Climate Change: 97% scientific consensus? Try 99.94% instead

[Hoid]

A Shell report predicted how devastating climate change would be — it’s from 1988

More notably, the report reveals that Shell knew decades ago that fossil fuels, and the oil and gas industry in particular, would play a major role in greenhouse gas emissions.

It estimated that in 1981, 44 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions came from oil.

“With fossil fuel combustion being a major source of CO2 in the atmosphere, a forward looking approach by the energy industry is clearly desirable,” the report urged.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4127757/shell-climate-change-report-1988/

Of course they knew.

Just like Big Tobacco and Ford. They understand the damage and the risk and the liability and they calculate that their profits will outweigh their expenses.

 

[DaSleeper]

Of course they knew.

Just like Big Tobacco and Ford. They understand the damage and the risk and the liability and they calculate that their profits will outweigh there expenses.

When are you buying an electric car???WALDO....you fake hypocritical greenie......

 

[petros]

If only we had more trees/plant life to convert that pesky CO2 into O2.

Damn global warming

"The rainforest is the lungs of the planet" is pure bullshit. Algae and diatoms in the oceans are the lungs of the planet.

 

[pgs]

The oxygen crisis

Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?



The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects.
Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.
I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern. It is a possibility that we should examine and assess. So, what's the evidence?

Around 10,000 years ago, the planet's forest cover was at least twice what it is today, which means that forests are now emitting only half the amount of oxygen.
Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources.
The story at sea is much the same. Nasa reports that in the north Pacific ocean oxygen-producing phytoplankton concentrations are 30% lower today, compared to the 1980s. This is a huge drop in just three decades.
Moreover, the UN environment programme confirmed in 2004 that there were nearly 150 "dead zones" in the world's oceans where discharged sewage and industrial waste, farm fertiliser run-off and other pollutants have reduced oxygen levels to such an extent that most or all sea creatures can no longer live there. This oxygen starvation is reducing regional fish stocks and diminishing the food supplies of populations that are dependent on fishing. It also causes genetic mutations and hormonal changes that can affect the reproductive capacity of sea life, which could further diminish global fish supplies.
Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

And my paying more tax to government so they can provide $10.00 a day childcare helps this , how ?

 

[gopher]

99.94%


and remember that this number includes Republican CONservative Bush:


https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/energy/


Since President Bush took office, the Federal Government has invested more than $44 billion for climate-change and energy security programs, including more than $22 billion for technology research, development, and demonstration. Technology funding for 2008 alone exceeded $4 billion.

 

[Danbones]

Right there is no argument about climate change - it's been happening since the planet was formed.
"Man made" HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Only a nut could even pretend to believe that.
(NO REAL SCIENTIST who isn't grant scamming can ignore THOSE TWO FACTs)

So, how is it that global warming and carbon taxes have ZERO regard for the other half of so called climate change which is called getting colder

 

[Dixie Cup]

Honest to god - the consensus should be 100% silly wags - climate has ALWAYS changed and always will. And, it has yet to be established by ANYONE that some changes are due to "peoplekind" and if so, how much. It'd be nice if we could get the "facts" out there.


This statement makes me all the more anti-carbon, anti-global warming than anything because it proves, without a doubt, how the whole mess is about money and not about climate and how stupid we all are by buying this crap.


Geesh!


JMHO

 

[taxslave]

99.94%


and remember that this number includes Republican CONservative Bush:


https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/energy/


Since President Bush took office, the Federal Government has invested more than $44 billion for climate-change and energy security programs, including more than $22 billion for technology research, development, and demonstration. Technology funding for 2008 alone exceeded $4 billion.

I hope some of that money went to snowplows.

 

[Cannuck]

And oil subsidies don't exist either.

Nor do tax credits you can get without spending money.

 

[mentalfloss]

99.94%


and remember that this number includes Republican CONservative Bush:


https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/energy/


Since President Bush took office, the Federal Government has invested more than $44 billion for climate-change and energy security programs, including more than $22 billion for technology research, development, and demonstration. Technology funding for 2008 alone exceeded $4 billion.

And Walter loves Dubya.

 

[petros]

Nor do tax credits you can get without spending money.

Still working that lie huh?

 

[Cannuck]

Revenue Canada is lying?

 

[petros]

You are.

 

[Cannuck]

You are.

I supplied a link to Revenue Canada proving my point. Clearly you believe RevCan is lying.

You're an idiot

 

[petros]

CRA says you don't lie?

That's f-cking hilarious.

You're dragging more knuckle everyday.

 

[Cannuck]

 

[petros]

 

[Cannuck]

 

[petros]

You were lost?

 

[Cannuck]

*makes a statement regarding taxes*

*Is given a link to Revenue Canada showing he's wrong*

*Suggests Revenue Canada is lying*