The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Yes scientists lie.
It's called conflict of interest, you may have heard of this.
When a study is done and the scientists know where the money for the study comes from they find a result favorable to company funding the study at least 2/3 of the time.
Tobacco companies did this.
The worst one were studies paid for by sugar companies on sugar and any adverse health effect, studies funded by big sugar companies found that sugar had no adverse effects in 100% of studies over a 15 year period, which is statistically impossible.
Funding conflict of interest is very well known. I find it surprisingthat people who think they know so much about science have never heard of this.

I drive a leaf. The oil companies can kiss my arse.

The money me and my wife spend on gas had dropped by at least 80%.

It's a little more complicated than that.

The way medical companies do it is they do several different studies on the efficacy of their drugs, and pick the one with the most favorable outcome to publish (but all are funded).

It's not the results that get you the money. You get that upfront. Researchers aren't rich, they need funding to carry out their research. And you have to do the work properly or you'll get savaged in the review... if the work is fraudulent, there's always a whole number of other researchers ready to call you out on it to take you down a peg. (remember what I said about conspiracy?)... you can get banned, fined, blacklisted, etcetera.

There will always be studies and papers countering the consensus. Denialists don't necessarily have to pay for them (but mouthpieces do receive a lot of money to do no research at all), they just exaggerate the importance of the outliers while glossing over the consensus.

-

I know quite a few researchers. They're sometimes jobless. They're always scrounging for funding. And they're dead serious about their work. Also, they tend to drive boring cars. Those that actually do drive.

-

If I was getting paid with big conspiracy money, I sure as hell wouldn't live like that. Better to get a BA in PolSci or Business or to go into market research. Because working corporate is oh-so-much more profitable.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial

Chevron’s lawyer noted that the IPCC states that climate change is caused “largely by economic and population growth,” not fossil fuel extraction.

Can you say case dismissed?

Plus the oil companies didn't burn the vast majority of what they pulled out of the ground, we all did.

Gee, I wonder what energy sources are being used by that growing economy and population... (granted, there's also deforestation, over-utilization of resources, etcetera... but that seems like an extreme picking of nits by Chevron).

Also, in about-faces:
https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/12/inv...isk/index.html
https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...limate-science
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/3...ution-approved

Couldn't fund actual studies to debunk climate change. Simply buried them or ignored them.

All while sending money to "thinktanks" to attack the consensus.

Common story. All too common.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

... the oil companies didn't burn the vast majority of what they pulled out of the ground, we all did.

In the War On Fuel, do we go after the dealers or the addicts?

[oil pan 4]

The answer for the all tax loving political belivers is both.
Hold the producers liable, which any and all associated costs will be passed on to the consumer and tax the product to the point where the consumers standard of living is noticeably lower.

Either way I plan on being immune to any paradigm shift, be it pure supply and demand driven or political stupidity.

Oil products are going to get a lot more expensive on their own or really expensive if global warming political stupidity is allowed to go unchecked.
If Europe wants to pay $10 for a gallon of gasoline, let them if that let's you sleep better at night but keep that garbage on your side of the ocean.

Scientists lieing, no it really is that simple. Don't pretend it's anything else.

[oil pan 4]

BTW the icon satellite went up this morning.
As sense of dread washes over the man made global warming community.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

In the War On Fuel, do we go after the dealers or the addicts?

the addicts number 4 billion. To reduce the human demand for primary energy (of which solar and wind currently provide less than 3%) will require a complete socio-economic system redesign. Things will be much smaller and simpler in the future.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

we use fossil fuels in absolutely everything, and it's so vital to every single aspect of our lives,

There needs to be more public education about embodied energy so that the general population can understand that it is not currently an option to just leave it in the ground. There is no good or service in today's world that does not first need a big energy input. The vast majority of people, including scientists, are unaware of this. And have also been greenwashed by intentional conflation of the terms "energy" and "power" with electricity. Which is only 20% of world primary energy. And green magazine articles also intentionally mislead by stating increases in the build out of "installed capacity" and never mention capacity factor of actual production. Which for Germany's solar averages 11%.
.
Without the correct information, the general public cannot make wise decisions about how to proceed.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I'm more worried about the quadrupling to 10x-ing of price of liquid fuels in my life time.

The demand is going through the roof because of china and the stuff is getting harder and harder to find and get.

And India, Indonesia, Africa. Every underdeveloped person wants to rise up through increased energy consumption. And all of the developed world is stuck in a growth based economic system which also demands more energy to keep the plates spinning.

[NeilBlanchard]

Climate change deniers are using the exact same tactic that tobacco companies used.

We know that humans are causing climate change - with as much certainty that we know smoking causes cancer.

It IS about money - the money that fossil fuel companies are making - ONLY because they have been able to dump the waste into the world.

[redpoint5]

Fossil fuel companies don't really dump much waste into the world; we do.

I'm not sure why you imply they are specifically culpable?

Absolutely every action consumes a resource that is irreplaceable. That's the very law of entropy. There is no way to make order without having caused a greater amount of chaos. So every action has unintended negative externalities.

We're the waste generators. If people want to get serious about reducing their "footprint", the best way is to cease living. Anyone yammering on about how environmental concerns are the #1 priority in the world, and who has not already killed themselves, is an absolute hypocrite. Theirs is an empty religion.

My point isn't that we should have no concerns or do nothing, only that pointing the accusing finger is ridiculous and unproductive. We're at least as culpable in CO2 production as anyone else. If we want to loathe oil companies, we must also loathe ourselves. I'm not willing to do either. Self-loathing is pointless.

[oil pan 4]

In physiology I believe they call it projecting.

The oil companies burn less than 5% of what they produce based on what they start with compared to the end product. They are models of efficiency. They are also the only entry on earth that knows how to make and distribute large amounts of hydrogen gas, the beliver holly grail.
Coal companies use less than 1% of the energy they produce.

My observation is virtually all so called "environmentalists" and global warming belivers are hypocrites.
Enlarge they do nothing to improve the environment aside from buy them selves a hybrid car.
I notice they tend to fly on jet planes, have natural gas service, some abide by utterly unsustainable lifestyles such as a diet that depends on air lifted fruits and vegetables, but act like normal people aside from complain about what other people or companies do.

[redpoint5]

That's the point sendler is always making; that wealth and consumption are the same thing. Any person who is wealthy is also a large consumer.

The logical conclusion then is that if you want to reduce consumption, there are only 2 ways to go about doing it:

1. Reduce population
2. Reduce wealth

So the environmental "problem" isn't that we aren't all driving EVs and using LED bulbs, it's that we're rich and prolific.

People living in the US are the 1%, including those we consider "low income".

The rate of population growth is in decline, so I tend to believe technology will allow us to live in relatively high standards of living until population naturally peaks; perhaps somewhere around 10 billion. From there we will face the opposite population crisis; aging populations with declining numbers.

In the future, reproduction will be more about making a decision, and less about impulsiveness.