There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism

[Old Rocks]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000934

Abstract
The biggest mass extinction of the past 600 million years (My), the end-Permian event (251 My ago), witnessed the loss of as much as 95% of all species on Earth. Key questions for biologists concern what combination of environmental changes could possibly have had such a devastating effect, the scale and pattern of species loss, and the nature of the recovery. New studies on dating the event, contemporary volcanic activity, and the anatomy of the environmental crisis have changed our perspectives dramatically in the past five years. Evidence on causation is equivocal, with support for either an asteroid impact or mass volcanism, but the latter seems most probable. The extinction model involves global warming by 6°C and huge input of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates, leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop, the ‘runaway greenhouse’.

As one gets closer to the present date, the articles emphasize the warming far more than the cooling periods.

 

[Desperado]

Of course there is big money in the Global Warming Alarmism and that is the only reason we are still discussing Global Warming

 

[Old Rocks]

There is significant evidence that the most likely cause of the PT extinction event - the largest in Earth's history - was a dramatic rise in CO2.

No, there isn't. It exists only in a "simple" (their word, not mine) computer model.

Odd that almost all the geologists that I have talked to about the PT extinction have said just the opposite. Yes, short duration cooling events, but the worst was the extreme warming from outgassing of CO2 from the Siberian Traps, and outgassing of the methane clathrates, and methane produced from the basalts on coal beds.

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/Evolution_GIST_2013/files_2013/articles/Saunders, Reichow - 2009 - The Siberian Traps and the End-Permian mass extinction a critical review.pdf

The Siberian Traps and the End-Permian mass extinction: a critical review Andy SAUNDERS† & Marc REICHOW Department of Geological Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom The association between the Siberian Traps, the largest continental flood basalt province, and the largest-known mass extinction event at the end of the Permian period, has been strengthened by recently-published high-precision 40Ar/39Ar dates from widespread localities across the Siberian province[1]. We argue that the impact of the volcanism was amplified by the prevailing late Permian environmental conditions―in particular, the hothouse climate, with sluggish oceanic circulation, that was leading to widespread oceanic anoxia. Volcanism released large masses of sulphate aerosols and carbon dioxide, the former triggering short-duration volcanic winters, the latter leading to long-term warming. Whilst the mass of CO2 released from individual eruptions was small compared with the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere-ocean system, the long ‘mean lifetime’ of atmospheric CO2, compared with the eruption flux and duration, meant that significant accumulation could occur over periods of 105 years. Compromise of the carbon sequestration systems (by curtailment of photosynthesis, destruction of biomass, and warming and acidification of the oceans) probably led to rapid atmospheric CO2 build-up, warming, and shallow-water anoxia, leading ultimately to mass extinction.

Caltech has a pretty good reputation.

Sulphate aerosols reduce the temperature. There is ample evidence of glaciation. There is no evidence for warming however. There are merely computer models. Yes, Caltech has a great rep (and it's my Alma-mater), that doesn't mean they don't get shit scientists there though.

In other words, anybody who disagrees with you is a shit scientist. About 99% of the scientists in the world.

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

1. Michael M. Joachimski1,
2. Xulong Lai2,3,
3. Shuzhong Shen4,
4. Haishui Jiang2,
5. Genming Luo2,
6. Bo Chen1,
7. Jun Chen4 and
8. Yadong Sun2

+Author Affiliations

1. 1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schlossgarten 5, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2. 2Faculty of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3. 3State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
4. 4State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing 210008, China

Abstract
High-resolution oxygen isotope records document the timing and magnitude of global warming across the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary. Oxygen isotope ratios measured on phosphate-bound oxygen in conodont apatite from the Meishan and Shangsi sections (South China) decrease by 2‰ in the latest Permian, translating into low-latitude surface water warming of 8 °C. The oxygen isotope shift coincides with the negative shift in carbon isotope ratios of carbonates, suggesting that the addition of isotopically light carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system by Siberian Traps volcanism and related processes resulted in higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming. The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

What's hilarious is the global temp of the planet has been significantly higher for 75% of its history. The PETM which we have a good paleo record of, shows beyond doubt that warmth is beneficial to terrestrial life. Like I said, no one knows what caused the mass extinction but there are glacial striations all over the world that date to that period. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that shows warming killed anything. This study is merely the latest in a long effort to vilify CO2 even though all evidence we have shows it to be beneficial. And that meme of 99% of all scientists is just that, a meme, and a lie.

There you have it, folks. The fellow that cannot present his ideas in front of other scientists, now claims to be smarter than 99% of them. When I see you make a presentation at the fall AGU Conference, I will have some respect for you. Until then, you are just another internet poster.

 

[Old Rocks]

During the last glacial period, there was a far greater variety of species on the North American continent than exists today in the warm interglacial. Care to explain that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

so what. you aren't you going to tell us all these years the oil companies hasn't being doing any research how to IMPROVE things with oil. why can't you warmers use you windmills, electric cars etc and leave the people who want to us oil alone. you have force yourselves on other by all this the sky is falling. that's just shady

Silly old woman, by the time the electrics take over from the gasoline rigs, you will want one simply for the dependibility and lower fuel cost.

Yea steph check out old rocks New love mobile, betcha you want a ride in it

 

[westwall]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703000934

Abstract
The biggest mass extinction of the past 600 million years (My), the end-Permian event (251 My ago), witnessed the loss of as much as 95% of all species on Earth. Key questions for biologists concern what combination of environmental changes could possibly have had such a devastating effect, the scale and pattern of species loss, and the nature of the recovery. New studies on dating the event, contemporary volcanic activity, and the anatomy of the environmental crisis have changed our perspectives dramatically in the past five years. Evidence on causation is equivocal, with support for either an asteroid impact or mass volcanism, but the latter seems most probable. The extinction model involves global warming by 6°C and huge input of light carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system from the eruptions, but especially from gas hydrates, leading to an ever-worsening positive-feedback loop, the ‘runaway greenhouse’.

As one gets closer to the present date, the articles emphasize the warming far more than the cooling periods.

"EXTINCTION MODEL". Do you even bother to read the shit you post? Like I said there is ZERO empirical data to support warming as a cause. There is ample evidence to show glaciation as a cause.

 

[westwall]

No, there isn't. It exists only in a "simple" (their word, not mine) computer model.

Odd that almost all the geologists that I have talked to about the PT extinction have said just the opposite. Yes, short duration cooling events, but the worst was the extreme warming from outgassing of CO2 from the Siberian Traps, and outgassing of the methane clathrates, and methane produced from the basalts on coal beds.

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/Evolution_GIST_2013/files_2013/articles/Saunders, Reichow - 2009 - The Siberian Traps and the End-Permian mass extinction a critical review.pdf

The Siberian Traps and the End-Permian mass extinction: a critical review Andy SAUNDERS† & Marc REICHOW Department of Geological Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, United Kingdom The association between the Siberian Traps, the largest continental flood basalt province, and the largest-known mass extinction event at the end of the Permian period, has been strengthened by recently-published high-precision 40Ar/39Ar dates from widespread localities across the Siberian province[1]. We argue that the impact of the volcanism was amplified by the prevailing late Permian environmental conditions―in particular, the hothouse climate, with sluggish oceanic circulation, that was leading to widespread oceanic anoxia. Volcanism released large masses of sulphate aerosols and carbon dioxide, the former triggering short-duration volcanic winters, the latter leading to long-term warming. Whilst the mass of CO2 released from individual eruptions was small compared with the total mass of carbon in the atmosphere-ocean system, the long ‘mean lifetime’ of atmospheric CO2, compared with the eruption flux and duration, meant that significant accumulation could occur over periods of 105 years. Compromise of the carbon sequestration systems (by curtailment of photosynthesis, destruction of biomass, and warming and acidification of the oceans) probably led to rapid atmospheric CO2 build-up, warming, and shallow-water anoxia, leading ultimately to mass extinction.

Caltech has a pretty good reputation.

Sulphate aerosols reduce the temperature. There is ample evidence of glaciation. There is no evidence for warming however. There are merely computer models. Yes, Caltech has a great rep (and it's my Alma-mater), that doesn't mean they don't get shit scientists there though.

In other words, anybody who disagrees with you is a shit scientist. About 99% of the scientists in the world.

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

1. Michael M. Joachimski1,
2. Xulong Lai2,3,
3. Shuzhong Shen4,
4. Haishui Jiang2,
5. Genming Luo2,
6. Bo Chen1,
7. Jun Chen4 and
8. Yadong Sun2

+Author Affiliations

1. 1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schlossgarten 5, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2. 2Faculty of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3. 3State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
4. 4State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing 210008, China

Abstract
High-resolution oxygen isotope records document the timing and magnitude of global warming across the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary. Oxygen isotope ratios measured on phosphate-bound oxygen in conodont apatite from the Meishan and Shangsi sections (South China) decrease by 2‰ in the latest Permian, translating into low-latitude surface water warming of 8 °C. The oxygen isotope shift coincides with the negative shift in carbon isotope ratios of carbonates, suggesting that the addition of isotopically light carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system by Siberian Traps volcanism and related processes resulted in higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming. The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

What's hilarious is the global temp of the planet has been significantly higher for 75% of its history. The PETM which we have a good paleo record of, shows beyond doubt that warmth is beneficial to terrestrial life. Like I said, no one knows what caused the mass extinction but there are glacial striations all over the world that date to that period. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that shows warming killed anything. This study is merely the latest in a long effort to vilify CO2 even though all evidence we have shows it to be beneficial. And that meme of 99% of all scientists is just that, a meme, and a lie.

There you have it, folks. The fellow that cannot present his ideas in front of other scientists, now claims to be smarter than 99% of them. When I see you make a presentation at the fall AGU Conference, I will have some respect for you. Until then, you are just another internet poster.

Wow, you really don't know how to discuss anything without lying do you. Pretty sad for someone who claims to be 72. Funny that your first minimum wage job paid 2 something an hour when my first minimum wage job paid 80 cents, and you're supposedly two years older than me.... Best get your facts straight there charlie...

 

[Desperado]

During the last glacial period, there was a far greater variety of species on the North American continent than exists today in the warm interglacial. Care to explain that?

Really? No Clue as to how that can happen? How about "Habitat fragmentation describes the emergence of discontinuities (fragmentation) in an organism's preferred environment (habitat), causing population fragmentation and ecosystem decay. Habitat fragmentation can be caused by geological processes that slowly alter the layout of the physical environment[1] (suspected of being one of the major causes of speciation[1]), or by human activity such as land conversion, which can alter the environment much faster and causes extinctions of many species."

 

[westwall]

During the last glacial period, there was a far greater variety of species on the North American continent than exists today in the warm interglacial. Care to explain that?

Most likely hunted to extinction by man (the small critters survived fine, it was the big ones that died). Warmists of course blame climate change but have nothing but science fiction to support that theory.

 

[Crick]

One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

so what.

"What" is that the oil companies are spending an enormous amount of money to push the idea that climate science is uncertain or false and that taking action will destroy economies and cost jobs. The reason they do so is simple and obvious: survival. The money the world's governments are spending is financing research, new power and transportation technologies and mitigation measures. Which action do you believe is more beneficial to mankind as a whole. If you're not a complete fool, you will answer the latter.

you aren't you going to tell us all these years the oil companies hasn't being doing any research how to IMPROVE things with oil.

The oil companies primary research thrust has always been to find more oil and turn it into salable gasoline and other products at the minimum possible cost. They are a for-profit corporation with a responsibility to their stockholders to do nothing but. I'm sure along the way they have spent some of their hundreds of billions of dollars profit on humanitarian, pro-ecological, pro-wildlife and pro-environmental projects. Has that accomplished anything meaningful with regards to global warming? No. And now we have learned that their own scientists informed Exxon's management no later than the early 1980s that they believed CO2 emissions from burning their fuel would cause dangerous global warming. What was their response? Did they make that public? Did they warn government agencies? Did they finance research into higher mileage cars, more efficient power plants, sequestration technology? No, they financed deniers in a massive disinformation campaign. So, no, Stephanie, I am NOT going to tell you that the oil companies did "research on how to IMPROVE things with oil".

why can't you warmers use you windmills, electric cars etc and leave the people who want to us oil alone.

You've asked this question in various forms on several occasions. The answer is always the same. We all use the same atmosphere Stephanie. You don't get to foul our air and overheat our climate because you're ignorant and lazy and you don't get to benefit from our efforts, sacrifices and outlays without chipping in your share. We are all in the same boat. We all have to pay the piper.

you have force yourselves on other by all this the sky is falling. that's just shady

Were you drinking when you wrote this Stephanie; or very tired? Your syntax and grammar are poor. I have never been able to understand how someone could suspect thousands of scientists all (and I do mean ALL) lying and putting their very careers at risk for the sake of money and yet not have the slightest suspicion that the fossil fuel industries whose very existence, much less their profits, are directly and irrevocably threatened by the effort to reduce GHG emissions. How can you possibly believe that they wouldn't do SOMETHING to prevent being put out of business?

 

[Stephanie]

One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

so what. you aren't you going to tell us all these years the oil companies hasn't being doing any research how to IMPROVE things with oil. why can't you warmers use you windmills, electric cars etc and leave the people who want to us oil alone. you have force yourselves on other by all this the sky is falling. that's just shady

Silly old woman, by the time the electrics take over from the gasoline rigs, you will want one simply for the dependibility and lower fuel cost.

Yea steph check out old rocks New love mobile, betcha you want a ride in it

I know it. can you see him going to pick up a first date in that? she'd be thinking he's a bum, he can't buy a whole car.

 

[Stephanie]

One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

so what.

"What" is that the oil companies are spending an enormous amount of money to push the idea that climate science is uncertain or false and that taking action will destroy economies and cost jobs. The reason they do so is simple and obvious: survival. The money the world's governments are spending is financing research, new power and transportation technologies and mitigation measures. Which action do you believe is more beneficial to mankind as a whole. If you're not a complete fool, you will answer the latter.

you aren't you going to tell us all these years the oil companies hasn't being doing any research how to IMPROVE things with oil.

The oil companies primary research thrust has always been to find more oil and turn it into salable gasoline and other products at the minimum possible cost. They are a for-profit corporation with a responsibility to their stockholders to do nothing but. I'm sure along the way they have spent some of their hundreds of billions of dollars profit on humanitarian, pro-ecological, pro-wildlife and pro-environmental projects. Has that accomplished anything meaningful with regards to global warming? No. And now we have learned that their own scientists informed Exxon's management no later than the early 1980s that they believed CO2 emissions from burning their fuel would cause dangerous global warming. What was their response? Did they make that public? Did they warn government agencies? Did they finance research into higher mileage cars, more efficient power plants, sequestration technology? No, they financed deniers in a massive disinformation campaign. So, no, Stephanie, I am NOT going to tell you that the oil companies did "research on how to IMPROVE things with oil".

why can't you warmers use you windmills, electric cars etc and leave the people who want to us oil alone.

You've asked this question in various forms on several occasions. The answer is always the same. We all use the same atmosphere Stephanie. You don't get to foul our air and overheat our climate because you're ignorant and lazy and you don't get to benefit from our efforts, sacrifices and outlays without chipping in your share. We are all in the same boat. We all have to pay the piper.

you have force yourselves on other by all this the sky is falling. that's just shady

Were you drinking when you wrote this Stephanie; or very tired? Your syntax and grammar are poor. I have never been able to understand how someone could suspect thousands of scientists all (and I do mean ALL) lying and putting their very careers at risk for the sake of money and yet not have the slightest suspicion that the fossil fuel industries whose very existence, much less their profits, are directly and irrevocably threatened by the effort to reduce GHG emissions. How can you possibly believe that they wouldn't do SOMETHING to prevent being put out of business?

you know what. then stop replying to me if that's all you are about. we all breath the same atmosphere. what a load of BS. you're not only greedy and full of crap making money by fear mongering. You "warmer" are bullies and control freaks. .. and you aren't just a snob but an insufferable horses ass to boot. go to hell

 

[Stephanie]

we all breath the same atmosphere. If you warmers are so worried about that. then why not do the best thing for all of us and just stop breathing. bullies is what they are. get a load of this. we shouldn't be using Christmas lights. by the end of these control freaks. you'll be living back in a cave.

snip;

Huff Po: Turn Off Your Christmas Lights




I don’t put up many lights generally but in honor of Huff Po, now I will have to put up more next year.

Via Breitbart:

According to The Huffington Post, Christians should be in the dark during Christmas – literally.

Huffpo implies that Christians should turn off their Christmas lights because the total amount of energy expended by Americans for Christmas lights supersedes the energy use of countries with lousy economies, as reported in a study proffered by the Center for Global Development.

The study, authored by Todd Moss and Priscilla Agyapong, quotes a 2008 report from the Energy Department claiming decorative seasonal lights totaled 6.6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity consumption annually in the United States. Moss and Agyapong write, “That’s just 0.2% of the country’s total electricity usage, but it could run 14 million refrigerators. It’s also more than the national electricity consumption of many developing countries, such as El Salvador, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nepal, or Cambodia.”

Keep reading…

 

[Stephanie]

One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

so what.

"What" is that the oil companies are spending an enormous amount of money to push the idea that climate science is uncertain or false and that taking action will destroy economies and cost jobs. The reason they do so is simple and obvious: survival. The money the world's governments are spending is financing research, new power and transportation technologies and mitigation measures. Which action do you believe is more beneficial to mankind as a whole. If you're not a complete fool, you will answer the latter.

you aren't you going to tell us all these years the oil companies hasn't being doing any research how to IMPROVE things with oil.

The oil companies primary research thrust has always been to find more oil and turn it into salable gasoline and other products at the minimum possible cost. They are a for-profit corporation with a responsibility to their stockholders to do nothing but. I'm sure along the way they have spent some of their hundreds of billions of dollars profit on humanitarian, pro-ecological, pro-wildlife and pro-environmental projects. Has that accomplished anything meaningful with regards to global warming? No. And now we have learned that their own scientists informed Exxon's management no later than the early 1980s that they believed CO2 emissions from burning their fuel would cause dangerous global warming. What was their response? Did they make that public? Did they warn government agencies? Did they finance research into higher mileage cars, more efficient power plants, sequestration technology? No, they financed deniers in a massive disinformation campaign. So, no, Stephanie, I am NOT going to tell you that the oil companies did "research on how to IMPROVE things with oil".

why can't you warmers use you windmills, electric cars etc and leave the people who want to us oil alone.

You've asked this question in various forms on several occasions. The answer is always the same. We all use the same atmosphere Stephanie. You don't get to foul our air and overheat our climate because you're ignorant and lazy and you don't get to benefit from our efforts, sacrifices and outlays without chipping in your share. We are all in the same boat. We all have to pay the piper.

you have force yourselves on other by all this the sky is falling. that's just shady

Were you drinking when you wrote this Stephanie; or very tired? Your syntax and grammar are poor. I have never been able to understand how someone could suspect thousands of scientists all (and I do mean ALL) lying and putting their very careers at risk for the sake of money and yet not have the slightest suspicion that the fossil fuel industries whose very existence, much less their profits, are directly and irrevocably threatened by the effort to reduce GHG emissions. How can you possibly believe that they wouldn't do SOMETHING to prevent being put out of business?

Ask yourselves this. would you trust someone like this and put your lives in their hands when they fly off the handle like this? and are not only mean as hell, but they go out to hurt a person. just over someone asking them a question. that will be to all our peril. they aren't going to stop until they FORCE this on you one way or another. they've already suggested putting people in jail for disagreeing with them. you better wake up

 

[Stephanie]

what's that again about BIG money? 1.2 million for this. BUT it will put 5 to 7 people to work. that will put a dent in that 94MILLION who out of work eh? this grant system has become quite a racket and is costing us taxpayers BILLIONS for what?
SNIP;
Feds Spend $1.2 Million for ‘Climate Change Liaisons’ for Native American Tribes
‘Addressing climate needs relating to understudied resources of high cultural value to tribes’



People perform during an event with the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation / AP

BY: Elizabeth Harrington
December 23, 2015 12:00 pm


The Department of Interior is spending $1.2 million on “climate change liaisons” for Native American tribes.

The agency issued a grant opportunity this month announcing its intentions to hire five to seven people to address “tribal climate change science needs” through a Bureau of Indian Affairs program.

The liaisons will provide “functional expertise in areas that are or may be affected by climate change.”

“There is a recognized need for climate information to improve decision-making for climate preparedness and resilience in Indian Country,” according to the grant announcement. “Currently, tribes do not have a strong connection to the research of the climate science community in spite of their relative vulnerability to climate change impacts.”

The “tribal climate science liaisons” will be responsible for forming a network and a workgroup within the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ “Climate Resilience Program” that will address issues such as environmental management, infrastructure, energy, health, and emergency management.

all of it here:
Feds Spend $1.2 Million for ‘Climate Change Liaisons’ for Native American Tribes

 

[Crick]

One side is spending money on research and mitigation measure. The other side is spending money on lobbying and PR.

And I disagree with your numbers. Over 583 million has been spent in the last decade funding AGW deniers spew. The portion of government AGW spending going to lobbying and PR is microscopic.

so what.

"What" is that the oil companies are spending an enormous amount of money to push the idea that climate science is uncertain or false and that taking action will destroy economies and cost jobs. The reason they do so is simple and obvious: survival. The money the world's governments are spending is financing research, new power and transportation technologies and mitigation measures. Which action do you believe is more beneficial to mankind as a whole. If you're not a complete fool, you will answer the latter.

you aren't you going to tell us all these years the oil companies hasn't being doing any research how to IMPROVE things with oil.

The oil companies primary research thrust has always been to find more oil and turn it into salable gasoline and other products at the minimum possible cost. They are a for-profit corporation with a responsibility to their stockholders to do nothing but. I'm sure along the way they have spent some of their hundreds of billions of dollars profit on humanitarian, pro-ecological, pro-wildlife and pro-environmental projects. Has that accomplished anything meaningful with regards to global warming? No. And now we have learned that their own scientists informed Exxon's management no later than the early 1980s that they believed CO2 emissions from burning their fuel would cause dangerous global warming. What was their response? Did they make that public? Did they warn government agencies? Did they finance research into higher mileage cars, more efficient power plants, sequestration technology? No, they financed deniers in a massive disinformation campaign. So, no, Stephanie, I am NOT going to tell you that the oil companies did "research on how to IMPROVE things with oil".

why can't you warmers use you windmills, electric cars etc and leave the people who want to us oil alone.

You've asked this question in various forms on several occasions. The answer is always the same. We all use the same atmosphere Stephanie. You don't get to foul our air and overheat our climate because you're ignorant and lazy and you don't get to benefit from our efforts, sacrifices and outlays without chipping in your share. We are all in the same boat. We all have to pay the piper.

you have force yourselves on other by all this the sky is falling. that's just shady

Were you drinking when you wrote this Stephanie; or very tired? Your syntax and grammar are poor. I have never been able to understand how someone could suspect thousands of scientists all (and I do mean ALL) lying and putting their very careers at risk for the sake of money and yet not have the slightest suspicion that the fossil fuel industries whose very existence, much less their profits, are directly and irrevocably threatened by the effort to reduce GHG emissions. How can you possibly believe that they wouldn't do SOMETHING to prevent being put out of business?

you know what. then stop replying to me if that's all you are about. we all breath the same atmosphere. what a load of BS. you're not only greedy and full of crap making money by fear mongering. You "warmer" are bullies and control freaks. .. and you aren't just a snob but an insufferable horses ass to boot. go to hell

HAHAHAHAHaaa....Pathetic Stephanie. Absolutely pathetic. This is a discussion board. If you don't want to hear responses like this one, then YOU should stop posting here.

The overwhelming evidence of thousands of published, peer reviewed scientific studies is that global warming is real and its primary cause is human CO2 emissions and deforestation. That warming presents a real threat to our children for generations to come. That's not fear mongering Stephanie, it's a fucking statement of fact. The oil companies have long ago admitted that they were financing deniers in a disinformation campaign precisely like that waged by "Intelligent Design" folks against evolution taught in public schools and the tobacco industry against public health. That there are fools like you out there that still claim to believe its all a hoax, that climate scientists in a breathtaking display of unity have been making all of this up for years and years without a single one over confessing to the crime is one of the great amazements of our time.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am sure there'd be big money in nearly anything that threaten our species. Asteroids, a new black death event or even another world war.

it is the way it works.

Global warming is not threatening our species

 

[Crick]

As in extinction? Probably not. But, then, no one said it was. That would be what you call a red herring. Air and water pollution didn't threaten our species. Warfare doesn't threaten our species. We'd probably survive a full out nuclear holocaust... in some form or another.

Got anything real?

 

[Skull Pilot]

As in extinction? Probably not. But, then, no one said it was. That would be what you call a red herring. Air and water pollution didn't threaten our species. Warfare doesn't threaten our species. We'd probably survive a full out nuclear holocaust... in some form or another.

Got anything real?

Yeah the earth being a little warmer isn't the nuclear holocaust you think it will be

 

[Stephanie]

oh look, remember how it's only the OIL companies who lobbies our Government. oh wait, the warmers are in cahoots with them making up YOUR LAWS. I can only post an excerpt from WSJ. you have to have subscription. you need to wake up. these warmers LIE to you and so is YOUR GOVERNMENT

SNIP:
The EPA’s Secret Staff
Emails show the agency took dictation from green lobbies in possible violation of the law.
Dec. 18, 2015 6:57 p.m. ET
States and businesses are suing to stop the Obama Administration’s anticarbon Clean Power Plan, and now they have new evidence to seek a preliminary injunction.

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute has obtained government emails that show the EPA secretly worked with environmental

all of it here:
The EPA’s Secret Staff