EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Tobin]

This is classic science denial at work. Tobin thinks that by simply repeating the same thing over and over he's actually making a substantive point. Repeating a nonsense claim over and over just means he is repeating nonsense. When humans weren't dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 rising and falling was caused by changes in the amount of solar irradiance. Today, we are dumping those billions of tons into the atmosphere. If you didn't look at the graph I posted, click on it and look now. Human release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels is what makes all the difference.

He also claims that CO2 can't do much on it's own because it's such a tiny part of the atmosphere. Note what's missing: evidence. The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere has been studied for over 100 years, and basic physics shows that Tobin is just wrong.

And note his absolute refusal to consider any evidence that he doesn't like. He just claims it's propaganda and refuses to consider it. This is how he keeps himself totally ignorant about the science of climate change.

No. It just means you are bad at math. Which number is bigger? .4/100th of 1% or 4%? Which number do you think represents CO2? Which number is H2O? Which one is significant? Which one is insignificant?

[_Themis]

No. It just means you are bad at math. Which number is bigger? .4/100th of 1% or 4%? Which number do you think represents CO2? Which number is H2O? Which one is significant? Which one is insignificant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

For those who are a little more objective then tobin. Good to understand how effective each greenhouse gas is at trapping heat.

[Guest]

I'll repeat, CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming and not a major cause of it. CO2 is such a tiny part of our atmosphere (less than 1/100th of 1%), it can't do much on its own. The major greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere is water. After the Sun, it is the primary cause of global warming. That is why I get a chuckle out of you global warming nuts. If people found out that you wanted to rein in the SUN and WATER, you'd be laughed out of the room.

And I'll ignore your alarmist propaganda links. It is clear you have no interest in presenting real facts.

Here Tobin reveals his basic dishonesty, duplicity and confirmation bias. A few posts further up thread he said he would welcome being informed by evidence supporting our views. Here he admits that he just refuses to even look at it, insisting that it is nothing but "alarmist propaganda links." Without looking at it and attempting to honestly consider and evaluate it, he can have no basis whatsoever for insisting it is nothing but "alarmist propaganda links."

Nothing is more glaringly apparent than that Tobin knows very little about the essentials and implications of climate change, and has very little interest or motivation to dispel his ignorance or even seriously consider even the tiniest possibility that he might be mistaken. Which reminds me again of this scene from Eric the Viking, and demonstrates once again that he is a prime example of backfire effect (unless he is just trolling us, of course, which I consider at least as likely or, perhaps, even more likely. Both could be true, I suppose).

[Guest]

Did anyone take a good look at what I said earlier about the work of Amory Lovins and the Rocky mountain institute?

See Reinventing Fire. Here is a good review of that book and quote from that review

The book is well-written and easy to read, but as I said, it's not exactly light reading. It should be required reading for policymakers and businesspeople, though. There are still lots of low-hanging fruits that could be quite lucrative if grabbed, and Reinventing Fire tells you where to look for them. Some of the examples are such no-brainers that it's truly shocking to think that not everybody is doing things that way; for example, they talk about how most skyscrapers could be retrofitted at no extra cost to a regular retrofit to use less than half the energy that they're using now, saving hundreds of thousands of dollars per year (if not millions) in energy costs, while at the same time providing a more productive and comfortable environment for the people inside.

The best thing about this book is that it's all about solutions! We hear so much about the problems that this is a breath of fresh air, and it makes me more optimistic about the future than I've been in a while (and I'm an optimist).

I have a copy of that book and am currently reading it. It is informative and fascinating reading. Also see this and this.

If not, please do, especially the two short TED talks by Amory Lovins I linked to. I am sure you will find them very interesting! Lovins argues very clearly and persuasively that insisting on continuing business as usual (BAU) will ultimately be much more devastating economically, environmentally and quality-of-life wise than taking the actions to greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency and reduce waste. He shows that businesses that have taken the actions and steps he suggests are saving millions, if not billions, of dollars per year, and are delighted with the results. The payback period in savings for making these innovative improvements are often shorter than three years. After that, it is pure profit. The climate deniers claims that striving for a greener and less fossil fuel dependent world will necessarily create more hardship and poverty are nothing more than outrageous lies by people and corporations who rightly fear the competition from the new, innovative and greener technologies now coming on line at an accelerating pace.

This doesn't necessarily require any new government imposed requirements or restrictions of personal liberties to implement them. All it requires is for the government to stay out of the way and resist the strident demands of lobbyists in the pay of wealthy, way too influential corporate interests, who are doing their level best to impose governmental and legal restrictions against adopting and accepting these viable and beneficial innovations.

According to Lovins, the debate should never have been mainly on the potentially detrimental environmental consequences of BAU; it should have focused more on the tremendous economic advantages, entrepreneurial opportunities and the millions of potential new jobs created by changing our way of doing things.

[_Gunnar]

Deleted duplicate post.

[_Tobin]

And I'll ignore your alarmist propaganda links. It is clear you have no interest in presenting real facts.

Here Tobin reveals his basic dishonesty, duplicity and confirmation bias. A few posts further up thread he said he would welcome being informed by evidence supporting our views. Here he admits that he just refuses to even look at it, insisting that it is nothing but "alarmist propaganda links." Without looking at it and attempting to honestly consider and evaluate it, he can have no basis whatsoever for insisting it is nothing but "alarmist propaganda links."

That hasn't changed. Present valid evidence, not your whacky fertile imaginings.

[_Gunnar]

Present valid evidence, not your whacky fertile imaginings.

The problem I see is that you refuse to even look at any evidence that does not support what you already believe. I submit again that you can have no basis for determining whether evidence that you refuse to even look at is valid or not. And I still find it immensely amusing that someone with your story of coitus being interrupted by a space alien would accuse someone else of "whacky [sic] fertile imaginings."

[Guest]

No. It just means you are bad at math. Which number is bigger? .4/100th of 1% or 4%? Which number do you think represents CO2? Which number is H2O? Which one is significant? Which one is insignificant?

4% does not come close to representing either CO2 or H2O concentration in the atmosphere, and whether a number is significant depends on what it represents. Drinking one glass of a 40% sugar solution will probably do you very little, if any, lasting harm, and drinking a a glass of .4/100th of 1% sugar water every day of your life will probably have no effect at all. Taking 40 milligrams of Vitamin A every day is more than 40 times the recommended daily dose, and will make you very sick, and may even kill you before very long, yet it is an essential nutrient. Inhaling 13 billionth of a gram of botulinum toxin will surely kill you. So merely having a small amount of something does not mean that it can't be harmful, even if some even smaller amount of the same substance is harmless or even beneficial.

[_The CCC]

It only takes a very small amount of cyanide to kill a person, but it is a vital element of your life. Vitamin B-12.

[_Res Ipsa]

This is classic science denial at work. Tobin thinks that by simply repeating the same thing over and over he's actually making a substantive point. Repeating a nonsense claim over and over just means he is repeating nonsense. When humans weren't dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, CO2 rising and falling was caused by changes in the amount of solar irradiance. Today, we are dumping those billions of tons into the atmosphere. If you didn't look at the graph I posted, click on it and look now. Human release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels is what makes all the difference.

He also claims that CO2 can't do much on it's own because it's such a tiny part of the atmosphere. Note what's missing: evidence. The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere has been studied for over 100 years, and basic physics shows that Tobin is just wrong.

And note his absolute refusal to consider any evidence that he doesn't like. He just claims it's propaganda and refuses to consider it. This is how he keeps himself totally ignorant about the science of climate change.

No. It just means you are bad at math. Which number is bigger? .4/100th of 1% or 4%? Which number do you think represents CO2? Which number is H2O? Which one is significant? Which one is insignificant?

Which of the following will have a greater warming effect on the atmosphere: a doubling of CO2 or a doubling of methane?