an anti-semitic, terrorist supporter Sana Saeed
defending terrorist organzation calling themselves the lions den
refusing to condemn anti-jewish hate crimes in New York
Justifying the murder of civilians
franky supports the right of palestinians to commit terrorism against jews and israelis
justifying the killing of Israeli Civilians
franky's continued justification for terrorist attacks
promoting a youtube channel that promotes holocaust denialism, anti-semitic claims of jewish control, the khazaria myth, and terror apologism
franky used an anti-semitic term "Jewish Supremacy" which is used by white supremacists, neo nazis and other anti-jewish types to demonize jews
refusing to condemn an antisemitic grafiti on a Barcelona synagogue
which means he defend hate crime vandalism of synagogues
still refusing to condemn anti-jewish hate crimes in Barcelona and instead post content from CJPME An anti-jewish organization whose members
defaced products in a Jewish Store and claim jews are more loyal to Israel than Canada
evidence of CJPME inciting anti-jewish hate
franky defending terrorists in gaza launching rockets at civilians which are terrorism and war crimes
franky refuse to coondment anti-jewish hate crimes in an Australian University and instead linke to a hamas linked website
Franky refuse to condemn Hezbollah thugs who blasted a Hezebollah song at a Jewish School and instead resort to gaslighting
franky says terrorist supporters targetting jewish children with terrorist music is free speech
franky posting an image promoting terrorism and ethnic cleansing of Jews
franky defends terrorists shooting at a mother driving her kids
franky continues to justify terrorism against civilians driving cars with israeli plates and calling a 15 year old child a militant
franky calling civilian Jews terrorists
I'll move this to one of basketcase's Israel threads.
I figured this would cause a copy and paste meltdown.
Lets get back on with your climate denial, how about you explaining why 65 countries having record warm August is an alarmist conspiracy instead.
Has Sea Level Data Been Faked? ‘Corrections’ Employed To Show Rapid Acceleration
A stable current global sea level record has apparently been “corrected” to show an accelerated rise since the 1990s.
A few months ago we highlighted a new study indicating satellite observations reveal Antarctic-wide ice shelves gained +661 Gt of mass from 2009 to 2019. [emphasis, links added]
Instead of reporting on these actual observations, agenda-driven scientists have long been using an approach relying on assumptions of an unrealistic “steady state” or fixed calving flux (instead of real-world time-variable observations).
An assumption-based assessment approach allows estimates of a net Antarctic ice shelf change to go from a +661 Gt mass gain to a -20,028 Gt mass loss over this 11-year period (Andreasen et al., 2023).
This is a more than 30-fold distortion of what actual observations indicate.
“Correcting” stable sea levels to show accelerated rise
A few years ago Australian scientists exposed a similar assumption-based assessment approach in estimating trends in global sea level change.
According to long-term global tide gauge data (from the 100 tidal gauges with more than 80 years of continuous data), sea levels have been gradually rising at rates of about +0.25 mm/year with no perceptible acceleration since the early 20th century.
Likewise, when satellite altimeters were originally deployed in the 1990s and early 2000s, they consistently did “not show any sea level rise.”
A lack of sea level rise didn’t advance the narrative, of course.
So instead of reporting on what the actual satellite observations showed, arbitrary, subjective assumptions were employed to “correct” the data to show sea levels have been rising at rates of 3.2 mm/year instead.
The GMSL satellite altimeter data showed no rising trend for the first five years of the record. The first five years were then “corrected” to show +2.3 mm/year of sea level rise.
The GRACE satellite data showed there was a -0.12 mm/yr sea level fall trend from 2003 to 2008. After “correction,” this was changed to a +1.9 mm/year sea level rising trend.
“…the untampered results, not showing the desired sea level rise, were replaced by ‘corrected’ results. ntil August 4, 2011, the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite was showing less than +0.976 mm/year sea level rise since 2004. A few months later, thanks entirely to further corrections, the same data set showed +2.97 mm/year of sea level rise.”
Image Source: Parker and Ollier, 2016
Satellite data reveal coastal land area has been expanding seaward since 1984
A 2021 study (Mao et al., 2021) lends support to what the untampered satellite altimetry data indicated − prior to the assumption-based corrections.
Today there are high-resolution satellite images available from Google Earth clearly demarcating global-scale decadal shoreline change since the 1980s.
And, despite the “accelerating sea level rise” claims, the 1984-2019 satellite data show coastlines have been expanding by a net +0.26 m/year.
According to Mao and colleagues, Australia’s coasts have been growing at a rate of +0.10 m/year since 1984. Asia’s coasts have been expanding +0.64 m/year. Europe’s coasts are accreting +0.45 m/year. And the African continent has been observed expanding at a +0.31 m/year clip.
The only two continents where coasts have not been observed expanding in recent decades are South America, 0.00 m/year, and North America, -0.29 m/year.
Image Source: Mao et al., 2021
A 2019 global-scale analysis of 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans revealed that 89% were either stable or growing in size and that no island larger than 10 ha (and only 1.2% of islands larger than 5 ha) had decreased in size since the 1980s (Duvat, 2019).
Likewise, the globe’s beaches have been growing by 0.33 m/year since 1984 (Luijendijk et al., 2018).
In a press release for a 2016 paper on coastal land area changes from 1985 to 2015, scientists acknowledged this:
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world“ – BBC
Claims of dangerously accelerating sea level rise posing an imminent global threat to coasts in the satellite altimetry era may not just be inaccurate. They may be fake.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Has Sea Level Data Been Faked? 'Corrections' Employed To Show Rapid Acceleration - Climate Change Dispatch
A stable current global sea level record has apparently been “corrected” to show an accelerated rise since the 1990s.
A few months ago we highlighted a new study indicating satellite observations reveal Antarctic-wide ice shelves gained +661 Gt of mass from 2009 to 2019. [emphasis, links added]
Instead of reporting on these actual observations, agenda-driven scientists have long been using an approach relying on assumptions of an unrealistic “steady state” or fixed calving flux (instead of real-world time-variable observations).
An assumption-based assessment approach allows estimates of a net Antarctic ice shelf change to go from a +661 Gt mass gain to a -20,028 Gt mass loss over this 11-year period (Andreasen et al., 2023).
This is a more than 30-fold distortion of what actual observations indicate.
“Correcting” stable sea levels to show accelerated rise
A few years ago Australian scientists exposed a similar assumption-based assessment approach in estimating trends in global sea level change.
According to long-term global tide gauge data (from the 100 tidal gauges with more than 80 years of continuous data), sea levels have been gradually rising at rates of about +0.25 mm/year with no perceptible acceleration since the early 20th century.
Likewise, when satellite altimeters were originally deployed in the 1990s and early 2000s, they consistently did “not show any sea level rise.”
A lack of sea level rise didn’t advance the narrative, of course.
So instead of reporting on what the actual satellite observations showed, arbitrary, subjective assumptions were employed to “correct” the data to show sea levels have been rising at rates of 3.2 mm/year instead.
The GMSL satellite altimeter data showed no rising trend for the first five years of the record. The first five years were then “corrected” to show +2.3 mm/year of sea level rise.
The GRACE satellite data showed there was a -0.12 mm/yr sea level fall trend from 2003 to 2008. After “correction,” this was changed to a +1.9 mm/year sea level rising trend.
“…the untampered results, not showing the desired sea level rise, were replaced by ‘corrected’ results. ntil August 4, 2011, the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite was showing less than +0.976 mm/year sea level rise since 2004. A few months later, thanks entirely to further corrections, the same data set showed +2.97 mm/year of sea level rise.”
Image Source: Parker and Ollier, 2016
Satellite data reveal coastal land area has been expanding seaward since 1984
A 2021 study (Mao et al., 2021) lends support to what the untampered satellite altimetry data indicated − prior to the assumption-based corrections.
Today there are high-resolution satellite images available from Google Earth clearly demarcating global-scale decadal shoreline change since the 1980s.
And, despite the “accelerating sea level rise” claims, the 1984-2019 satellite data show coastlines have been expanding by a net +0.26 m/year.
According to Mao and colleagues, Australia’s coasts have been growing at a rate of +0.10 m/year since 1984. Asia’s coasts have been expanding +0.64 m/year. Europe’s coasts are accreting +0.45 m/year. And the African continent has been observed expanding at a +0.31 m/year clip.
The only two continents where coasts have not been observed expanding in recent decades are South America, 0.00 m/year, and North America, -0.29 m/year.
Image Source: Mao et al., 2021
A 2019 global-scale analysis of 709 islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans revealed that 89% were either stable or growing in size and that no island larger than 10 ha (and only 1.2% of islands larger than 5 ha) had decreased in size since the 1980s (Duvat, 2019).
Likewise, the globe’s beaches have been growing by 0.33 m/year since 1984 (Luijendijk et al., 2018).
In a press release for a 2016 paper on coastal land area changes from 1985 to 2015, scientists acknowledged this:
“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world“ – BBC
Claims of dangerously accelerating sea level rise posing an imminent global threat to coasts in the satellite altimetry era may not just be inaccurate. They may be fake.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Has Sea Level Data Been Faked? 'Corrections' Employed To Show Rapid Acceleration - Climate Change Dispatch
MSN Pushes Rice, Sugar, Tomato Apocalypse – As Crops Set Records
This morning, the MSN news feed, which is displayed to millions of people when they open a new Internet tab, prominently displayed an article titled, “The climate crisis is here, the ecosystem is starting to collapse.”
Embedded in the usual debunked claims of worsening extreme weather were claims that climate change is devastating crop production around the world. [emphasis, links added]
In particular, the article singled out rice, sugar, and tomato production as particularly ravaged by climate change. The objective facts, however, show just the opposite.
Fake claims of tomato shortages.
According to the article, “India’s Burger King has taken tomatoes off their burgers after this year’s crop failed and the cost of tomatoes has become prohibitively expensive.”
An anecdotal claim that Burger King is taking tomatoes off its hamburgers in some locations does not prove that climate change is destroying tomato crops.
Instead, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), global tomato production is faring quite well. In fact, the UNFAO reports that global tomato production has set new records an amazing 10 years in a row.
Sugar data is record-sweet, not sour.
The article continued, “The world’s largest sugar trader expects the coming season to see a deficit for the sixth consecutive year as unfavorable crop forecasts in India will reduce global stocks of the sweetener.
‘The world will be as close to running out of sugar as it can be,’ said Mauro Virgino, trading intelligence lead at Alvean, a trading house controlled by Brazilian producer Copersucar SA, in a recent interview.”
Claims by a trading professional who has a financial stake in leading people to expect higher sugar prices are neither evidence of declining sugar production nor evidence of any climate change impact.
Fortunately, the UNFAO also keeps meticulous data for world sugar production. According to the UNFAO, 2019 saw the largest global sugar crop in history.
All 10 of the largest sugar crops in history occurred during the past 10 years. During the past 15 years, global sugar production has increased by more than 33 percent.
Rice crops continue to set records.
Also, claimed the article,
All three of the three largest crop years occurred during the past three years. All five of the five largest crop years occurred during the past five years. All 10 of the 10 largest crop years occurred during the past 10 years.
The article focuses special attention on rice yields in India, China, and Myanmar. However, the growth in India’s rice production is even more impressive than the growth in global rice production.
India has smashed its rice production records six years in a row. In China, 2021 was the second-highest rice crop in history. All six of China’s highest-ever rice crops were produced in the past six years.
Myanmar rice production is declining – an aberration compared to the global trend – but that is because of Myanmar’s horrible domestic political situation, not climate change.
As reported by Human Rights Watch,
The overall global crop picture is amazing.
It is not surprising that MSN, when cherry-picking its worst-possible scenarios to claim a global crop crisis created by climate change, cannot find even one or two outliers to support its misinformation.
The objective fact, as shown definitively by United Nations crop data, is that crop production of nearly all kinds throughout virtually the entire world is setting impressive and life-providing new records nearly every year.
This is happening in concurrence with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and modestly warming temperatures.
Read more at Climate Realism
MSN Pushes Rice, Sugar, Tomato Apocalypse – As Crops Set Records - Climate Change Dispatch
This morning, the MSN news feed, which is displayed to millions of people when they open a new Internet tab, prominently displayed an article titled, “The climate crisis is here, the ecosystem is starting to collapse.”
Embedded in the usual debunked claims of worsening extreme weather were claims that climate change is devastating crop production around the world. [emphasis, links added]
In particular, the article singled out rice, sugar, and tomato production as particularly ravaged by climate change. The objective facts, however, show just the opposite.
Fake claims of tomato shortages.
According to the article, “India’s Burger King has taken tomatoes off their burgers after this year’s crop failed and the cost of tomatoes has become prohibitively expensive.”
An anecdotal claim that Burger King is taking tomatoes off its hamburgers in some locations does not prove that climate change is destroying tomato crops.
Instead, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), global tomato production is faring quite well. In fact, the UNFAO reports that global tomato production has set new records an amazing 10 years in a row.
Sugar data is record-sweet, not sour.
The article continued, “The world’s largest sugar trader expects the coming season to see a deficit for the sixth consecutive year as unfavorable crop forecasts in India will reduce global stocks of the sweetener.
‘The world will be as close to running out of sugar as it can be,’ said Mauro Virgino, trading intelligence lead at Alvean, a trading house controlled by Brazilian producer Copersucar SA, in a recent interview.”
Claims by a trading professional who has a financial stake in leading people to expect higher sugar prices are neither evidence of declining sugar production nor evidence of any climate change impact.
Fortunately, the UNFAO also keeps meticulous data for world sugar production. According to the UNFAO, 2019 saw the largest global sugar crop in history.
All 10 of the largest sugar crops in history occurred during the past 10 years. During the past 15 years, global sugar production has increased by more than 33 percent.
Rice crops continue to set records.
Also, claimed the article,
The UNFAO, however, reports an entirely different story. According to the UNFAO, global rice production set a new record in 2021, the latest year for which data is available.
All three of the three largest crop years occurred during the past three years. All five of the five largest crop years occurred during the past five years. All 10 of the 10 largest crop years occurred during the past 10 years.
The article focuses special attention on rice yields in India, China, and Myanmar. However, the growth in India’s rice production is even more impressive than the growth in global rice production.
India has smashed its rice production records six years in a row. In China, 2021 was the second-highest rice crop in history. All six of China’s highest-ever rice crops were produced in the past six years.
Myanmar rice production is declining – an aberration compared to the global trend – but that is because of Myanmar’s horrible domestic political situation, not climate change.
As reported by Human Rights Watch,
Blaming climate change for Myanmar’s declining crop production is giving a pass to political brutality and human rights abuses.
The overall global crop picture is amazing.
It is not surprising that MSN, when cherry-picking its worst-possible scenarios to claim a global crop crisis created by climate change, cannot find even one or two outliers to support its misinformation.
The objective fact, as shown definitively by United Nations crop data, is that crop production of nearly all kinds throughout virtually the entire world is setting impressive and life-providing new records nearly every year.
This is happening in concurrence with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and modestly warming temperatures.
Read more at Climate Realism
MSN Pushes Rice, Sugar, Tomato Apocalypse – As Crops Set Records - Climate Change Dispatch
You can't tell the difference between science and anti science disinformation, can you?
There is proven manipulation of data. Just like how the IPCC got rid of he Medieval Warm Period when they adopted Mann's phony hockey stick study.There is no doctoring of data.
There is no unaccounted urban heat island effect.
Climatologists are smarter than that.
Right wingers? Not so much.
Its pretty clear that you will keep saying the water is fine until the end.
Even the Oil Giants are fully aware of the Impact of their Fossil Fuels on Climate Change. Yet they were the bad actors behind the scene to sow confusion and hence spread the fuel for the mainly right wing Climate Change Deniers:
Exxon minimized climate change internally after conceding that fossil fuels cause it
Executives at ExxonMobil continued in recent years to raise doubts internally about the dangers of climate change and the need to cut back on oil and gas use, even though the company had previously conceded publicly that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
The effort to minimize concerns about climate change under former chief executive Rex Tillerson, who led Exxon from 2006 until 2016, was happening at the same time that scientists at the company were modeling troubling increases in carbon dioxide emissions without big reductions in fossil fuel consumption, the Journal reported. The newspaper cited internal company documents that were part of a New York state lawsuit and interviews with former executives.
Exxon, along with other oil and gas companies, is a defendant in multiple state and local lawsuits that accuse it of misleading the public about climate change and the dangers of fossil fuels.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a group that is trying to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in driving climate change, says the documents obtained by Journal are likely to be used against Exxon in court.
"As communities pay an ever-greater price for our worsening climate crisis, it's more clear than ever that Exxon must be held accountable to pay for the harm it has caused," Wiles said in a statement.
Earlier investigations found Exxon worked for decades to sow confusion about climate change, even though its own scientists had begun warning executives as early as 1977 that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were warming the planet, posing dire risks to human beings.
By the late 1980s, concern was growing domestically and overseas that fossil fuel use was heating the planet, increasing the risks of extreme weather. In response, the Journal reported, Exxon executive Frank Sprow sent a memo to colleagues warning that if there were a global consensus on addressing climate change, "substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur."
According to the Journal, Sprow wrote: "Any additional R&D efforts within Corporate Research on Greenhouse should have two primary purposes: 1. Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal). 2. Preserve Exxon's business options."
Sprow told the Journal that the approach in his memo was adopted as policy, in "what would become a central pillar of Exxon's strategy," the paper said.
A few years after the memo, Exxon became the architect of a highly effective strategy of climate change denial that succeeded for decades in politicizing climate policy and delaying meaningful action to cut heat-trapping pollution.
CLIMATE
Exxon climate predictions were accurate decades ago. Still it sowed doubt
An Exxon spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the company has repeatedly acknowledged that "climate change is real, and we have an entire business dedicated to reducing emissions — both our own and others."
Last year, Exxon said it plans to spend about $17 billion on "lower emission initiatives" through 2027. That represents, at most, 17% of the total capital investments the company plans to make during that period.
Exxon recently said it is buying a company called Denbury that specializes in capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them into oil wells to boost production. It's also planning to build a hydrogen plant and a facility to capture and store carbon emissions in Texas.
The company could spend more on "lower emission initiatives" if it sees "additional supportive government policies and new and improved technology," the spokesperson said.
Many scientists and environmental activists have questioned the feasibility of the carbon capture technology Exxon is relying on. Previous carbon capture projects by other companies have either been hugely over budget, or have closed. They contend that the more effective solution is to make deep cuts in fossil fuel use.
Investors seemed unfazed by the latest revelations about Exxon. The company's stock price was up almost 2% on Thursday afternoon.
Scientists with the United Nations recently warned that the world is running out of time to prevent global warming that would cause more dangerous impacts, like storms and droughts. Climate scientists say the world needs to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Currently, it is headed for about 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming.
Exxon minimized climate change internally after conceding that fossil fuels cause it
Executives at ExxonMobil continued in recent years to raise doubts internally about the dangers of climate change and the need to cut back on oil and gas use, even though the company had previously conceded publicly that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
The effort to minimize concerns about climate change under former chief executive Rex Tillerson, who led Exxon from 2006 until 2016, was happening at the same time that scientists at the company were modeling troubling increases in carbon dioxide emissions without big reductions in fossil fuel consumption, the Journal reported. The newspaper cited internal company documents that were part of a New York state lawsuit and interviews with former executives.
Exxon, along with other oil and gas companies, is a defendant in multiple state and local lawsuits that accuse it of misleading the public about climate change and the dangers of fossil fuels.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a group that is trying to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in driving climate change, says the documents obtained by Journal are likely to be used against Exxon in court.
"As communities pay an ever-greater price for our worsening climate crisis, it's more clear than ever that Exxon must be held accountable to pay for the harm it has caused," Wiles said in a statement.
Earlier investigations found Exxon worked for decades to sow confusion about climate change, even though its own scientists had begun warning executives as early as 1977 that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels were warming the planet, posing dire risks to human beings.
By the late 1980s, concern was growing domestically and overseas that fossil fuel use was heating the planet, increasing the risks of extreme weather. In response, the Journal reported, Exxon executive Frank Sprow sent a memo to colleagues warning that if there were a global consensus on addressing climate change, "substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur."
According to the Journal, Sprow wrote: "Any additional R&D efforts within Corporate Research on Greenhouse should have two primary purposes: 1. Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal). 2. Preserve Exxon's business options."
Sprow told the Journal that the approach in his memo was adopted as policy, in "what would become a central pillar of Exxon's strategy," the paper said.
A few years after the memo, Exxon became the architect of a highly effective strategy of climate change denial that succeeded for decades in politicizing climate policy and delaying meaningful action to cut heat-trapping pollution.
CLIMATE
Exxon climate predictions were accurate decades ago. Still it sowed doubt
An Exxon spokesperson said in an emailed statement that the company has repeatedly acknowledged that "climate change is real, and we have an entire business dedicated to reducing emissions — both our own and others."
Last year, Exxon said it plans to spend about $17 billion on "lower emission initiatives" through 2027. That represents, at most, 17% of the total capital investments the company plans to make during that period.
Exxon recently said it is buying a company called Denbury that specializes in capturing carbon dioxide emissions and injecting them into oil wells to boost production. It's also planning to build a hydrogen plant and a facility to capture and store carbon emissions in Texas.
The company could spend more on "lower emission initiatives" if it sees "additional supportive government policies and new and improved technology," the spokesperson said.
Many scientists and environmental activists have questioned the feasibility of the carbon capture technology Exxon is relying on. Previous carbon capture projects by other companies have either been hugely over budget, or have closed. They contend that the more effective solution is to make deep cuts in fossil fuel use.
Investors seemed unfazed by the latest revelations about Exxon. The company's stock price was up almost 2% on Thursday afternoon.
Scientists with the United Nations recently warned that the world is running out of time to prevent global warming that would cause more dangerous impacts, like storms and droughts. Climate scientists say the world needs to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Currently, it is headed for about 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming.
No, the Medieval Warm Period was local, not global.
Same with the US having a warm 1936, not global.
Science deniers are clearly pretty easy to fool.
If you wanted to check the science, the MWP happened as a result of a change to the AMOC, the same current they say may shut down entirely anytime in the next few decades.
Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm sure you also think they faked the moon landing.
Do you ever listen to yourself? Can you even talk about these conspiracy theories in public or are they only for late night rage posting?
Why Won’t Greenpeace Admit That Wind Turbines May Be Killing Whales?
Who cares about whales? Whales might be dying because of sonar surveying, but Greenpeace simply ignores the science that doesn’t suit it.
So far last year, 71 whales have washed up dead on the shores of New England and neighboring states.
The rate seems to have risen in recent years along with a growth in the number of offshore wind turbines. [emphasis, links added]
A small group of concerned citizens have started to campaign against the turbines on behalf of the whales, and the journalist Michael Shellenberger has made a short film about their efforts called Thrown to the Wind.
The evidence gathered by the scientists in the film is far from conclusive: it’s a correlation that could be a coincidence. But it’s not a mad idea that wind farms threaten whales.
For a start, the industry has meant increased traffic in the areas where whales feed, which could well have led to more collisions between whale and ship.
More worryingly, the sonar surveying that precedes wind-farm deployment – to map the seabed and its geology – creates a loud, continuous banging noise that could be disorienting or stressful for the whales.
Shellenberger’s documentary shows scientists apparently recording far higher noise levels from the survey ships, and at greater distances than are permitted by the authorities.
Moreover, when it comes to investigating what killed each whale, the US government relies on a non-profit organization called the Atlantic Marine Conservation Society.
This, the film reveals, has several board members connected to the wind industry – and to the wind developer Equinor in particular.
You or I might take the view that we should wait and see if better evidence emerges that wind turbines are killing whales.
But the big environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace – which in its early years, remember, ran a Save the Whales campaign – don’t believe in waiting for evidence.
They revere the ‘precautionary principle’, the whole point of which is that industries should be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
Lack of definitive evidence must never be used to excuse a potentially devastating environmental vandal.
So has Greenpeace enthusiastically joined the campaign against offshore wind farms, demanding a precautionary pause till we can be sure they’re not killing the whales? Er, no. Quite the reverse.
When somebody tweeted about the issue this week, Greenpeace was quick to dismiss it, sounding like the most shameless corporate toady and directing readers to a statement on its website:
The organization, you see, long ago stopped caring much about conservation and became obsessed (when not managing its nine-figure annual budgets) with carbon dioxide.
This brought it great riches in grants and made it a crony of the big companies it used to rail against, in this case, Big Wind. Thus does the world turn.
In recent years whale numbers have boomed, thanks to protection from whaling. Humpbacks now gather in pods hundreds strong and in many areas are back to population levels last seen before whaling began.
So a few deaths may not matter that much, or may just be an inevitable byproduct of a larger population. Perhaps that’s Greenpeace’s view.
But the same is not true of North Atlantic right whales, once probably the most common species in that ocean.
The number of these great, dark, slow sea buffalos has fallen to dangerously low levels. There are fewer than 340 left, and falling.
It’s therefore neglectful of the US government – let alone Greenpeace – to be so blasé about the possibility, however remote, of the wind industry killing or even disturbing them.
In any case, it is not just whales that wind turbines kill.
The slaughtering by their spinning blades of bats and eagles and other birds of prey on land, and of gannets and divers at sea, is well documented.
Satellite-tagged eagles in southern Scotland now avoid places with wind farms, denying themselves large areas of hills. Yet there is barely a peep from Big Green about this.
The irritation that Greenpeace exudes in its comments on the whale issue suggests that it is not enjoying being hoisted by its own precautionary petard.
Top image via YouTube/screencap
Read more at Spectator UK
Why Won't Greenpeace Admit That Wind Turbines May Be Killing Whales? - Climate Change Dispatch
Who cares about whales? Whales might be dying because of sonar surveying, but Greenpeace simply ignores the science that doesn’t suit it.
So far last year, 71 whales have washed up dead on the shores of New England and neighboring states.
The rate seems to have risen in recent years along with a growth in the number of offshore wind turbines. [emphasis, links added]
A small group of concerned citizens have started to campaign against the turbines on behalf of the whales, and the journalist Michael Shellenberger has made a short film about their efforts called Thrown to the Wind.
The evidence gathered by the scientists in the film is far from conclusive: it’s a correlation that could be a coincidence. But it’s not a mad idea that wind farms threaten whales.
For a start, the industry has meant increased traffic in the areas where whales feed, which could well have led to more collisions between whale and ship.
More worryingly, the sonar surveying that precedes wind-farm deployment – to map the seabed and its geology – creates a loud, continuous banging noise that could be disorienting or stressful for the whales.
Shellenberger’s documentary shows scientists apparently recording far higher noise levels from the survey ships, and at greater distances than are permitted by the authorities.
Moreover, when it comes to investigating what killed each whale, the US government relies on a non-profit organization called the Atlantic Marine Conservation Society.
This, the film reveals, has several board members connected to the wind industry – and to the wind developer Equinor in particular.
You or I might take the view that we should wait and see if better evidence emerges that wind turbines are killing whales.
But the big environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace – which in its early years, remember, ran a Save the Whales campaign – don’t believe in waiting for evidence.
They revere the ‘precautionary principle’, the whole point of which is that industries should be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
Lack of definitive evidence must never be used to excuse a potentially devastating environmental vandal.
So has Greenpeace enthusiastically joined the campaign against offshore wind farms, demanding a precautionary pause till we can be sure they’re not killing the whales? Er, no. Quite the reverse.
When somebody tweeted about the issue this week, Greenpeace was quick to dismiss it, sounding like the most shameless corporate toady and directing readers to a statement on its website:
‘No supporting evidence’ – a phrase you never heard Greenpeace use about genetically modified crops in its long campaign against them.
The organization, you see, long ago stopped caring much about conservation and became obsessed (when not managing its nine-figure annual budgets) with carbon dioxide.
This brought it great riches in grants and made it a crony of the big companies it used to rail against, in this case, Big Wind. Thus does the world turn.
In recent years whale numbers have boomed, thanks to protection from whaling. Humpbacks now gather in pods hundreds strong and in many areas are back to population levels last seen before whaling began.
So a few deaths may not matter that much, or may just be an inevitable byproduct of a larger population. Perhaps that’s Greenpeace’s view.
But the same is not true of North Atlantic right whales, once probably the most common species in that ocean.
The number of these great, dark, slow sea buffalos has fallen to dangerously low levels. There are fewer than 340 left, and falling.
It’s therefore neglectful of the US government – let alone Greenpeace – to be so blasé about the possibility, however remote, of the wind industry killing or even disturbing them.
In any case, it is not just whales that wind turbines kill.
The slaughtering by their spinning blades of bats and eagles and other birds of prey on land, and of gannets and divers at sea, is well documented.
Satellite-tagged eagles in southern Scotland now avoid places with wind farms, denying themselves large areas of hills. Yet there is barely a peep from Big Green about this.
The irritation that Greenpeace exudes in its comments on the whale issue suggests that it is not enjoying being hoisted by its own precautionary petard.
Top image via YouTube/screencap
Read more at Spectator UK
Why Won't Greenpeace Admit That Wind Turbines May Be Killing Whales? - Climate Change Dispatch
This is the most stupid claim in the history of stupid anti science bullshit.
The crap that you fall for is just shocking.
Do you really believe this stuff and think you're smart or are you just trolling with stupider and stupider posts to see how far you can take it?
Here's your guy, Patrick Moore claiming how safe water with glyphosate is to drink but refusing to drink it on camera.
He said 'I'm not an idiot'.
