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

[poker]

2021 costs in historical context
In broader context, the total cost of U.S. billion-dollar disasters over the last 5 years (2017-2021) is $742.1 billion, with a 5-year annual cost average of $148.4 billion, both of which are new records and nearly triple the 42-year inflation adjusted annual average cost. The U.S. billion-dollar disaster damage costs over the last 10-years (2012-2021) were also historically large: at least $1.0 trillion from 142 separate billion-dollar events.

It is concerning that 2021 was another year in a series of years where we had a high frequency, a high cost, and large diversity of extreme events that affect people's lives and livelihoods—concerning because it hints that the extremely high activity of recent years is becoming the new normal. 2021 (red line) marks the seventh consecutive year (2015-21) in which 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events have impacted the U.S. The 1980–2021 annual average (black line) is 7.4 events (CPI-adjusted); the annual average for the most recent 5 years (2017–2021) is 17.2 events (CPI-adjusted).

 

[Frankfooter]

Do you think flooding and intense heat are a bigger
concern to people in Pakistan than poverty?

Yes.

Flooding and extreme heat will kill the crops they eat and destroy their homes.

 

[Frankfooter]

Why Disasters Have Declined (forbes.com)

Pielke cherry picks 2000-2021 as dates and then draws a line that doesn't represent his data. From the article:
Some people on Twitter objected to Pielke’s analysis. “You're using a regression line for a data set with a high degree of natural variation,” wrote one person, “to draw a very broad conclusion. And the slope of that line is barely inverted. This does not show anything.” Said another, “This is a textbook example of not knowing what standard deviation or regression mean!” Other people noted that the frequency of climate-related disasters rose from 1900 to 2019.

 

[JohnLarue]

View attachment 167703

2018, 2020, 2012, 2005, 2017 , 2021 >>> an odd set of cherry picked data, so no value as a time series

adjusted for CPI ?? construction inflation generally runs at lesst double the CPI, ie home depot gets a boost in margins when a hurricane hits, plywood prices go stupid
you would also have account for increased population growth along the coastal areas over time
ie more buildings, cars etc to damage

the only real trend here is that hurricane season starts in August, but we knew that

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (noaa.gov)

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results

This site authored and maintained by: Tom Knutson, Senior Scientist, NOAA/GFDL

Last Revised: July 12, 2022

• There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

oops , another fly in your ointment

 

[poker]

2018, 2020, 2012, 2005, 2017 , 2021 >>> an odd set of cherry picked data, so no value as a time series

adjusted for CPI ?? construction inflation generally runs at lesst double the CPI, ie home depot gets a boost in margins when a hurricane hits, plywood prices go stupid
you would also have account for increased population growth along the coastal areas over time
ie more buildings, cars etc to damage

the only real trend here is that hurricane season starts in August, but we knew that

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (noaa.gov)

oops , another fly in your ointment

John… rattling off a bunch of nonsense arrogantly is not a fly in my ointment. I simply disproved you. Again. Wasn’t hard either.

The simple fact of the matter is your hypothesis fails the observations on Venus, Earth & Mars

No…. As I have pointed out to you before, the other conditions differ on Venus, Earth, and Mars. You understand that right? Distance from the primary heat source…. Atmospheric pressure. Etc etc etc… Sciencey stuff.

The fact alone you use that example, proves to me what I already knew. Sure you can cut and paste a few formulas, know the definition of word I have never heard of until yesterday… (which is fair if I don’t work in that field)…

You claim to be in the field, or least have an understanding. You don’t. You see, science is the process of using data and observation, to come to a conclusion. It is not ( and this is important), having a politically motivated agenda, and using very very specific data… while ignoring all other facts, to make a political point. And that, based on careful observation, is all you have ever done. It is your entire posting history.

How can anyone take a guy serious who claims Gerald Butts is secretly running the country? We can’t. And nobody does.

Now, you can toss out some more insults, as that seems to be one of your go to tactics. Piss people off enough to walk away, and then claim you won…. But that fact that I know what you are… well, it amuses me to no end. Pattern behaviour.


I have given you the sources of how climate science works. How and when Beers Law works and the conditions it works under. I have proven with government numbers the extent of Forrest fires, and extreme weather events. Had to point out fire fighting infrastructure and time lines on that… as your data seemed a little light and omitted that kind of stuff (go figure!).

It’s over. It was actually never really a debate.

 

[JohnLarue]

John… rattling off a bunch of nonsense arrogantly is not a fly in my ointment. I simply disproved you. Again. Wasn’t hard either.

now you are just being obstinate
two different organizations tell you there is no long term term in weather related disasters & you call it nonsense insisting we belive

1. your little propaganda collection of sensational media headlines - I bet you think that is scientific evidence- it is not
2. your cheery picked non-seqential data set which does not account for contruction inflation or increased property development all that shows is hurricane season starts in late august- I bet you think that is scientific evidence- it is not

Here is the real story

Why Disasters Have Declined

Over the last 30 years, the United Nations, climate scientists, and governments around have claimed that climate change is making natural disasters more frequent, but the number of climate-related disasters actually declined over the last 20 years.

www.forbes.com

and

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results
This site authored and maintained by: Tom Knutson, Senior Scientist, NOAA/GFDL
Last Revised: July 12, 2022

• There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

No…. As I have pointed out to you before, the other conditions differ on Venus, Earth, and Mars. You understand that right? Distance from the primary heat source…. Atmospheric pressure. Etc etc etc… Sciencey stuff.

you are mixing different topics -smarten up
yes conditions differ on Venus, Earth, and Mars., hoever clearly CO2 does not control tempature & the physical laws of natural are universal

The fact alone you use that example, proves to me what I already knew. Sure you can cut and paste a few formulas, know the definition of word I have never heard of until yesterday… (which is fair if I don’t work in that field)…

There is a big difference between knowing and understanding.
Sadley you will likely never understand this

You claim to be in the field, or least have an understanding. You don’t.

You know nothing about my professional life , that is intentional
and it should be painfully obvious to you that my understanding of the subject matter is far superior to what ever you are able to gleam from your frantic 1 hour web searches

You see, science is the process of using data and observation, to come to a conclusion.

while not inaccurrate, this is incomplete

It is not ( and this is important), having a politically motivated agenda, and using very very specific data… while ignoring all other facts, to make a political point.

who started the thread by claiming a court testimony has settled the science ? it is not
who strung a collection of sensational media headline together , thinking this somehow is scientific evidence ? it is not

And that, based on careful observation, is all you have ever done. It is your entire posting history.

thank you for the compliment, I do endevour to make careful observations.
My lastest observation is you are an idelogue who is out of your depth on science in general and more specfically out of your depth on the relavant scienctific principles

How can anyone take a guy serious who claims Gerald Butts is secretly running the country? We can’t. And nobody does.

hardley relavant, however
How can anyone still believe the moron Justin Trudeau is running the country?

Now, you can toss out some more insults, as that seems to be one of your go to tactics. Piss people off enough to walk away, and then claim you won…. But that fact that I know what you are… well, it amuses me to no end. Pattern behaviour.

scientific facts should not piss you off, if they do, I suggest you seek some professional help

I have given you the sources of how climate science works.

Too funny

How and when Beers Law works and the conditions it works under.

for liquids, not gases
besides I showed you 400 ppm is well below the restrictive limit you provided
in addition you are too stunned to understand those limits are supportive of 'saturation'

I have proven with government numbers the extent of Forrest fires, and extreme weather events. Had to point out fire fighting infrastructure and time lines on that… as your data seemed a little light and omitted that kind of stuff (go figure!).

Go figure, that forest burn aceage has declined in direct conflict with your claim
There is no measurable correlation to co2 concentration

It’s over.

Science is never settled
its not my fault if you are frantic and out of your depth

It was actually never really a debate.

Yeah , I get that feeling when I argue with scientific illiterates such as your self -you can not catch up via sporatic & frantic goggle searches
I provide scientific facts and clairity, you provide the comic relief.
The sad part is you do not recognize that you appear like a monkey trying to play a musical instrument

 

[Frankfooter]

who started the thread by claiming a court testimony has settled the science ? it is not
who strung a collection of sensational media headline together , thinking this somehow is scientific evidence ? it is not

The oil companies agreed that there is no legit scientific claims that dispute the IPCC findings that 95%+ of warming is anthropogenic.
Not IR, adiabatic heat, water vapour or claims about CO2 that you have presented here.
If your claims are legit, why wouldn't the oil companies have used them?

 

[JohnLarue]

2021 costs in historical context
In broader context, the total cost of U.S. billion-dollar disasters over the last 5 years (2017-2021) is $742.1 billion, with a 5-year annual cost average of $148.4 billion, both of which are new records and nearly triple the 42-year inflation adjusted annual average cost. The U.S. billion-dollar disaster damage costs over the last 10-years (2012-2021) were also historically large: at least $1.0 trillion from 142 separate billion-dollar events.

It is concerning that 2021 was another year in a series of years where we had a high frequency, a high cost, and large diversity of extreme events that affect people's lives and livelihoods—concerning because it hints that the extremely high activity of recent years is becoming the new normal. 2021 (red line) marks the seventh consecutive year (2015-21) in which 10 or more separate billion-dollar disaster events have impacted the U.S. The 1980–2021 annual average (black line) is 7.4 events (CPI-adjusted); the annual average for the most recent 5 years (2017–2021) is 17.2 events (CPI-adjusted).

Context?
what part of construction inflation is gnerally double CPI did you not understand ?
What part of missing the impact of year over year economic development (more buildings, mor cars ) did you not understand?
what part of cherry picked years did you not understand ?

get this through your head
weather realed disasters have not increased as per your claim

Why Disasters Have Declined

Over the last 30 years, the United Nations, climate scientists, and governments around have claimed that climate change is making natural disasters more frequent, but the number of climate-related disasters actually declined over the last 20 years.

www.forbes.com

 

[poker]

now you are just being obstinate
two different organizations tell you there is no long term term in weather related disasters & you call it nonsense insisting we belive

1. your little propaganda collection of sensational media headlines - I bet you think that is scientific evidence- it is not
2. your cheery picked non-seqential data set which does not account for contruction inflation or increased property development all that shows is hurricane season starts in late august- I bet you think that is scientific evidence- it is not

Here is the real story

Why Disasters Have Declined

Over the last 30 years, the United Nations, climate scientists, and governments around have claimed that climate change is making natural disasters more frequent, but the number of climate-related disasters actually declined over the last 20 years.

www.forbes.com

View attachment 167825

and







you are mixing different topics -smarten up
yes conditions differ on Venus, Earth, and Mars., hoever clearly CO2 does not control tempature & the physical laws of natural are universal




There is a big difference between knowing and understanding.
Sadley you will likely never understand this



You know nothing about my professional life , that is intentional
and it should be painfully obvious to you that my understanding of the subject matter is far superior to what ever you are able to gleam from your frantic 1 hour web searches



while not inaccurrate, this is incomplete


who started the thread by claiming a court testimony has settled the science ? it is not
who strung a collection of sensational media headline together , thinking this somehow is scientific evidence ? it is not


thank you for the compliment, I do endevour to make careful observations.
My lastest observation is you are an idelogue who is out of your depth on science in general and more specfically out of your depth on the relavant scienctific principles


hardley relavant, however
How can anyone still believe the moron Justin Trudeau is running the country?



scientific facts should not piss you off, if they do, I suggest you seek some professional help



Too funny


for liquids, not gases
besides I showed you 400 ppm is well below the restrictive limit you provided
in addition you are too stunned to understand those limits are supportive of 'saturation'



Go figure, that forest burn aceage has declined in direct conflict with your claim
There is no measurable correlation to co2 concentration


Science is never settled
its not my fault if you are frantic and out of your depth


Yeah , I get that feeling when I argue with scientific illiterates such as your self -you can not catch up via sporatic & frantic goggle searches
I provide scientific facts and clairity, you provide the comic relief.
The sad part is you do not recognize that you appear like a monkey trying to play a musical instrument

You provide strawmen. You misrepresent what I say. You misrepresent the science. That is all you know how to do.

I provide numbers from their source. You provide information from spin doctor websites who twist the data and make their own charts. Yeah, you hate that google search, but it’s only because your nonsense is so easy to disprove.

 

[oil&gas]

2021 costs in historical context
In broader context, the total cost of U.S. billion-dollar disasters over the last 5 years (2017-2021) is $742.1 billion, with a 5-year annual cost average of $148.4 billion, both of which are new records and nearly triple the 42-year inflation adjusted annual average cost. The U.S. billion-dollar disaster damage costs over the last 10-years (2012-2021) were also historically large: at least $1.0 trillion from 142 separate billion-dollar events.

If total cost of natural disaster outside the U.S. is included as well not
even confiscation of all the assets of Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and other
multinational oil companies in the west could possibly compensate a
fraction of the damage inflicted from burning oil and gas. Given that it
is next to impossible to indict the oil companies of China, Russia and
the Middle East there is not much climate litigation can do to alleviate
future climate catastrophe. I suggest the best we can do is to find ways
to free up more oil by conservation in the west so as to help lift people
in the developing world like Pakistan out of poverty with cheap spare oil.
Life will be more bearable for people in the part of the world most affected by
climate change if their per capita energy consumption is brought closer
to even as modest as one half of what we enjoy. At least they don't have
to suffer intense summer heat with air-conditioning.

 

[JohnLarue]

]You provide strawmen. You misrepresent what I say. You misrepresent the science. That is all you know how to do.

do not be redicolous
you were provided with two seperate sources which directly refute your claim

I provide numbers from their source.

you cherry picked the years, and ignored both contruction inflation and ongoing year over year development

You provide information from spin doctor websites who twist the data and make their own charts.

What is wrong with you?
Since when did Forbes, International Disaster Database & NOAA become spin doctor websites ?
NOAA is where you got your graph that show hurricane season begins in August for christ sake !!!!

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results

This site authored and maintained by: Tom Knutson, Senior Scientist, NOAA/GFDL
Last Revised: July 12, 2022

• There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes, Similarly for Atlantic basin-wide hurricanes (after adjusting for observing capabilities), there is not strong evidence for an increase since the late 1800s in hurricanes, major hurricanes, or the proportion of hurricanes that reach major hurricane intensity.

You did not bother to read the source, but instead jump right to cancelling the souce, the same source you used to show hurricane season starts in August

you could not intentionally have made a bigger fool of yourself
you should take your clown show on the road , big shoes, big nose, tiny car and your inability to apply logic, pay attention to detail etc

Yeah, you hate that google search, but it’s only because your nonsense is so easy to disprove.

Well there you have it Pokers, scientific expertise is defined by a series of google searches
I suggest you instead start with a grade 10 science course so you are clear on what vaidates / invalidates a scientific hypothesis

all you have proven is that you refuse to permit blasphemy of your newest religion & how very little actual science / logic you really understand
and it shows in what you post.
you are your own worst enemy

Another massive fly in your ointment, cancelling your oun source, too funny

 

[poker]

do not be redicolous
you were provided with two seperate sources which directly refute your claim


you cherry picked the years, and ignored both contruction inflation and ongoing year over year vevelopment



Waht is wrong with you?
Since when did Forbes, International Disaster Database & NOAA become spin doctor websites ?
NOAA is where you got your graph that show hurricane season begins in August for christ sake !!!!
You have a screw loose



all you have proven is that you refuse to permit blasphemy of your newst religion.
you are not wrapped right

Forbes is not a science magazine. They have corporate clients who advertise. It’s like asking the WSJ about climate science.

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

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.

 

[poker]

So John… maybe you can tell us all what these guys missed…?

Committees No Longer Standing | house.gov

climatecrisis.house.gov

 

[poker]

And these people… what did they forget about?

Climate and weather related disasters surge five-fold over 50 years, but early warnings save lives - WMO report

Climate change and increasingly extreme weather events, have caused a surge in natural disasters over the past 50 years disproportionately impacting poorer countries, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) said on Wednesday.

news.un.org

 

[poker]

Bet the all knowing Larue can see past these guys shenanigans

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Summary of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate related disaster research, methodology, and data sources

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[oil&gas]

The biggest disaster ever created by the climate change movement
is already unfolding in Europe. If EU couldn't find a way to resume energy
import from Russia, the UK and nearly the entire EU will be just hit as hard
by climate change as Pakistan in the future.

 

[JohnLarue]

this is a very good summary

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1564925562077978630

 

[Frankfooter]

If total cost of natural disaster outside the U.S. is included as well not
even confiscation of all the assets of Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and other
multinational oil companies in the west could possibly compensate a
fraction of the damage inflicted from burning oil and gas.

True.

Once you include paying for disasters like Pakistan, heatwaves through the EU and UK, where crops are down 15-20% and the rest of the world its going to be very expensive.
I'd suggest also going after the pensions of oil execs.

 

[Frankfooter]

The biggest disaster ever created by the climate change movement
is already unfolding in Europe. If EU couldn't find a way to resume energy
import from Russia, the UK and nearly the entire EU will be just hit as hard
by climate change as Pakistan in the future.

You're blaming the climate change movement for Putin's war and the following gas shortages?
Wow.
The blame for that falls on yet another oil despot.

And that's nothing compared to the global crop failures we are looking at this year

Drought Dents Crop Production Outlook in U.S., EU and China, as Ukraine Production Concerns About Next Crop Persist - Farm Policy News

Dow Jones writer Paulo Trevisani reported yesterday that, "Initial reports from the Pro Farmer crop tour point to disappointing yield potential."

farmpolicynews.illinois.edu

 

[JohnLarue]

So John… maybe you can tell us all what these guys missed…?

the thing about this hysteria is there is shortage of climate disaster predictions & propaganda
The facts of the matter are climate disasters are not increasing

Now go cancel another one of your sources
Ha Ha