Global Warming Scandal: Only Thing Heated Is The Data

[_Droopy]

The U.S. Senate on January 21, 2015 voted 98-1 to approve a resolution stating that “it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax.” Then, about 15 minutes later, the Senate rejected a second resolution that said climate change is real and caused by humans. Didn't want the oil companies and major polluters who contribute to Republican campaigns to get a bad rap.

Humanity is doomed, and the light of freedom, liberty, and living standards above that of the late 19th or early 20th century, forgone, if people like Moksha are now the majority among us.

If the gospel teaches us anything, it is that an empty head is just as much a sin - and a personal responsibility of mortality - as is a hardened heart.

[_Droopy]

So we're just talking about a fraction of a degree, eh? Well, believe it or not, a fraction of a degree can make all the difference between ice and water. This is why sea levels are rising at an astonishing rate. Within this century Miami will be underwater.

Why is it that Right Wingers always tend to be the least educated on such matters? Droopy's hilariously uninformed rants about PH having nothing to do with acidity, comes to mind.

First of all, my statements about PH were scientifically correct. The oceans are not becoming more acidic only a tiny bit less alkaline on one side of the PH scale. To do that, they would have to cross a threshold that the laws of physics and the nature of the oceans themselves will simply not allow.

I think it has everything to do with their paradigm of the world. They really do live in a microcosm of their own. If it is cold, right now, where they live, well global warming can't be true. And of course, you bring up science, they claim it is a Liberal conspiracy. There is no getting through to the FOX sheeple.

The idea of DAGW/CAGW was never more than a hypothesis, and never graduated to anything approximating a theory for two critical reasons, the first being a complete lack of observational, empirical evidence supporting the theory, and secondly because every major claim made by the theory as been thoroughly discredited by empirical scientific evidence across a number of earth science disciplines over the past twenty years.

Competent atmospheric scientists knew decades ago the the basic laws of physics underlying claims of human or naturally induced climate change as being based on atmospheric CO2 were dubious, and as we now know that the (as yet unvalidated) GCM's have been spectacularly wrong (unless one is programming and using them as curve-fitting tools) in all the projections they have made and claims made from them, and that nature has very simply not behaved at all as the models predicted, the game is long over.

But the computer models are not doing science, and the fad among "climate scientists" for using them in lieu of doing actual empirical field science is, and should have been, telling in and of itself.

Average sea level around the world has been rising for many years.

It sure has - for about 14,000 to 17,000 years, ever since the end of the last major glacial age and, more recently, since the end of a smaller ice age over 5,000 years ago and since the end of the LIA (the present modest warming trend - well within known natural variation - being itself a "rebound" from that climatic event).

Over the last 150 years, sea levels have risen at an average rate of six inches per century (up from two inches per century over the last 2,000 years) and there is no empirical evidence that it is accelerating.

Present sea level rise is projected, from empirical study (tide gauge data and satellite telemetry data) not computer models, to be approximately 4 to 6 inches over the course of the next century

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, you were scientifically correct, which is why you immediately tucked your tail between your legs and fled the forum.

We'll let that be your little secret.

[_Gunnar]

The real scandal is misinformation provided by dishonest, mercenary scientists funded by and working at the behest of the Koch Brothers and others in the fossil fuel industry as exposed here.

As the book-turned-film Merchants of Doubt exposed, corporations such as tobacco companies have found a way to muddle the science on issues affecting their profits: Throw some money at it. (Full disclosure: Merchants of Doubt was produced by Participant Media, TakePart’s parent company.)

In the midst of a climate-change crisis, that’s just what the fossil fuel industry has been doing. And the latest scientist linked to the clandestine practice is Wei-Hock Soon.

According to The New York Times, politicians fighting climate-change legislation often cite the work of the scientist, who is employed by the Smithsonian Institution on a part-time basis. Though he’s often referred to as a “Harvard astrophysicist” on conservative news shows, Soon has never worked for the Ivy League school. His degree is in aerospace engineering.

According to recently released documents, he’s received at least $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies while omitting that connection in the majority of his scientific papers over the past decade. Since 2008, he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 studies—a violation of the guidelines of the journals that released them.

[_Brackite]

Hi Gunnar,

I think that you might find this recent Article from the Huffington Post interesting.

Shell CEO Says Industry Needs To Be Less Aloof In Climate Change Conversation

...

Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden believes it is time for his industry to take a more active role in the conversation about climate change and become "less aloof." Putting a price on carbon is a "crucial" part of lowering emissions and addressing climate change, he said at an industry conference in London on Thursday evening.

"Yes, climate change is real. And yes, renewables are an indispensable part of the future energy mix," van Beurden said, according to prepared remarks. "But no, provoking a sudden death of fossil fuels isn’t a plausible plan."

"The issue is how to balance one moral obligation, energy access for all, against the other: fighting climate change," he continued. "We still need fossil fuels for a lower carbon, higher energy future."

Van Beurden stressed that global energy demand indicates that fossil fuels won't disappear overnight. He said the focus should be on reducing emissions by switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, deploying carbon capture and storage technology, and creating a "well-executed" carbon pricing system.

Achieving these goals is still a distant prospect, he said. "The debate -- driven by [non-governmental organizations] -- still revolves around emission targets, whereas the policies needed for meeting those targets are often overlooked."

He also acknowledged the oil industry's credibility issue, and said it must take a critical look at itself: "You cannot talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change; if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price; and if you always descend into the ‘jobs versus environment’ argument in the public debate."

Van Beurden's comments distinguish him from some of his oil company peers. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson has called climate change a "a risk management problem" and questioned how much is really known about the science. In 2012, Chevron CEO John Watson cautioned against carbon pricing during slower economic periods and said "it's not my call" to decide carbon policy for the United States.

Yet the heads of other major energy companies have acknowledged the importance of addressing climate change and advocated for a price on carbon. Helge Lund, the president and chief executive officer of Norwegian oil company Statoil, and James Rogers, the retired chairman and CEO of Duke Energy, both stressed these issues at an energy policy conference at Columbia University in May 2014. Rogers called a price on carbon "critical" and predicted that no new coal-fired power plants would be built in the U.S. in the next few decades.

"Our sector needs to enter into the public debate alongside other credible parties -- ranging from academics to non-governmental organizations and policy makers," van Beurden said on Thursday. "Together, we can offer some realism and practicality to the debate."

[_Gunnar]

Hi Gunnar,

I think that you might find this recent Article from the Huffington Post interesting.

Shell CEO Says Industry Needs To Be Less Aloof In Climate Change Conversation

...

Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van Beurden believes it is time for his industry to take a more active role in the conversation about climate change and become "less aloof." Putting a price on carbon is a "crucial" part of lowering emissions and addressing climate change, he said at an industry conference in London on Thursday evening.

"Yes, climate change is real. And yes, renewables are an indispensable part of the future energy mix," van Beurden said, according to prepared remarks. "But no, provoking a sudden death of fossil fuels isn’t a plausible plan."

"The issue is how to balance one moral obligation, energy access for all, against the other: fighting climate change," he continued. "We still need fossil fuels for a lower carbon, higher energy future."

Van Beurden stressed that global energy demand indicates that fossil fuels won't disappear overnight. He said the focus should be on reducing emissions by switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, deploying carbon capture and storage technology, and creating a "well-executed" carbon pricing system.

Achieving these goals is still a distant prospect, he said. "The debate -- driven by [non-governmental organizations] -- still revolves around emission targets, whereas the policies needed for meeting those targets are often overlooked."

He also acknowledged the oil industry's credibility issue, and said it must take a critical look at itself: "You cannot talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change; if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price; and if you always descend into the ‘jobs versus environment’ argument in the public debate."

Van Beurden's comments distinguish him from some of his oil company peers. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson has called climate change a "a risk management problem" and questioned how much is really known about the science. In 2012, Chevron CEO John Watson cautioned against carbon pricing during slower economic periods and said "it's not my call" to decide carbon policy for the United States.

Yet the heads of other major energy companies have acknowledged the importance of addressing climate change and advocated for a price on carbon. Helge Lund, the president and chief executive officer of Norwegian oil company Statoil, and James Rogers, the retired chairman and CEO of Duke Energy, both stressed these issues at an energy policy conference at Columbia University in May 2014. Rogers called a price on carbon "critical" and predicted that no new coal-fired power plants would be built in the U.S. in the next few decades.

"Our sector needs to enter into the public debate alongside other credible parties -- ranging from academics to non-governmental organizations and policy makers," van Beurden said on Thursday. "Together, we can offer some realism and practicality to the debate."

Hi Brackite! I greatly admire and respect many of your contributions to this forum!

Thank you for the link to that article. I did indeed find it interesting. It is good to know that at least some oil company executives are recognizing the realities of AGW and taking some responsibility for bringing attention to it and helping to effect positive changes in the right direction. Of course we can't immediately end our dependence on fossil fuels, but I do think we can make faster progress in weaning ourselves off of them than even Ben van Beurden is ready to acknowledge, and we can potentially save trillions of dollars while doing it, as well as creating millions of new jobs in the process. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute shows how we can do it, using mainly private sector efforts with minimal Government mandated involvement, and using already existing technology. Given the potential benefits, it would be practically insane not to do this, especially when considering the potentially drastic consequences for our descendants of not doing so. Lovins also has several very interesting presentations on the TED Talks Site that are well worth searching for and viewing.

My friend, Craig Criddle (whom you may have heard of in connection with his research on Book of Mormon origins) is a highly respected scientist doing important research and work at Stanford University on environmental remediation. One of the more exciting things he is working on is waste water treatment processes that not only purify and recycle water, but extract enough useful energy from the waste water to entirely run the treatment plant, with enough left over to sell to the electrical grid. He has even talked with large oil companies (including Shell Oil, If I recall correctly) to help raise funding for his research and developments. Frustratingly, they acknowledge the value, importance and validity of his work, but admit that they are more concerned with getting as much return as possible from the money they have already invested in finding and drilling for oil and in refineries than in investing in research on green technologies for now and the immediate future, despite their great, potential profitability.