La Villa Spa
Toronto Escorts

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

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,617
1,751
113
Ghawar
Climate scientists fly more than other researchers, first global study suggests

by Cardiff University
Oct, 2020

Climate change researchers, especially professors, fly more than other researchers—but are also more likely to have taken steps to reduce or offset their flying, a new study has found.


The large, international survey of more than 1,400 university researchers was carried out by the UK Centre for Climate and Social Transformation (CAST), which is coordinated by Cardiff University.

A follow-up experiment with more than 350 researchers found that providing information about the impacts of aviation and support for workplace policies increases intentions to fly less.

The large-scale study—the first of its kind to survey climate academics about their travel for conferences, fieldwork and meetings—is published in the journal Global Environmental Change.


Director of CAST Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, who led the study, said the findings were "unexpected" but said it also suggested "knowledge alone is not enough" to tackle global warming.


"Our findings highlight that climate scientists, like many other professionals, can struggle to square their environmental commitments with competing professional and personal demands, and academia itself is not doing enough to change this culture," she said.

"Crucially, our research demonstrates the need for policies and ways of working to encourage and enable low-carbon travel and use of virtual alternatives—something which is already happening in light of COVID-19.


"Travel restrictions have required businesses, including universities, to replace a lot of physical travel with virtual interaction, such as online conferencing. These virtual options can be just as effective as face-to-face meetings, but at a fraction of the cost, as well as being more accessible for those with caring commitments."


Flying is one of the most carbon-emitting actions and there have been growing calls from both within and outside the research community for scientists, and in particular climate researchers, to do more to curb their flying so their crucial message on the need to reduce aviation emissions is not undermined.

This study found "significantly" higher levels of flying among climate change researchers for work than researchers from other disciplines. The data indicated climate experts take about five flights per year, while non-climate researchers took four. Climate and sustainability experts conduct more fieldwork, but even accounting for this, their international travel was still higher. It also found that levels of flying rose with job seniority.


Climate researchers did report higher levels of awareness and concern about the impact of aviation on climate change and as such were more likely to offset their flights, use alternative modes of travel or avoid travel. For example, 29% of climate researchers chose not to travel to a work event because of the carbon footprint of the travel, compared to 5% of other researchers.


However, the study found practical factors like family commitments and availability of low-carbon options were more important in predicting scientists' actual flying behavior.

"Those with the most knowledge of all—climate change professors—fly more than any other group. Our results strongly suggest knowledge alone is not enough to change workplace travel," said Professor Whitmarsh.


Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester and former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said it made for "uncomfortable" reading.


"This paper must be a catalyst for rapid change. We need to take a long hard look in the mirror, reflect on our research, and rapidly transition to an academia fit for the 21st Century. Perhaps then governments, businesses and wider civil society would take more note of our research and conclusions," said Professor Anderson, who was not involved in this research.

The findings are released as the CAST Centre today launches its Sustainability Charter—its commitment to a low-carbon research culture.


The charter seeks to recognize that climate change researchers have a particular responsibility to confront their environmental impact and seek out transformative solutions to climate change and other issues. For example, online conferences and home working can be better for work-life balance, allow wider participation, and cut costs.


The charter seeks to take direct action, but also to advocate for wider change, in four important areas: food, travel, consumption, and heating/cooling.


The commitments include:

  • Replacing physical travel with virtual alternatives and using low-carbon modes (i.e. avoiding flying) where physical travel is required;
  • Addressing food choices by ensuring all catering is vegetarian or vegan and reducing food waste;
  • Reducing consumption of resources;
  • Making low-energy choices in offices and conference venues;
  • Ensuring advocacy for low-carbon lifestyles and practices is central to researchers' activities.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,617
1,751
113
Ghawar
..................................
Climate change researchers, especially professors, fly more than other researchers—but are also more likely to have taken steps to reduce or offset their flying, a new study has found.
...................................
I'll be very happy to offset emission of all my flying if expenses on tickets,
food and accommodation are covered by tax payers. I know David Suzuki
would buy carbon offsets for his trips. I too would be happy to do it if I get
paid $30.000---$50,000 for one lecture.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,354
6,468
113
Climate scientists fly more than other researchers, first global study suggests

by Cardiff University
Oct, 2020

Climate change researchers, especially professors, fly more than other researchers—but are also more likely to have taken steps to reduce or offset their flying, a new study has found.


...
1st, is that supposed to undermine the science.?

BTW, the second part of the sentence is significant.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,617
1,751
113
Ghawar
1st, is that supposed to undermine the science.?
This is meant to show people the message of the scientists
on climate change may not be as urgent as generally thought.

No it is not supposed to undermine the science. But people can
carry on enjoying life as much as they can.

BTW, the second part of the sentence is significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Oracle

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Most climate change deniers in the scientific community are getting payola from Exxon Mobil.
Most Insidious Vons make ridiculous unsubstanciated accusations based on reading tabloid trash
The Huff Post??
Was the National Equirer not available?

Did you read the Huff Post article before or after it was used to line the bottom of a bird cage ?

"Exxon Mobil is the most principled oil and gas company, school teachers are like Hitler" - Richard Lindzen.
Odd how you left out the context

Dr. Lindzen was once highly respected, his colleagues now call him Exxon Mobil's Whore.
200 + papers & tenure at MIT
He was a IPCC contribitor until he figured out it a poltical organization mispresennting the science
It lookslike that the ones using terms like "Exxon Mobils Whore" are ones with the suspect chracters

How long is Happenin Johnny going to continue with this bullkaka?
Having trouble with the salty taste are you? Keep me out of your sick fantasies
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
“A” control knob. Not “the”.
Big difference. But you knew that. You still choose to misrepresent it though, then attack it. Classic Straw man.
Classic straw head
Water vapour is the dominate GHG (70 to 95% of the efect) , yet climate science treats WV as a secondary feedback only molecule
CO2 is treated as the control knob by climate science & that is why their track record is so abysmal

Didn’t the last professor you brought to the dance… the worlds leading climate scientist also say on his website that climate change was real, you just had not read that part.
Climate change is real, it is constantly changing, has in the past & is expected to change going forward, independant of what man does

The sound of wood (or straw) burning

Still… a very politicized debate. And we now have the evidence that big oil funded a manipulation campaign.
You have evidence that you love conspiracies
We certainly know propaganda works after the Trump stolen election debacle….
Dont get your conspiracy theories mixed up

we can almost smell the wood burning as you process your thoughts
" Trump bad.... must bring him into story... relavance not important''


The ironic thing is that propaganda does works and you are the living proof of that
You have swallowed it hook line & sinker

We have big oil on record as saying they agree with the climate science. We actually know, they always knew.
what you actually know would not fill a dixie cup, what you understand is evem less


Seems it was all about profits. Could not be more clear.
You would have staved or frozen to death by now if not for fossil fuels
Profits are important for all companies in order to remain in business to supply their customers & keep them from starving or frezzing to death
You do not have the slightest clue about the volume of contradictory information / reports floating around a masive company like Exxon Mobil, especially over decades & generations of different managers
Your smoking gun asscessment "they knew, therfore the science is settled" is what one would expect from a grade school child

Thier lawyers gave them a choice, you can fight this and spend the next 20 years fighting 300 lawsuits or
say this and fight 100 lawsuits, most of which will get settled quickly

Game. Set. Match. 🤷‍♂️
Keep deluding yourself
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
No it is not supposed to undermine the science.
Alarmists sniff out anything / anyone who shows a hint of AGW skepticism. & then they kick into attack mode
skeptcism of 'the science' is not to be tolerated for fear of 'undermining 'the science"

That is preety messed up considering we know skepticism has been one of the primary drivers of scientific advancement.
This will end badly
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,762
6,743
113
JohnLarue you have been exposed as an Exxon Mobil crank, if they are not paying you then you are the biggest fool on this board.

I'm not putting you on ignore, that's not my style. When someone becomes a crashing bore I don't bother justifying their existence.

 

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,746
6,012
113
Niagara
Classic straw head
Water vapour is the dominate GHG (70 to 95% of the efect) , yet climate science treats WV as a secondary feedback only molecule
CO2 is treated as the control knob by climate science & that is why their track record is so abysmal



Climate change is real, it is constantly changing, has in the past & is expected to change going forward, independant of what man does


The sound of wood (or straw) burning


You have evidence that you love conspiracies

Dont get your conspiracy theories mixed up

we can almost smell the wood burning as you process your thoughts
" Trump bad.... must bring him into story... relavance not important''


The ironic thing is that propaganda does works and you are the living proof of that
You have swallowed it hook line & sinker


what you actually know would not fill a dixie cup, what you understand is evem less



You would have staved or frozen to death by now if not for fossil fuels
Profits are important for all companies in order to remain in business to supply their customers & keep them from starving or frezzing to death
You do not have the slightest clue about the volume of contradictory information / reports floating around a masive company like Exxon Mobil, especially over decades & generations of different managers
Your smoking gun asscessment "they knew, therfore the science is settled" is what one would expect from a grade school child

Thier lawyers gave them a choice, you can fight this and spend the next 20 years fighting 300 lawsuits or
say this and fight 100 lawsuits, most of which will get settled quickly


Keep deluding yourself
Oh, you were in the room with the lawyers now? (It amuses me how you seem to know everyone’s motivations).

You know…. Scientists have been sounding the alarm about carbon since at least the early 1900’s…. I am willing to bet I could find some evidence of it even in the 1800’s. Long before the “left” starting funding climate science as a conspiracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,617
1,751
113
Ghawar
JohnLarue you have been exposed as an Exxon Mobil crank, if they are not paying you then you are the biggest fool on this board.

I'm not putting you on ignore, that's not my style. When someone becomes a crashing bore I don't bother justifying their existence.

ExxonMobil's propaganda war against climate change is over. Exxon is now
committed to zero emission. You can expect their commitment to emission
reduction to be as strong as Trudeau and Biden in regard with their own 2050
zero emission target.

 

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,746
6,012
113
Niagara
Alarmists sniff out anything / anyone who shows a hint of AGW skepticism. & then they kick into attack mode
skeptcism of 'the science' is not to be tolerated for fear of 'undermining 'the science"

That is preety messed up considering we know skepticism has been one of the primary drivers of scientific advancement.
This will end badly
John, the oil companies have never been skeptics. They’ve known. That’s been proven over and over and over again. Their own scientists have testified. (Read that again. “Proven”)

It’s pretty messed up that no scientific evidence will ever sway you. Your position is purely political. “Left loonies. They wrong”.

Honestly, I can only see 2 possible explanations for this…. You are either the poster child for studies on Cognitive Bias…. Or you do know. A guy who comes to a hooker board, and doesn’t talk about hookers. Only hear to argue a very very specific political agenda. Clearly, I cannot prove you get paid too troll the internet with an agenda, so I will stop short of that accusation.

However… if it is Cognitive bias…. Wow. You have been on the wrong side of every position you have ever argued on Terb, with the exception that Trudeau is not a great leader…. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. Mind you, in you’re world it is always half past past Gerald Butts. Because he is really secretly running the country. Reminds me of when Obama got elected, and one the guys I worked with went off the rails, and read on the internet that Opera was pulling the strings, and Obama was her puppet. But I digress.

You know… you accuse me of a lot things (which is fine, it’s the internet, and you are actually amusing, but not in the intentional way). And not “being scientific” or understanding evidence is one of your go too’s. However, I used to be Christian. I used to believe the bible was God’s word given unto man. Taught that as a kid, and passed that onto my own children. I struggled when I saw the evidence that science was offering. But once we hit a point where science disproved the creation story, I had to adjust how I saw things. Was a very painful process actually. I will not pretend to know if a higher power exists or not, but it’s pretty clear the holy books were a little off. Just saying.

So John, if science can change the view of a hardcore Christian like me, I know we can reach you. I have faith.
 
Last edited:

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
12,617
1,751
113
Ghawar
Oh, you were in the room with the lawyers now? (It amuses me how you seem to know everyone’s motivations).

You know…. Scientists have been sounding the alarm about carbon since at least the early 1900’s…. I am willing to bet I could find some evidence of it even in the 1800’s. Long before the “left” starting funding climate science as a conspiracy.
While I don't believe climate science was ever a part of any conspiracy I
do think in the end the outcome of the west's climate movement would
look eminently like it is a conspiracy that plays into the hands of Russia,
China and Saudi Arabia. I think eventually the world's remaining oil resources
outside North America will end in the control of these three beneficiaries of
climate change while Exxon, Shell and other multinational oil companies are downsizing
their operations. Exxon etc may still end up returning to China to sell them
their technology needed to squeeze oil shale there to the last drop.

Of all western oil producers Norway is the smartest. Under the guise of
world's 'green' leader they in fact won't give a rat's ass to the environmental
impact of drilling into the Arctic ocean. If the U.K. turns out to be idiotic
enough to stop development of new reserves in North Sea altogether to
save the climate their oil production will come to a stop by 2030. Norway
will do what they can do to get its hands into UK's North Sea's idle oil
fields. There is good reason Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault granted Equinor
the license to the Bay Du Nord project. Equinor is known for their expertise
in producing low carbon oil. It once said that their oil is good for the climate.
With that in mind Guilbeault has made zero-emission by 2050 a condition
for Equinor to pillage our deep sea ecosystem into the future.
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
38,762
6,743
113
ExxonMobil's propaganda war against climate change is over. Exxon is now
committed to zero emission. You can expect their commitment to emission
reduction to be as strong as Trudeau and Biden in regard with their own 2050
zero emission target.
I believe you, it's one of the perks of being born yesterday.

Big Oil wanted President Carter out of office, they didn't like his Energy Policy. So they instigated a mock counter-revolution in Iran. It worked out exceptionally well for them as 65 American Embassy employees were taken hostage on Nov 4 1979. The memory of CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt loomed large in the Iranian conscience. The sad part, his grandfather FDR was revered in Iran for getting the Russians out of Tabriz. The Ayatollah released 13 hostages twelve days later, all women and blacks - they were less likely to be spies. The hostages were finally released the day before President Reagan's Inauguration.
 

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,746
6,012
113
Niagara
While I don't believe climate science was ever a part of any conspiracy I
do think in the end the outcome of the west's climate movement would
look eminently like it is a conspiracy that plays into the hands of Russia,
China and Saudi Arabia. I think eventually the world's remaining oil resources
outside North America will end in the control of these three beneficiaries of
climate change while Exxon, Shell and other multinational oil companies are downsizing
their operations. Exxon etc may still end up returning to China to sell them
their technology needed to squeeze oil shale there to the last drop.

Of all western oil producers Norway is the smartest. Under the guise of
world's 'green' leader they in fact won't give a rat's ass to the environmental
impact of drilling into the Arctic ocean. If the U.K. turns out to be idiotic
enough to stop development of new reserves in North Sea altogether to
save the climate their oil production will come to a stop by 2030. Norway
will do what they can do to get its hands into UK's North Sea's idle oil
fields. There is good reason Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault granted Equinor
the license to the Bay Du Nord project. Equinor is known for their expertise
in producing low carbon oil. It once said that their oil is good for the climate.
With that in mind Guilbeault has made zero-emission by 2050 a condition
for Equinor to pillage our deep sea ecosystem into the future.
I don’t see conspiracy. I see opportunism. You make some great points though however we want to label it.

Now…. Let’s address the Greta thing.

I have no control over her. I have never once brought her into an argument to win a point, and do not believe she is “the leader” of any movement.

You like to bring her into a lot of threads. I can see why. But it’s a little like me saying because you are a Conservative… you believe there is a child porn ring in a pizza place because Reddit exists. I know many sane Conservatives. Let’s not play that game.

:)
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,557
19,275
113
ExxonMobil's propaganda war against climate change is over.
The oil & gas industry is still lying about what they are doing.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
John, the oil companies have never been skeptics. They’ve known. That’s been proven over and over and over again. Their own scientists have testified. (Read that again. “Proven”)
I was not refering to the oil companies & was not addressing you
Please do not assume every post is confined to your little world of conspiracy theories
you do not seem capable of following the context of a post

It’s pretty messed up that no scientific evidence will ever sway you.
That is co comical since court testimoney is NOT scientific evidence

Your position is purely political.
More comedy from you. The sad thing is you do not even know you are putting on a clown show
The physical laws of nature are not poltical
Law suits by left wing activists are poltical

“Left loonies. They wrong”.
uncomprimising devotion to a failed ideology does lead to poor decision making

Honestly, I can only see 2 possible explanations for this…
.
uncomprimising devotion to a failed ideology by defintion restricts ones thinking

You are either the poster child for studies on Cognitive Bias…. Or you do know.
Or I have a better understanding of IR absorption by organic molecules than you do

A guy who comes to a hooker board, and doesn’t talk about hookers.
I thought we agreed to keep your mother & sister out of this

On a more serious note: WTF
What I decide to post or not post is none of your god dam business

Only hear to argue a very very specific political agenda. Clearly, I cannot prove you get paid too troll the internet with an agenda, so I will stop short of that accusation.
Holy smokes !
Did you stop taking your meds ?
Your obcession with conspiracy theories is out of control
yep every oil company (there are thousands) has agreed to pay me $0.02 per post in order to spread dis-information amoungst the hooker monger community
It is a lot of work , posting, keeping current & understanding the science , a ton of record keeping etc & the god dam Russians cheque bounced
The upside is it is quite lucrative. I insisted it must $0.02 USD per post

you need a major reality check

However… if it is Cognitive bias…. Wow. You have been on the wrong side of every position you have ever argued on Terb, with the exception that Trudeau is not a great leader…. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. Mind you, in you’re world it is always half past past Gerald Butts. Because he is really secretly running the country. Reminds me of when Obama got elected, and one the guys I worked with went off the rails, and read on the internet that Opera was pulling the strings, and Obama was her puppet. But I digress
.

blithering jiberish is not a simple digression

You know… you accuse me of a lot things (which is fine, it’s the internet, and you are actually amusing, but not in the intentional way). And not “being scientific” or understanding evidence is one of your go too’s. However, I used to be Christian. I used to believe the bible was God’s word given unto man. Taught that as a kid, and passed that onto my own children. I struggled when I saw the evidence that science was offering. But once we hit a point where science disproved the creation story, I had to adjust how I saw things. Was a very painful process actually. I will not pretend to know if a higher power exists or not, but it’s pretty clear the holy books were a little off. Just saying.
Yikes
you are not an emotionally stable person
you require an external belief system to guide you through life
So you substituted "the science" for God
and any skeptism of your new religion is treated as blasphemous
This explains a lot

I struggled when I saw the evidence that science was offering.
Science does not "offer" you salvation

So John, if science can change the view of a hardcore Christian like me, I know we can reach you. I have faith.
Yikes !!!!!
I have a born again nutter seeking to show me the light

Keep away from me
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Oh, you were in the room with the lawyers now? (It amuses me how you seem to know everyone’s motivations).
it is quite logical explanation . Sadly litigation is part of doing business & risk management drive decision making
However this is all mute as Court testimoney is NOT scientific evidence


You know…. Scientists have been sounding the alarm about carbon since at least the early 1900’s…. I am willing to bet I could find some evidence of it even in the 1800’s. Long before the “left” starting funding climate science as a conspiracy.
Svante Arrhenius published a two-volume technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik in 1903.
That is when the AGW theory started
He did not however take into account the saturation effect

I have seen some claims of a paper he wrote latter in which he dailed back the effects of the absoption, however there are counter claims this paper was a fake.

it is critical to understand his theory has never been proven experimentally while the beer lmbert law holds true
There is a differnce between a theory & a physical law
you should learn & understand that first

The issue is the left has grabed a hold of this theory as they view it as a pathway to their fantesy utopian world

The harse reality is their proposed solutions are going to fail miserably & cause a lot of human suffering and misery
Modern societies require energy to function
That human suffering and misery wiil lead to civil unrest & ultimately the rejection of the failed ideology
It is going to be very ugly
 

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,746
6,012
113
Niagara
Oh like Dr. Richard Lindzen
MIT Professor Calls BS On Fraudulent Climate Change Consensus - Truth And Action


Richard Siegmund Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books
And he’s on Exxon’s payroll. Well played again.

The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. [4], [5]

And another source…


Exactly what I have argued. Exxon has many “paid for” opinions. And they seem to be the ones you like.

I did read 2 of his public lectures. He does not really dispute the fact that carbon traps heat. Far from it. He makes an argument that we really can’t take a proper surface temp of the planet. That’s actually funny, because it that were true, the planet could be even hotter than we suspected.

But sadly… He’s an Exxon’s whore.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

poker

Everyone's hero's, tell everyone's lies.
Jun 1, 2006
7,746
6,012
113
Niagara
it is quite logical explanation . Sadly litigation is part of doing business & risk management drive decision making
However this is all mute as Court testimoney is NOT scientific evidence




Svante Arrhenius published a two-volume technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik in 1903.
That is when the AGW theory started
He did not however take into account the saturation effect

I have seen some claims of a paper he wrote latter in which he dailed back the effects of the absoption, however there are counter claims this paper was a fake.

it is critical to understand his theory has never been proven experimentally while the beer lmbert law holds true
There is a differnce between a theory & a physical law
you should learn & understand that first

The issue is the left has grabed a hold of this theory as they view it as a pathway to their fantesy utopian world

The harse reality is their proposed solutions are going to fail miserably & cause a lot of human suffering and misery
Modern societies require energy to function
That human suffering and misery wiil lead to civil unrest & ultimately the rejection of the failed ideology
It is going to be very ugly
Hey… Scarecrow. They submitted the scientific evidence to the courts. Volumes of it actually.

Evidence. Courts. They go hand in hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts