The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

aerohead — Sophistiopaths?

If we could capture the carbon it would never be an issue.

The conversation moves fast it was yesterday I posted this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0

If the pilot plant is scalable to industrial levels then — hey, cheap gas!

They're lucky they didn't push the button.

We're all lucky they didn't push the button. Specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Off-topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrsCEbi5N7Y

[niky]

America won the Cold War because money money money. A global economy addicted to US dollars and American consumers

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Now you get into the difference of an environmentalist and a conservationist.
An environmentalist will deal in absolutes and usually end up at a solution that is worse for the environment.

A conservationist will weigh the pros and cons of each and try to figure an outcome that responsibility uses each resource.

California is a perfect example. They try so hard to "save the environment" they ruin it. Just look up "most polluted cities in America" and California is usually up near the top a lot especially when it comes to air pollution.
Or the thousands upon thousands of square miles of forest they clear cut and spray with roundup to maintain right of way for power transmission lines so they can "save the environment" by not building power plants.
By allowing environmentalist to run everything they ended up with a bunch of pollution and a surplus of stupidity.

California doesn't do enough clear-cutting... considering how bad the forest fires are. Strategic harvesting and herbicide use is actually "conservation" by your definition rather than environmentalism.

Also, radical environmentalists are trying to get everyone to stop using round-up... so...

Originally Posted by Xist

Burning biomass merely releases the carbon the trees sequestered, but the trees are not sequestering carbon anymore. Biomass is often advertised as leftovers and byproducts, but is then 75% new wood. How is leveling a forest, releasing 101 units of pollution, and not having the trees around to sequester that carbon somehow better than mining carbon, releasing 100 units of pollution, and having the trees around to sequester carbon?

Nobody is suggesting clear-cutting forests wholesale to run industries. That's insane.

The trick is burning biomass that you've cultivated. With the assumption you're going to grow a new crop to burn every year.

And a further trick is not using up all your prime food growing land to do that.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Oil companies admit the climate is changing but insist man has nothing to do with it.
Admitting they are the cause is financial suicide.
Then every 2 bit world country is going to try and sue them for perceived damages.

We're all guilty. Can't pin it all on the oil companies, they can't control what we do with the oil.

What can be pinned on them is the cover-up, but that will depend on the stockholders.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I say the plant started warming 14,000 years ago and hasn't stopped and that the climate has been changing for at least the last 2.5 billion years and has never stopped.

There's a difference between sitting in a car where the air-conditioning has just been switched off and sitting in one that's been sitting under the sun in a parking lot for a few hours.

Rate of change and trajectory are important.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I have, multiple times.
You and Neil ignore it every time.
Go back 20 to 150 pages on this post to find it.

I've debunked some of those several times.

You also ignored that.

[redneck]

Niky

I've debunked some of those several times.

Well, it’s settled then...

You’re the “Official Debunker”.





ROTFLMAO

>

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Oil companies admit the climate is changing but insist man has nothing to do with it.
Admitting they are the cause is financial suicide.
Then every 2 bit world country is going to try and sue them for perceived damages.

Follow the money. This is the one thing you are right about, on this.

The FUD you are espousing came straight from oil companies - they KNEW as early as the 1970's that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. They are now being forced to acknowledge this fact - by their shareholders.

Lying to shareholders - is a crime, you see. The only way they have been profitable - is to lie about what they are doing.

And lying to the public - is a crime against humanity.

Why do you still believe their lies?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I have, multiple times.
You and Neil ignore it every time.
Go back 20 to 150 pages on this post to find it.

Your "evidence" has been debunked. It is false. Your refusal to acknowledge this - doesn't change the facts.

ALL the evidence show that humans are causing the climate to change - very rapidly.

That is a fact.

[redpoint5]

In principle lying to the public is unethical. That said, it isn't unlawful. Look at the millions of products which claim to spot reduce fat, or return skin to a youthful state...

I'm not advocating for deception, merely stating that proving the intent was to deceive is nearly impossible, as it takes someone being caught and recorded saying they know one thing to be true, but want to make others believe the other thing.

If I were an oil company, I would say nothing about climate change, as that isn't the industry I'm in. I sell petroleum products. What people do with it is their business. I can't stop people from creating lifesaving pharmaceuticals, or dousing themselves with gasoline and lighting themselves on fire.

All that said, the last few pages of this thread have been super dull, as I keep pointing out, it doesn't matter who/what is responsible for CO2 if it is (or will be) indeed a catastrophic problem. The correct course of action would be the same.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

In principle lying to the public is unethical. That said, it isn't unlawful. Look at the millions of products which claim to spot reduce fat, or return skin to a youthful state...

I'm not advocating for deception, merely stating that proving the intent was to deceive is nearly impossible, as it takes someone being caught and recorded saying they know one thing to be true, but want to make others believe the other thing.

If I were an oil company, I would say nothing about climate change, as that isn't the industry I'm in. I sell petroleum products. What people do with it is their business. I can't stop people from creating lifesaving pharmaceuticals, or dousing themselves with gasoline and lighting themselves on fire.

All that said, the last few pages of this thread have been super dull, as I keep pointing out, it doesn't matter who/what is responsible for CO2 if it is (or will be) indeed a catastrophic problem. The correct course of action would be the same.

Oil companies are OBLIGATED to tell their shareholders about how their product is causing climate change. It is the biggest liability there ever was.

And because they have profited at the expense of the survival of life as we know it on the whole planet - they have committed a crime against humanity, and against all life on earth.

Of course any human who has benefited from fossil fuels is morally obligated to do everything we can to mitigate climate change.

[oil pan 4]

So giving people the energy and chemicals to grow, fertilize, kill pests to produce more food and transport water and food is a crime?

Well when the next Carrington event wipes out all access to most if not all fossil fuel energy for a few months to a few years we will how evil they are.

Debunking? More like spinning.
In the begining the science was pure. But the data was not showing what they wanted to see or the data wasnt showing change fast enough, so they lied and of course they got caught now they just have to lie more and faster, more often to cover for the original lie, rendering all their work as junk science.
Now the climate data is so skewed we won't know there is actually something wrong with the climate until after global crop failures and mass starvation has already started.

Speaking of lieing, how's that "putting global warming on trial" thing going?
Maybe we could take it all the way to the Supreme Court .

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Oil companies are OBLIGATED to tell their shareholders about how their product is causing climate change. It is the biggest liability there ever was.

And because they have profited at the expense of the survival of life as we know it on the whole planet - they have committed a crime against humanity, and against all life on earth.

Of course any human who has benefited from fossil fuels is morally obligated to do everything we can to mitigate climate change.

Everyone alive now owes our good fortune to those who have mightily leveraged the countless miracles afforded by using fossil fuels. Never has it been a better time to be a human than now, and that's almost entirely due to fossil fuels.

A crime against humanity would be to have a great resource, and keep it locked away.

They have no OBLIGATION to tell anyone anything. If I'm a fork maker, I don't have to tell my forking investors the infinite ways you could possibly be harmed with a fork. My job would simply be to make the most desirable forks for the least cost possible.

Show me 1 measurable metric in which humanity as a whole has suffered by use of fossil fuels (wealth, longevity, infant survival, travel, free time, etc).

It's some sort of twisted fad to hate everything that is good, to identify what is black as white, and to self-loath, and I'm not having any of it.

[niky]

The problem is transitioning to post-scarcity. Can we keep that quality of life? Or is this merely a century-long blip in the trajectory of human development?

Originally Posted by redneck

Well, it’s settled then...

You’re the “Official Debunker”.





ROTFLMAO

>

Argue the argument. Or post one.

Haven't had a good workout for weeks.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Debunking? More like spinning.
In the begining the science was pure. But the data was not showing what they wanted to see or the data wasnt showing change fast enough, so they lied and of course they got caught now they just have to lie more and faster, more often to cover for the original lie, rendering all their work as junk science.
Now the climate data is so skewed we won't know there is actually something wrong with the climate until after global crop failures and mass starvation has already started.

The hockey stick is much older than the supposed lies you keep harping about.

And if it's all about lying to amplify the warming, then none of the data should show the supposed pause, or that certain parts of Antarctica are gaining mass, or that sea levels in certain areas are lowering in relation to the land.

-

If you take the time to read everything, research everything and pore through countless online pages of researchers and data collectors arguing, you'd realize that scientists couldn't conspire to get anything done.

When you have a majority consensus, that means something.