The Fossil Fuel Industry Misinformation Campaign

[BuckToothMoron]

I have no idea what you mean there. Are you rejecting all funded research? If so, you reject all research and all science.

The graphs I posted were comparisons between general climate models and climate observations. The models can be judged on how well they reproduce the past (hindcasting) and how well they predicted the future (forecasting). The widely denier-held belief that climate models have failed badly is simply false. I don't know to what you're referring with "data from the 70s"

Climate science can and does study any period the researcher wants to study. Recently, a great deal of study has gone into the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when human CO2 emissions began affecting global temperatures. Study of the more distant past also takes place. If you scan through this forum you will see data going back anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of millions of years. Your objection here is specious.

That skepticism, however, must remain based in the scientific method. It does not mean accepting any hypothesis that comes along simply because it differs from the consensus or rejecting a scientifically valid theory because you've been told it is politically based.

The IPCC is a part of the United Nations. In that sense, it cannot avoid being political in some manner. But it does NOT have a political goal, ambition or agenda. It's charter requires that it technically assess published science regarding the possibility of human caused global warming with an aim of advising the member nations as to the actual risks of the situation and with how they may be dealt. And that is what they have been doing.

That is incorrect. It IS possible for climate not to change but that would be rare and the point is irrelevant. The world's climate, in response to the unprecedentedly rapid increase in CO2 is experiencing an unprecedentedly rapid increase in temperature. As I have stated here on many occasions, it is NOT the absolute temperature we will achieve in the next century or two, it is the RATE at which our temperature is changing. If the world were to heat up 5C over the next 100,000 years (as it has done repeatedly in the distant past) we would not even notice. If it rises 5C within a century and a half (as it is doing now) the consequences will be catastrophic.

We are headed towards higher temperatures that we have ever experienced and we are already far beyond any CO2 level experienced in many times the span of human existence.

Some of it, yes.

I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. The Holocene Climate Optimum, roughly 8,000 years ago, has been considered the warmest period in human history for many decades now. We are closely approaching those temperatures and there is a very good chance we will exceed them soon, but no one disputes they are the current record holder.

Please. When folks make the argument that CO2 can't be warming the planet because it was warmer in the past without SUVs the only thing revealed is their ignorance. You need to improve your knowledge on this topic.

The graphs have virtually no value In science. Show me a 200 year graph, footnoted with the data source, crossed referenced with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which shows the source of that CO2. Then show me a 2000 year graph showing the same data. You are fixated on only looking at the data presented by the alarmist. Look for the missing data, ask questions and dig for truth. When you do, you will be alarmed, but for a different reason.

just out of curiosity, what is your education and what do you do for a living, or did for a living, if retired? I have a degree in mining engineering and have owned and operated my own window company for the last 25 years. I ask because help give insight into one’s perspective. Hopefully you will indulge me.

 

[Mac-7]

The deniers here constantly accuse the world's climate scientists of ALL being involved in a massive and decades-long hoat to push global warming in order to 1) Get rich 2) Remain employed 3) Gain control over the population 4) Destroy western civilization. Unfortunately for them, they have ZERO evidence to support those claims.

Deniers here have also constantly IGNORED the possibility that the fossil fuel industry, seeing global warming mitigation measures as an existential threat, might make efforts to slow the acceptance of the science and the measures required to combat this problem. Unfortunately for them, there is a wealth of evidence to prove that this is precisely what they have done and that all deniers have served admirably as the industry's "useful idiots".

Oil companies discourage climate action, study says

Harvard researchers have turned a spotlight on the sometimes subtle, yet effective, strategies employed by oil companies to foster doubt and delay action on climate change.

news.harvard.edu

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf

Exxon’s Climate Denial History: A Timeline

A review of Exxon's knowledge and subsequent denial of climate change.

www.greenpeace.org

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199570023/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-global-warming-oil-gas

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide

www.theguardian.com

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

There is no prophet to be made by oil companies if the man-made global warming doomsday hoax is real

But greenies make money as long as the public THINKS its real

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I have no idea what you mean there. Are you rejecting all funded research? If so, you reject all research and all science.

The graphs I posted were comparisons between general climate models and climate observations. The models can be judged on how well they reproduce the past (hindcasting) and how well they predicted the future (forecasting). The widely denier-held belief that climate models have failed badly is simply false. I don't know to what you're referring with "data from the 70s"

Climate science can and does study any period the researcher wants to study. Recently, a great deal of study has gone into the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when human CO2 emissions began affecting global temperatures. Study of the more distant past also takes place. If you scan through this forum you will see data going back anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of millions of years. Your objection here is specious.

That skepticism, however, must remain based in the scientific method. It does not mean accepting any hypothesis that comes along simply because it differs from the consensus or rejecting a scientifically valid theory because you've been told it is politically based.

The IPCC is a part of the United Nations. In that sense, it cannot avoid being political in some manner. But it does NOT have a political goal, ambition or agenda. It's charter requires that it technically assess published science regarding the possibility of human caused global warming with an aim of advising the member nations as to the actual risks of the situation and with how they may be dealt. And that is what they have been doing.

That is incorrect. It IS possible for climate not to change but that would be rare and the point is irrelevant. The world's climate, in response to the unprecedentedly rapid increase in CO2 is experiencing an unprecedentedly rapid increase in temperature. As I have stated here on many occasions, it is NOT the absolute temperature we will achieve in the next century or two, it is the RATE at which our temperature is changing. If the world were to heat up 5C over the next 100,000 years (as it has done repeatedly in the distant past) we would not even notice. If it rises 5C within a century and a half (as it is doing now) the consequences will be catastrophic.

We are headed towards higher temperatures that we have ever experienced and we are already far beyond any CO2 level experienced in many times the span of human existence.

Some of it, yes.

I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. The Holocene Climate Optimum, roughly 8,000 years ago, has been considered the warmest period in human history for many decades now. We are closely approaching those temperatures and there is a very good chance we will exceed them soon, but no one disputes they are the current record holder.

Please. When folks make the argument that CO2 can't be warming the planet because it was warmer in the past without SUVs the only thing revealed is their ignorance. You need to improve your knowledge on this topic.

Regarding the IPCC- as you acknowledged it‘s roots are political. That alone makes me question positions and motives. As for the charter that says they will only rely on published science….well that is where the rubber meets the road…it does 2 things. First, it automatically infers an inherent trust in the IPCC scientific position, but secondly It gives incentive for the IPCC to suppress scientific work that disagrees with their clear agenda which is to eliminate fossil fuels. That is a big one. I want independent sources with no dog in the fight. That is not the IPCC, or any other politically based organization for that matter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Regarding the IPCC- as you acknowledged it‘s roots are political. That alone makes me question positions and motives. As for the charter that says they will only rely on published science….well that is where the rubber meets the road…it does 2 things. First, it automatically infers an inherent trust in the IPCC scientific position, but secondly It gives incentive for the IPCC to suppress scientific work that disagrees with their clear agenda which is to eliminate fossil fuels. That is a big one. I want independent sources with no dog in the fight. That is not the IPCC, or any other politically based organization for that matter.

IPCC I Protect Communist China

"We de facto redistribute the world's wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. -- IPCC

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I have no idea what you mean there. Are you rejecting all funded research? If so, you reject all research and all science.

The graphs I posted were comparisons between general climate models and climate observations. The models can be judged on how well they reproduce the past (hindcasting) and how well they predicted the future (forecasting). The widely denier-held belief that climate models have failed badly is simply false. I don't know to what you're referring with "data from the 70s"

Climate science can and does study any period the researcher wants to study. Recently, a great deal of study has gone into the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when human CO2 emissions began affecting global temperatures. Study of the more distant past also takes place. If you scan through this forum you will see data going back anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of millions of years. Your objection here is specious.

That skepticism, however, must remain based in the scientific method. It does not mean accepting any hypothesis that comes along simply because it differs from the consensus or rejecting a scientifically valid theory because you've been told it is politically based.

The IPCC is a part of the United Nations. In that sense, it cannot avoid being political in some manner. But it does NOT have a political goal, ambition or agenda. It's charter requires that it technically assess published science regarding the possibility of human caused global warming with an aim of advising the member nations as to the actual risks of the situation and with how they may be dealt. And that is what they have been doing.

That is incorrect. It IS possible for climate not to change but that would be rare and the point is irrelevant. The world's climate, in response to the unprecedentedly rapid increase in CO2 is experiencing an unprecedentedly rapid increase in temperature. As I have stated here on many occasions, it is NOT the absolute temperature we will achieve in the next century or two, it is the RATE at which our temperature is changing. If the world were to heat up 5C over the next 100,000 years (as it has done repeatedly in the distant past) we would not even notice. If it rises 5C within a century and a half (as it is doing now) the consequences will be catastrophic.

We are headed towards higher temperatures that we have ever experienced and we are already far beyond any CO2 level experienced in many times the span of human existence.

Some of it, yes.

I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. The Holocene Climate Optimum, roughly 8,000 years ago, has been considered the warmest period in human history for many decades now. We are closely approaching those temperatures and there is a very good chance we will exceed them soon, but no one disputes they are the current record holder.

Please. When folks make the argument that CO2 can't be warming the planet because it was warmer in the past without SUVs the only thing revealed is their ignorance. You need to improve your knowledge on this topic.

The world‘s climate can not, will not, never has or never will remain constant. It is a mathematical impossibility. Given the factors involved, what we know about those factors and their respective effect on climate, coupled with the factors we do know about but have no reliable way to know their relative effect, makes it impossible to dial in to one very specific factor like CO2. It literally is the epitome of junk science IMO.

 

[HeyNorm]

The deniers here constantly accuse the world's climate scientists of ALL being involved in a massive and decades-long hoat to push global warming in order to 1) Get rich 2) Remain employed 3) Gain control over the population 4) Destroy western civilization. Unfortunately for them, they have ZERO evidence to support those claims.

Deniers here have also constantly IGNORED the possibility that the fossil fuel industry, seeing global warming mitigation measures as an existential threat, might make efforts to slow the acceptance of the science and the measures required to combat this problem. Unfortunately for them, there is a wealth of evidence to prove that this is precisely what they have done and that all deniers have served admirably as the industry's "useful idiots".

Oil companies discourage climate action, study says

Harvard researchers have turned a spotlight on the sometimes subtle, yet effective, strategies employed by oil companies to foster doubt and delay action on climate change.

news.harvard.edu

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf

Exxon’s Climate Denial History: A Timeline

A review of Exxon's knowledge and subsequent denial of climate change.

www.greenpeace.org

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/14/1199570023/exxon-climate-change-fossil-fuels-global-warming-oil-gas

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide

www.theguardian.com

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

www.scientificamerican.com

We’ve been hearing this shit since the 70’s and you are consistently wrong.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I have no idea what you mean there. Are you rejecting all funded research? If so, you reject all research and all science.

The graphs I posted were comparisons between general climate models and climate observations. The models can be judged on how well they reproduce the past (hindcasting) and how well they predicted the future (forecasting). The widely denier-held belief that climate models have failed badly is simply false. I don't know to what you're referring with "data from the 70s"

Climate science can and does study any period the researcher wants to study. Recently, a great deal of study has gone into the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when human CO2 emissions began affecting global temperatures. Study of the more distant past also takes place. If you scan through this forum you will see data going back anywhere from a few decades to hundreds of millions of years. Your objection here is specious.

That skepticism, however, must remain based in the scientific method. It does not mean accepting any hypothesis that comes along simply because it differs from the consensus or rejecting a scientifically valid theory because you've been told it is politically based.

The IPCC is a part of the United Nations. In that sense, it cannot avoid being political in some manner. But it does NOT have a political goal, ambition or agenda. It's charter requires that it technically assess published science regarding the possibility of human caused global warming with an aim of advising the member nations as to the actual risks of the situation and with how they may be dealt. And that is what they have been doing.

That is incorrect. It IS possible for climate not to change but that would be rare and the point is irrelevant. The world's climate, in response to the unprecedentedly rapid increase in CO2 is experiencing an unprecedentedly rapid increase in temperature. As I have stated here on many occasions, it is NOT the absolute temperature we will achieve in the next century or two, it is the RATE at which our temperature is changing. If the world were to heat up 5C over the next 100,000 years (as it has done repeatedly in the distant past) we would not even notice. If it rises 5C within a century and a half (as it is doing now) the consequences will be catastrophic.

We are headed towards higher temperatures that we have ever experienced and we are already far beyond any CO2 level experienced in many times the span of human existence.

Some of it, yes.

I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. The Holocene Climate Optimum, roughly 8,000 years ago, has been considered the warmest period in human history for many decades now. We are closely approaching those temperatures and there is a very good chance we will exceed them soon, but no one disputes they are the current record holder.

Please. When folks make the argument that CO2 can't be warming the planet because it was warmer in the past without SUVs the only thing revealed is their ignorance. You need to improve your knowledge on this topic.

I did not make the claim CO2 can’t be warming the planet. My position has been consistently that we do not know precisely what is effecting our climate or to what degree. I intend to continue to improve my knowledge of the science, but I suspect that is not what you consider the topic. The more I have learned about the science, the more I have been convinced that this IPCC driven agenda is not rooted in science. You can’t just claim the science is settled. if politics and religion were allowed to dictate settled science, the flat earth would still be the center of our universe.

Can I ask you- does it cause you pause that no significant figure in the political world questions the AGW theory, or that no major news source reports on science contrary to the theory? Because it sure as hell causing me a lot of pause. There are numerous highly regarded scientist that have published contrary findings that are ignored politically and by the MSM. That makes me suspicious. Not you?

 

[GMCGeneral]

EVs are not wanted by most car buyers.

To say nothing of the fact their counterparts in Transit buses have proven to be a colossal failure in their own right.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

IPCC I Protect Communist China

"We de facto redistribute the world's wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. -- IPCC

Can you provide your source for that. It’s fricken powerful!

 

[Crick]

We’ve been hearing this shit since the 70’s and you are consistently wrong.

Has CO2 not continued to increase? Have temperatures not continued to rise? Have sea levels not continued to rise? Have the world's glaciers not lost significant ice mass? Greenland and Antarctica are melting, are they not? Is the Arctic ice cap not continuing to shrink. What is it you believe to be "consistently wrong"?

 

[GMCGeneral]

Has CO2 not continued to increase? Have temperatures not continued to rise? Have sea levels not continued to rise? Have the world's glaciers not lost significant ice mass? Greenland and Antarctica are melting, are they not? Is the Arctic ice cap not continuing to shrink. What is it you believe to be "consistently wrong"?

The Earth has no "pristine standard" that should be followed, moron.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Has CO2 not continued to increase? Have temperatures not continued to rise? Have sea levels not continued to rise? Have the world's glaciers not lost significant ice mass? Greenland and Antarctica are melting, are they not? Is the Arctic ice cap not continuing to shrink. What is it you believe to be "consistently wrong"?

OMG dude! You are looking for reasons to believe the science. The art of being a scientist is looking for discrepancy in the data. And when you can’t find it, the earth will be round. Why don’t you ask questions, search, and confirm?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you provide your source for that. It’s fricken powerful!

Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010 on international climate politics and redistribution of wealth.

Only been linking this quote for 13 years

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Ottmar Edenhofer in 2010 on international climate politics and redistribution of wealth.

Only been linking this quote for 13 years

I appreciate it. I have been on a long hiatus from this site.

 

[Crick]

The graphs have virtually no value In science.

What graphs have no value and why?

Show me a 200 year graph, footnoted with the data source, crossed referenced with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which shows the source of that CO2. Then show me a 2000 year graph showing the same data. You are fixated on only looking at the data presented by the alarmist. Look for the missing data, ask questions and dig for truth. When you do, you will be alarmed, but for a different reason.

You seem to have come to a conclusion before looking at anything. I am not a scientist but I know enough to know good science and bad science when I see them. Too many people these days, particularly on this topic, seem to believe that the first requirement of good science is to reject the consensus whether or not you have any evidence, rationale or logic to do so. Thousands of scientists have been studying AGW for decades now and have learned more on the topic than I could ever put together. They have tested it every way it can be tested. I will do no better. A very large majority of active climate scientists and scientists of all fields now accept AGW theory. Based on that alone, I accept those conclusions as are clearly and thoroughly explained by the IPCC assessment reports.

The fossil fuel industry would very much like you to demand that this topic be further explored, that these conclusions be tested again and again and again, that we wait to see if these predictions come true before taking any mitigation measures. And, of course, they want that because they would like their business and their careers and their profits and their paychecks to keep on coming no matter what might happen to the planet. This was precisely the tactic used by the tobacco industry. The false controversy, the repeated observation that no one had "PROVEN" that cigarettes caused lung cancer. And for every forum participant here, aware that the fossil fuel industry has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to convince us of these lies, there are ten or fifteen or twenty posters who will confidently assert that AGW is a hoax put on flawlessly by all the world's scientists for the last 40 years, either because they are greedy or that they are evil liberal democrats seeking control over others or that they are attempting to destroy western civilization just for GP.

just out of curiosity, what is your education and what do you do for a living, or did for a living, if retired?

I am retired. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and worked for NATO testing sensor and weapon systems for NATO member-nation navies. Before college I did a stint in the navy as a submarine sonar tech and my professional specialty was submarine sonars but also tested surface sonars, radars, fire control systems, laser rangers, missile launchers, guns, navigation systems, DGPS, etc, etc, etc

I have a degree in mining engineering and have owned and operated my own window company for the last 25 years. I ask because help give insight into one’s perspective. Hopefully you will indulge me.

I argue with too many people here and for a few hours I had you confused with someone else with whom I'd grown tired. Mea culpa.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Has CO2 not continued to increase? Have temperatures not continued to rise? Have sea levels not continued to rise? Have the world's glaciers not lost significant ice mass? Greenland and Antarctica are melting, are they not? Is the Arctic ice cap not continuing to shrink. What is it you believe to be "consistently wrong"?

Has CO2 not continued to increase? Have temperatures not continued to rise?

Didn't CO2 levels rise from 1940-1980? While temperatures fell?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

What graphs have no value and why?

You seem to have come to a conclusion before looking at anything. I am not a scientist but I know enough to know good science and bad science when I see them. Too many people these days, particularly on this topic, seem to believe that the first requirement of good science is to reject the consensus whether or not you have any evidence, rationale or logic to do so. Thousands of scientists have been studying AGW for decades now and have learned more on the topic than I could ever put together. They have tested it every way it can be tested. I will do no better. A very large majority of active climate scientists and scientists of all fields now accept AGW theory. Based on that alone, I accept those conclusions as are clearly and thoroughly explained by the IPCC assessment reports.

The fossil fuel industry would very much like you to demand that this topic be further explored, that these conclusions be tested again and again and again, that we wait to see if these predictions come true before taking any mitigation measures. And, of course, they want that because they would like their business and their careers and their profits and their paychecks to keep on coming no matter what might happen to the planet. This was precisely the tactic used by the tobacco industry. The false controversy, the repeated observation that no one had "PROVEN" that cigarettes caused lung cancer. And for every forum participant here, aware that the fossil fuel industry has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars to try to convince us of these lies, there are ten or fifteen or twenty posters who will confidently assert that AGW is a hoax put on flawlessly by all the world's scientists for the last 40 years, either because they are greedy or that they are evil liberal democrats seeking control over others or that they are attempting to destroy western civilization just for GP.

I am retired. I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering and worked for NATO testing sensor and weapon systems for NATO member-nation navies. Before college I did a stint in the navy as a submarine sonar tech and my professional specialty was submarine sonars but also tested surface sonars, radars, fire control systems, laser rangers, missile launchers, guns, navigation systems, DGPS, etc, etc, etc

I argue with too many people here and for a few hours I had you confused with someone else with whom I'd grown tired. Mea culpa.

if i understand you, based on consensus you accept the science. That is your right. At the risk of redundancy- consensus was a flat earth at the center of the universe. I need more. I am curious though, if you did not have this perception of scientific consensus, would you then look deeper? if so, what research have you done to confirm the existence of a consensus. Remember, just because a consensus is claimed or reported, it does not mean it’s true.

 

[HeyNorm]

Has CO2 not continued to increase? Have temperatures not continued to rise? Have sea levels not continued to rise? Have the world's glaciers not lost significant ice mass? Greenland and Antarctica are melting, are they not? Is the Arctic ice cap not continuing to shrink. What is it you believe to be "consistently wrong"?

The sea levels are rising so rapidly that Miami and New York are still there. In the 70s they were to be long gone in the 80s.

And you still believe this crap?

 

[Crick]

if i understand you, based on consensus you accept the science. That is your right. At the risk of redundancy- consensus was a flat earth at the center of the universe. I need more. I am curious though, if you did not have this perception of scientific consensus, would you then look deeper? if so, what research have you done to confirm the existence of a consensus. Remember, just because a consensus is claimed or reported, it does not mean it’s true.

If you want to see the science, to go www.ipcc.ch and look for "Working Group I, The Physical Science Basis". It has a few different sections; the quickest to get through is "Summary for Policy Makers".

If you would like to explore the consensus, go to Wikipedia's article on the consensus at Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[Crick]

The sea levels are rising so rapidly that Miami and New York are still there. In the 70s they were to be long gone in the 80s.

And you still believe this crap?

You need to separate what was actually put out by scientists and what was not. Here is sea level rise from 1993 to the present:

No one was going to look at these data and forecast NYC being washed away by this point. Note the vertical scale. There is, however, a non-trivial chance of a catastrophic collapse (as opposed to the gradual collapse unstoppably taking place now) of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) that could cause global sea level to rise by 5 meters (16.4 feet) in a matter of days. The mainstream science position is that it will take over a century for the WAIS to collapse. I'm a cynic.