[DrCaleb]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

The carbon industry recognized the reality of climate change years ago and devised a rational strategy to obstruct change; deny warming; dispute warming; question the efficacy of carbon pricing; and, eventually, claim no measures will be useful because of China and India. Like Big Tobacco they are following a plan.

If you follow the money, the big deniers also use the same PR firms that Big Tobacco used.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... o-playbook

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... y-public1/

[N_Fiddledog]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

The carbon industry

Carbon is a solid.

Carbon Dioxide is the odourless, invisible gas necessary for life on earth

I would expect people who like to insist they represent "The Science" to know that.

CO2 is what we exhale. Hothouse farmers use it to help their tomatoes get fatter and juicier.

And you don't want to start talking PR firms, Doc. Not until you check out the guy backing Suzuki's PR team and that site for hating climate wrong-thinkers that Beave likes (I forget the name of it). Pssst...felony convicted criminal.

Also there's a confusion in Warmists' desperate attempts to connect Oil to big tobacco. Generally the oil money that could be connected by third party to tobacco interests went to studying the effects of "Second Hand Smoke" and making that information public. I don't think it's that big a thing anymore though. Don't hear much about it except from the type who think or fall in line with those who think we need an authoritarian, global government to manage the weather.

[Sunnyways]

In this debate, the links speak for themselves.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzi ... story.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa815f

I just don’t find the counter-arguments credible in any way. Obviously, as somebody ignorant of climate change models, math, physics etc. I have to take most of this on faith but I consider that a more prudent approach than the alternative. We are not the desperate ones here.

[DrCaleb]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

I just don’t find the counter-arguments credible in any way. Obviously, as somebody ignorant of climate change models, math, physics etc. I have to take most of this on faith but I consider that a more prudent approach than the alternative. We are not the desperate ones here.

Unlike many today, you accept that there are people more knowledgeable than you on the subject.

random-insanity-f16/random-thoughts-comments-and-observations-t101936-15075.html#p2309996

[llama66]

However too much CO2 and we suffocate. We exhale CO2 because it is a byproduct of our respiratory system. To go back to breathable, its needs to be 'scrubbed' usually via plants.

[N_Fiddledog]

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

In this debate, the links speak for themselves.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzi ... story.html

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa815f

I just don’t find the counter-arguments credible in any way. Obviously, as somebody ignorant of climate change models, math, physics etc. I have to take most of this on faith but I consider that a more prudent approach than the alternative. We are not the desperate ones here.

I don't know why you'd want to boast up creds as a Scientific ignorant Sunny but just to be fair I'll join you.

I, of course, am no kind of scientist. I'm just the guy who sits in the back seats at magic shows telling people how he thinks the tricks are done.

For example this current one you're so proud of from the LA Times.

They say their allegations are based on "A new study by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes". Don't know who Supran is but isn't Oreskes just some sort of librarian. I've seen her "studies" get kicked around and revealed as nonsense pretty brutally in the past.

In fact, what's with this one? Wasn't this allegation of Exxon having some past knowledge of the horrors of climate change yet daring to finance people to study the matter defeated in the courts last year?

It's just another lie that refuses to die, I guess.

[Sunnyways]

This is from the Harvard research document above:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 326/aa815f

From the abstract:

This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about climate change. We present an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements ('advertorials') in The New York Times. We examine whether these communications sent consistent messages about the state of climate science and its implications—specifically, we compare their positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four cases, we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt...

And the conclusion:

Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil's scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil's advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58]. Likewise, the company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil's AGW communications were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Sunnyways Sunnyways:

I just don’t find the counter-arguments credible in any way. Obviously, as somebody ignorant of climate change models, math, physics etc. I have to take most of this on faith but I consider that a more prudent approach than the alternative. We are not the desperate ones here.

Unlike many today, you accept that there are people more knowledgeable than you on the subject.

random-insanity-f16/random-thoughts-comments-and-observations-t101936-15075.html#p2309996

And believe it or not, Doc there are even some who are more knowledgeable than you. In fact some of us believe there are a lot of them and we'll listen to both them and your "experts" too.

[N_Fiddledog]

TABLES TURNED: ALARMISTS NOW ‘DENY’ CLIMATE SCIENCE WHILE BIG OIL DEFENDS IT

$1:

Something bizarre happened Wednesday after the U.S. District Court for the District Northern California held a “tutorial” hearing on global warming science.

Chevron agreed with the latest scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), which was released in 2013 and 2014, the oil company’s lawyer said.

California cities, environmentalists and some scientists argued Chevron’s use of the IPCC’s latest assessment was misleading since it was outdated. Effectively, those seeking to punish oil companies are throwing aside the oft touted “consensus” on climate science.

The irony was not lost on University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr., who published peer-reviewed studies on climate science and policies.

@RogerPielkeJr

This tweet indicates how much the climate debate has changed.
An oil company is invoking the IPCC consensus as their opponents, environmental activists (including some climate scientists), deny the IPCC consensus.
Bizzaro world!⬇️

https://dailycaller.com/2018/03/21/chev ... dium=email

[N_Fiddledog]

Concerning Exxon here's what happened as I remember it. Feel free to double-check.

At one time Exxon financed think tanks studying the skeptic side of climate change and publicizing it. As I recall that ended over 10 years ago. They spent about 10 million dollars on the think tanks, I think. That's million with an M. Not the Trillion with a T that's gone to the other side.

Exxon flipped sides and began cheerleading global warming alarmism. That was under some new guy - I forget his name but he's gone. They're still on that side of the debate now but not as loud and proud of it is my impression.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I tell you what though Fifer ol' bud...seeing as you'd rather talk about climate than weather now, here's one I just read that I kind of like:

Canada’s leaders infected with climate hysteria

$1:

Throughout Europe in the Middle Ages there were repeated episodes of what we describe today as “dancing mania.”

Inexplicably, hundreds of people would start dancing for days on end, many to the point of exhaustion, collapse and even death. Numerous theories have been offered for why this happened,.

Many point to the communal fears and widespread belief in the supernatural rampant in the Middle Ages, acting as an accelerant to the dancing mania. What is known is that what we would today describe as an insane behaviour happened over and over again.

Today, dancing mania aptly describes climate mania, or, if you prefer, climate hysteria, globally and in Canada.

The United Nations keeps issuing increasingly apocalyptic reports of imminent climate catastrophe, along with dire warnings we’re so far behind reducing our industrial greenhouse gas emissions to the level that’s needed to save the planet, that we’re racing towards doom.

The UN did it again Tuesday in its latest “emissions gap” report. It warned global emissions are at record levels, still rising, and we now have to do three to five times as much to reduce them as was agreed to in the 2015 Paris climate accord, to avert a climate apocalypse.

The report says Canada has fallen far short of reaching both its 2020 and 2030 emission reduction targets that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed to in that accord. That is, we’re falling far short of the completely inadequate targets which the UN now says must be replaced by much deeper cuts.

Meanwhile, Trudeau, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and the Liberal chorus assure us Canada is on track to meet its emission target for 2030, having stopped talking about 2020 for the obvious reason that it’s only two years away.

Their claim is utter nonsense.

Anyone who has run the numbers knows Trudeau’s national carbon price of $20 per tonne of emissions starting Jan. 1, 2019, rising to $50 per tonne in 2022, is completely inadequate to achieve our Paris accord 2030 target, let alone the far more stringent targets the UN says are now required.

The reason Trudeau and McKenna won’t answer questions about what carbon prices they would impose post 2022 is that they would have to be in the hundreds of dollars per tonne, implemented immediately, to meet the UN’s latest climate targets. That’s not going to happen because it would be political suicide.

So the actual position of Trudeau and McKenna is that in the face of what they tell us is imminent climate catastrophe, they’re going to dink us with an ineffective carbon tax as the world goes up in flames.

Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives say their solution is an as-yet-unrevealed plan that is better than the Liberal one, without a carbon tax, even though carbon taxes are the most effective way to reduce emissions.


Thus it can fairly be said that our two major political parties have been infected by climate mania, similar to the dancing mania of the Middle Ages, where people inexplicably behaved in insane ways.

If Trudeau, Scheer et al. really believe the world faces an imminent existential threat from climate change then what they’re doing, and more significantly not doing, makes no sense. The only way it would make sense is that if they actually don’t believe this and consider climate change to be just another political issue where the public needs to be deceived, managed and spun.

Because that’s how they’re behaving.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... e-hysteria

INFECTED...

[N_Fiddledog]

Yup.