Does big oil live on another planet? Because it seems logical to assume Global Warming will affect eevery living thing on this earth. So I'm a bit baffled why some would deny it.
Global warming reports 'scientifically unsound'
- Thread starter CDNBear
- Start date
Does big oil live on another planet? Because it seems logical to assume Global Warming will affect eevery living thing on this earth. So I'm a bit baffled why some would deny it.
If I was a CEO of a big oil company what would I be more inclined to believe?
The science that says my industry is partly responsible for what could be one of the more dramatic changes on the planet or the science that allows me to keep receiving my obscenely large paycheck every month.
The science that says my industry is partly responsible for what could be one of the more dramatic changes on the planet or the science that allows me to keep receiving my obscenely large paycheck every month.
:roll: Or if you give him enough dough, he could start a panic like the ice-age we were supposed to get and it was a no-show. Then there was the population bomb scare. That doughy road goes both ways.
I doubt there is any kind of consensus that avers humans are the cause of GW, we don't know enough about climate. I doubt there ever will be.
Good point.
$$$$ No one is saying that everyone is going to die from global warming. But if "big oil" is going to loose a ton of money, why do they care if a few people's houses are underwater?
I was responding to I think nots statement of why someone would deny climate change.
And people still do deny or downplay the threat posed by climate change. There's no way to accurately predict what is going to happen but from what we see already there's cause to be truly concerned.
Unless it threatens your worldview, in which case continue on in your merry way and work hard to ignore the evidence all around you. It's going to get harder and harder, of that I have no doubt.
I was asking who here in this forum still denies GW? No answer I see. Empty claim.
I saw this crap coming a long time ago and have pretty much set up everything around here that I need to survive. I am still receiving information from scientific journals you people probably haven't even heard of as well as New Scientist, Scientific American, and Science Magazine, and yet here you are telling me that I'm denying stuff. roflmao I guess because I don't fall into the mold of sheep that believe all the panic-driven hype, I am a disbeliever. rofl
BTW, my worldview is about the same as my views on religions: one of humor.
"I was asking who here in this forum still denies GW? No answer I see. Empty claim."
I stand corrected there's no one denying climate change here. Some people are just downplaying the threat and refering to people like Gore and Suzuki as scaremongers. Same difference if the final outcome is you believe it's not an issue that needs to be dealt with.
How can you prepare for something that nobody really knows the dimensions of. What good science is showing is that something very serious is taking place and we are probably responsible. There are tipping points that will soon be reached after which no one can predict what will occure, such as the thawing of the permafrost or the release of frozen methane from the sea floor. Methane is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are billions of tons that will be released as the climate warms.
Greenland is a good example of how unpredictable this all is. The glaciers there are moving at a rate five times what was predicted just a few years ago. We're dealing with an almost unbelievably complex and dynamic system and logic tells me we want to interfere with it as little as possible if we have long term plans of occupancy here.
I stand corrected there's no one denying climate change here. Some people are just downplaying the threat and refering to people like Gore and Suzuki as scaremongers. Same difference if the final outcome is you believe it's not an issue that needs to be dealt with.
How can you prepare for something that nobody really knows the dimensions of. What good science is showing is that something very serious is taking place and we are probably responsible. There are tipping points that will soon be reached after which no one can predict what will occure, such as the thawing of the permafrost or the release of frozen methane from the sea floor. Methane is a much more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2 and there are billions of tons that will be released as the climate warms.
Greenland is a good example of how unpredictable this all is. The glaciers there are moving at a rate five times what was predicted just a few years ago. We're dealing with an almost unbelievably complex and dynamic system and logic tells me we want to interfere with it as little as possible if we have long term plans of occupancy here.
Unpredictable, sure, but Occams Razor cxan be applied to what we DO know and have accurate figures for- simply put, all that carbon that was buried in the ground for time immemorial (by god or nature or whatever) was likely underground for a reason- we figgered out how to dig it up, and suddenly stuff is happening all over the globe, some of which has never happened before. I am sure we don't control anything here on the planet, but all the crap we burn everyday simply HAS to be having some effect, considering the scale on which it's happening- anyone who can flat-out say that there's NO WAY that ANY of our actions has ANY effect is an idiot, plain and simple- call it what you will, but we're makin a mess of the only planet we have...
And as for profits- listen to many folks who are against Kyoto (and frankly I wish that term didn't exist, it's WAY too fractious and has turned into a talkin-point style swear word- maybe we could come up with something else) and you'll hear, VERY often "We can't afford it" or "people don't WANT to change their standard of living"... this is the BEST argument most on the "con" side can come up with
I still have yet to understand , in the traditional "follow the money" way of thinking, who exactly would be raking in the BILLIONS from a more environmentally responsible way of living on this planet- however, when looking at the targetted industries, I can certainly see who stands to LOSE from it... totally unscientific, but Occams razor says that maybe, just maybe, all this obfuscation is intentional
I DO find it funny that we can't "afford" nor "don't want" to do everything we can to guarantee our continued existence- the "con" (not politically, but rather "against" here) side really doesn't make any sense to me somehow
And as for profits- listen to many folks who are against Kyoto (and frankly I wish that term didn't exist, it's WAY too fractious and has turned into a talkin-point style swear word- maybe we could come up with something else) and you'll hear, VERY often "We can't afford it" or "people don't WANT to change their standard of living"... this is the BEST argument most on the "con" side can come up with
I still have yet to understand , in the traditional "follow the money" way of thinking, who exactly would be raking in the BILLIONS from a more environmentally responsible way of living on this planet- however, when looking at the targetted industries, I can certainly see who stands to LOSE from it... totally unscientific, but Occams razor says that maybe, just maybe, all this obfuscation is intentional
I DO find it funny that we can't "afford" nor "don't want" to do everything we can to guarantee our continued existence- the "con" (not politically, but rather "against" here) side really doesn't make any sense to me somehow
Glowbull warming is sorta like the war on terror. There's no end in sight for terror, and theres no end in sight for global warming. They are both extremely holy chapters of their respective faction's (lib or conservative) bible.
As long as there's oil in the middle east, theres goning to be terror.
As long as the sun is shining, there will be global warming.
Not sure about the oil, but fairly certain the liberals and the press will milk global warming for the next 6 million years or so.:laughing7:
As long as there's oil in the middle east, theres goning to be terror.
As long as the sun is shining, there will be global warming.
Not sure about the oil, but fairly certain the liberals and the press will milk global warming for the next 6 million years or so.:laughing7:
Okay, who was funding a handful of scientists to come up with global cooling? What was the consensus on global cooling anyways.....I forget?
What industry is currently paying to have the vast majority of scientists claim man contributes to global warming.
How many deniers don't have some link to big oil?
GHG's cause global warming. undisputed fact, right?
we've been releasing GHG's, right?
therefore we've been causing global warming.
that's how simple it seems to me. The science is pretty simple and can be demonstrated. If you want a global demonstration, have a look at venus. Covered in sulphurous gases and sulphuric acid (both nasty GHG's at that temperature, and a surface hot enough to melt lead, hotter even than mercury's which is a LOt closer to the sun.
we've been releasing GHG's, right?
therefore we've been causing global warming.
that's how simple it seems to me. The science is pretty simple and can be demonstrated. If you want a global demonstration, have a look at venus. Covered in sulphurous gases and sulphuric acid (both nasty GHG's at that temperature, and a surface hot enough to melt lead, hotter even than mercury's which is a LOt closer to the sun.
my problem is the Bangwagon all or nuth'n...yer either with us or against us approach to the whole issue..
it's like trying to find out what really happened to Anna Nicole Smith. If she was on drugs and over dosed or something else. but you can't find that info, everything is about her relationships, who gets her money, what will her baby do when she grows up,,who's baby it is, who's baby it isn't..but if you want the black and white facts..forget it...Thats not the story.
Same with Global warming....it's a good news headline...most watchers of the reports know nothing of which they speak, and frankly don't care. That want to see who looks good, who's not running with the pack. They don't really care to see what must be done....Thats not juicy, not sexy and much to close to home (turning down thermostats and not driving everywhere) not sexy!!!
the media runs on sensation..unfortunately we follow....mark my words this will be no issue, never covered, no one cares after the next election...we will all be on to the next great scare while the enviroment is no better (and likely worse) than today
it's like trying to find out what really happened to Anna Nicole Smith. If she was on drugs and over dosed or something else. but you can't find that info, everything is about her relationships, who gets her money, what will her baby do when she grows up,,who's baby it is, who's baby it isn't..but if you want the black and white facts..forget it...Thats not the story.
Same with Global warming....it's a good news headline...most watchers of the reports know nothing of which they speak, and frankly don't care. That want to see who looks good, who's not running with the pack. They don't really care to see what must be done....Thats not juicy, not sexy and much to close to home (turning down thermostats and not driving everywhere) not sexy!!!
the media runs on sensation..unfortunately we follow....mark my words this will be no issue, never covered, no one cares after the next election...we will all be on to the next great scare while the enviroment is no better (and likely worse) than today
on the longer timescale it won't have added anything. the sun appears to be in a roughly 11 years cycle. so over one hundred years we have ten maxima and ten minima. Also the difference between maximum and minimum isnt hugely pronounced, and the effect of sunspots on the earth's weather is pretty much unknown. The major consequences of sunspots are aurorae
Ottawabill said
And I say Hear! Hear!
Is the globe warming? Yeah, I think so.
Will it continue? Probably, especially as the ice caps (which reflect heat) continue to shrink.
Did we cause it? Perhaps, in part.
Can we prevent it?
EXTREMELY doubtful.
Does it mean the end of mankind, or the end of civilization as we know it?
OH SPARE ME!
I am not willing to destroy the economy as a sop to something dreamed up by engineers, scientists, and statiscians, partly because I think this is "the sky is falling" silliness, partly because I don't trust these mass anxiety attacks to mean anything.
Remember the "oil crisis" of the 70s?
How about the coming ice age?
The millenium factor?
RELAX, for God's sake.
Yes, we should be trying to slowly wean ourselves off fossil fuels, as the supply is finite, and they are polluting.
But I'll be damned if I'll jump on this bandwagon.
And I say Hear! Hear!
Is the globe warming? Yeah, I think so.
Will it continue? Probably, especially as the ice caps (which reflect heat) continue to shrink.
Did we cause it? Perhaps, in part.
Can we prevent it?
EXTREMELY doubtful.
Does it mean the end of mankind, or the end of civilization as we know it?
OH SPARE ME!
I am not willing to destroy the economy as a sop to something dreamed up by engineers, scientists, and statiscians, partly because I think this is "the sky is falling" silliness, partly because I don't trust these mass anxiety attacks to mean anything.
Remember the "oil crisis" of the 70s?
How about the coming ice age?
The millenium factor?
RELAX, for God's sake.
Yes, we should be trying to slowly wean ourselves off fossil fuels, as the supply is finite, and they are polluting.
But I'll be damned if I'll jump on this bandwagon.