We have consensus...most scientists think AGW is not true.

[Saigon]

Oh, would you like proof?

I'd be delighted to provide it:

Chevron:

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

As we work to reduce GHGs, our collective challenge is to create solutions that protect the environment without undermining the growth of the global economy. We believe that a successful climate policy will be one in which the reduction of GHGs is accomplished equitably by the top emitting countries of the world through long-term and coordinated national frameworks.

Climate Change | Global Issues | Chevron

UK Conservative Party:

• We have published ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions, setting an example to our competitors in Europe. However, we will not put British industry at risk, so we will revisit the targets we have set if other countries fail to match our ambition.

• At the Durban climate conference in December 2011, we were instrumental in delivering a ground breaking global agreement on climate change. More than 120 countries formed a 'coalition of high ambition' in support of a roadmap to a legally-binding deal, to be in place by 2015.

The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy

Shell Oil:

Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

Climate change - Shell Global


I can post DOZENS of these statements.

I am so delighted when issues like this come up, because it really does mean you guys are forced to accept a few basic realities. In this case, that virtually every energy company, every conservative political party and every major scientific organisation do accept climate change.

 

[Saigon]

Here are some scientific positions from countries with CONSERVATIVE governments. The links appear in the thread linked at the bottom of this post.

FINLAND: Ministry of the Environment

Major Research Unit: Aalto University

Climate change is for the most part brought on by greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere as a result of human actions. The global effects of the phenomenon depend on the volume of emissions and the future development of emissions.

Climate change is a global problem and mitigation is strived at through various means. International cooperation is a focal factor in mitigating climate change. Even if emissions are reduced, measures must be taken to adapt to climate change.


UK: UK Met Office

Major Research Unit: DECC, DEFRA

The Earth's climate has changed many times in response to natural causes. However, since the early 1900s, our climate has changed rapidly due to persistent man-made changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

Our climate science research within the Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme is funded by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The purpose of the programme is to provide up-to-date, robust and traceable scientific evidence to government on climate variability and climate change.

Climate - Met Office

New Zealand: Ministry of the Environment

Major Research Units: Auckland & Massey Universities

Persistent human activities like driving cars, farming, burning coal and cutting down forests produce greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These gases gather in the atmosphere, wrap around the earth and trap the sun's heat.

The more greenhouse gases we emit, the faster the world's climate heats up. This process is often called ‘global warming’ but it is better to think of it as ‘climate change’ because it is likely to bring about more extreme events – floods, storms, cyclones, droughts and landslips – rather than an increase in temperature alone. Climate change could have significant impacts on our economy, environment and the way we live – the effects of a warming planet and subsequent changing climate patterns are already becoming evident.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/274807-what-various-govts-say-about-climate-change.html

 

[MisterBeale]

Is there Global Climate Change, sure. Ask the Vikings and Inuit who once colonized Greenland before the weather changed and they had to move out again.

But as soon as the elites start to talk about some massive world wide human caused global warming so they can bilk the world's people out of mucho dinero, just like they talked about a massive world wide ice age in the seventies, and people in this thread want to try to prove it, it's time to move this thread to the conspiracy sub-forum. You people watch too much TV and lap up too much corporate media w/o doing your own research.

 

[there4eyeM]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

What is wrong with reducing pollution to a minimum?

 

[S.J.]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

Control.

 

[Saigon]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

Control.

You asked for proof that oil companies and conservative parties back climate change.

I presented it, and can present dozens more.

Please acknowledge that this has now been proven.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm underwhelmed.

 

[S.J.]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

Control.

You asked for proof that oil companies and conservative parties back climate change.

I presented it, and can present dozens more.

Please acknowledge that this has now been proven.

Please acknowledge you guys were caught fudging the numbers.

 

[there4eyeM]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

Control.

As opposed to the control of the major polluters?

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

There is no "you guys".

This is about plain, clear scientific facts.

Asking for the second time now - do you now accept that most oil companies and conservative political parties do accept climate change science as bein a reality?

Would you like to see more proof of that?


BP Oil:

At BP, we are taking practical steps in relation to climate change, similar to those we advocate for society and public policy

In the future, we expect that additional regulation of GHG emissions aimed at addressing climate change will have an increasing impact on our businesses, operating costs and strategic planning, but may also offer opportunities for the development of low-carbon technologies and businesses.

We continue to increase our production of natural gas and investment in renewable energy. During 2011, we invested $1.6 billion in alternative energy, more than any previous year since the formation of our Alternative Energy business in 2005.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9036322&contentId=7067104

 

[S.J.]

What would be the motivation of someone even if she/he were exaggerating human-caused climate change, a cleaner planet?

Control.

As opposed to the control of the major polluters?

And who, specifically, do you think those polluters are?

 

[S.J.]

S.J. -

There is no "you guys".

This is about plain, clear scientific facts.

Asking for the second time now - do you now accept that most oil companies and conservative political parties do accept climate change science as bein a reality?


Climate change | Programme of action | BP

Still avoiding it, aren't you?

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

There is nothing to avoid.

Please acknolwedge that you understand that most oil companies and conservative political parties back climate change, and spare us the red herrings and deflections.

I suggest you then go away and do some reading on cimate change. Not from blogs, but from genuine scientific sites - whatever ones look solid and relaible to you. Then come back to us when you have something to discuss.

At the moment you are a long, long way from the starting line of any kind of meaningful debate on this topic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is there Global Climate Change, sure. Ask the Vikings and Inuit who once colonized Greenland before the weather changed and they had to move out again.

But as soon as the elites start to talk about some massive world wide human caused global warming so they can bilk the world's people out of mucho dinero, just like they talked about a massive world wide ice age in the seventies, and people in this thread want to try to prove it, it's time to move this thread to the conspiracy sub-forum. You people watch too much TV and lap up too much corporate media w/o doing your own research.

Obvoiusly, research on this subject is what you have not done.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This site is put up by the largest Scientific Society of Physicists in the world, the American Institute of Physics.

There is not one scientific society in the world that does not state that AGW is a real, and a clear and present danger. Not one National Academy of Science. Not one major University.

So do your research, and get back to us with some real scientific evidence disproving AGW. Without that, all you have is flap-yap.

 

[editec]

In our field of study, we note that there is a distinction between experts who express concern about the rapidly changing climate and those who deny that there is a problem related to climate change. The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action (as outlined in Figure 2). On this basis, we find five different frames, each of them summarized in Table 3. Eight percent of respondents did not provide enough information regarding their framing of climate change to be categorized.

And there's the rub for those proposing that climate change has NOTHING TO DO with human activity.

Those same institutional mavens (read corporate scientists) were telling us just a decade or so ago that there WAS NO CLIMATE CHANGE at all.

Once burned twice learned, folks.

 

[SSDD]

S.J -

Again, that simply makes no sense at all. I don't think you need me to tell you that there is absolutely no basis to that claim whatsoever - which is why you don't make any attempt to present it as a theory in any detail.

What makes you such a liar siagon? You have been shown incontrovertable evidence of data tampering and still you claim that there is no basis to the claim of data tampering. How much more dishonest could you possibly get?

Every major scientific organisation backs climate change science, as do oil companies and conservative politicians around the world - none of who have ever "falsified" anything.

Again, more dishonesty.....The potlical heads of every major sicientific organization backs AGW which keeps the money rolling in as do oil companies who stand to make billions on the AGW bandwagon.

You might find it difficult however to find even a couple of hundred actual working scientists who don't depend on grant money who are on the AGW bandwagon.

 

[SSDD]

Don't forget to explain WHY conservative parties, oil companies and automotive manfacturers have backed this agenda, and where they falsified science.

If you want to know the why, it is as simple as following the money. And they didn't need to falsify the science...they merely had to agree that the emperor's clothes were grand indeed.

 

[Saigon]

oil companies who stand to make billions on the AGW bandwagon.

Right.

It does make sense that oil industries would want to trash their own market, potentially put themselves out of business and blame themselves for climate change even though they are actually completely innocent.

It's obvious.

 

[SSDD]

oil companies who stand to make billions on the AGW bandwagon.

Right.

It does make sense that oil industries would want to trash their own market, potentially put themselves out of business and blame themselves for climate change even though they are actually completely innocent.

It's obvious.

You are oblivious. Take a look sometime at subsidies, tax breaks, etc associated with climate change that energy companies can take advantage of by jumping on the bandwagon. If you aren't able to see that, then you are far more stupid than I had originally thought.

The business plan of being on the AGW bandwagon makes more money than being off it. For example...look at the increased energy costs across the board...who is making that money? Is there actually a shortage of energy that would justify the across the board increases? Of course not... The fact that you can't see how being on the bandwagon is a profitable course of action for energy companies is testimony to how shallow your thinking really is.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Then prove it.

Let's see how much money BP, Chevron and Shell make from oil - and then see how much they make from renewables and from research grants into renewables.

I have seen the figures for one company - and I don't think they are what you are looking for.

Once again - your theory simply makes no sense whatsoever.