Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[eclipsenow]

... and promoted by the old Bush regime.

If you are a right-wing climate denier, the chances are the scientists and even the Christian ministers you listen to have been funded by Exxon, or influenced by the following think tanks.

Check out this short 3:30 minute video.
The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine - YouTube

Not only that, but the former Bush regime persecuted various climatologists and did everything they could to downplay and disregard the science.
The Denial Machine
The Kocsh brothers and Exxon Mobile have funded it, and the Bush regime have worked tirelessly to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about climate change.


Dr Naomi Oreskes published a peer-reviewed paper on the status of the peer-reviewed papers, and concluded that the vast majority of climatologists accept the basics of global warming.
Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now she has turned her attention to how American Politics has become so warped and paranoid about a basic matter of scientific fact.
Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It boggles my imagination that so many American Christians are so paranoid about basic scientific facts. Global warming is happening, and is just another result of our greedy, fallen natures. There are other ways of generating electricity and yet we continue to burn fossil fuels, even though we know it is hurting the poor and will hurt the economies of our children and grandchildren. Not only this, but the convenient fossil fuels are running out. There's more than enough coal left to cook this planet 5 times over, but it is going to rise in price. It also kills innocent citizens through lung and throat cancers.

In other words, there is every reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and move to GenIV nukes that burn nuclear waste and could run the world for 500 years just on today's nuclear waste and NO reason to continue burning fossil fuels!

 

[lemur]

The cold truth is that there's money in climate science, but it's not on the side favoring environmentalism.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Well, it's not like there's any money in schemes that are made possible by policies that are the result of climate change hype, none at all. All the global warming supporters are altruists who are interested in saving the planet. And, people in third world countries won't be displaced as a result of global warming related policies. Not at all.

 

[lemur]

Well, it's not like there's any money in schemes that are made possible by policies that are the result of climate change hype, none at all. All the global warming supporters are altruists who are interested in saving the planet. And, people in third world countries won't be displaced as a result of global warming related policies. Not at all.

I don't really care all that much about Climate Change policies. Most of them are flawed in one aspect or another and since with peak oil expected in the next decade or so, it's a problem that will solve itself.

What I do care about is economics. Right now, the largest producers of energy are oil companies, the largest ones can operate with in excess of 300 billion in revenues a year. The largest solar companies on the other hand operate on less than 3 billion in revenues. In terms of this thread, it's quite obvious which side has more buying power.

 

[Wayte]

....whaaaaat?! Companies put money into things that will increase their profit, without regard for any actual affects that thing may have on the world or society?! This must be untrue, everybody knows corporations are the height of decency!

 

[eclipsenow]

I don't really care all that much about Climate Change policies.

Yes, I agree. While the science is clear, the policies are a mess!

and since with peak oil expected in the next decade or so, it's a problem that will solve itself.

Are you aware that Dr Jeremy Leggett, the Phd in oil geology and peak oil author of "Half Gone", says there is enough coal left to cook the Earth 5 times over? Peak oil will mitigate the rate of emissions pear year somewhat, for a while. But because Co2 is such a long lived gas in the atmosphere annual emissions will not matter as much as the total fossil fuels burnt during this phase of our civilisation - however long that proves to be. So rather than taking comfort in peak oil to solve climate change just realise that yes, while annual emissions might drop for a while, it is the total emissions over the long term that matters for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, should the Lord give us that long.

 

[lemur]

Are you aware that Dr Jeremy Leggett, the Phd in oil geology and peak oil author of "Half Gone", says there is enough coal left to cook the Earth 5 times over? Peak oil will mitigate the rate of emissions pear year somewhat, for a while. But because Co2 is such a long lived gas in the atmosphere annual emissions will not matter as much as the total fossil fuels burnt during this phase of our civilisation - however long that proves to be. So rather than taking comfort in peak oil to solve climate change just realise that yes, while annual emissions might drop for a while, it is the total emissions over the long term that matters for our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, should the Lord give us that long.

In people's minds, oil is the resource that gives us cars and this is rightfully so since the alternative fuel sources suck. Convincing people to give up oil directly means abandoning these. Coal is not the same however, coal provides us with electricity and apart from nuclear where 'not in my backyard' kicks in, nobody cares about the source. Convincing people to leave coal is simply a matter of other sources becoming cheaper for the energy produced which is ultimately leans in renewables' favor in the medium to long run.

• With oil gone, demand is shifted to other sources, while the per unit cost of renewables tends to remain constant or decrease as production increase, coal is subject to diminishing returns as both time and production demand increase. (more people buying solar panels means that the next ones are cheaper, more people buying coal means that the cost of coal increases)
• Renewables are fixed costs with minimal operating costs, as existing facilities are replaced, long term cost calculations favor them over coal.
• Long term trends for efficiency are in renewables' favor, this means that 'long term' in the calculations goes from a decade or two to only a few years, enough for the existing executives to reap the benefits.

 

[eclipsenow]

You put this really well.

With oil gone, demand is shifted to other sources, while the per unit cost of renewables tends to remain constant or decrease as production increase, coal is subject to diminishing returns as both time and production demand increase. (more people buying solar panels means that the next ones are cheaper, more people buying coal means that the cost of coal increases)

However, while I love the idea of a renewable energy grid, I'm not convinced it can deliver reliable baseload power. But, not being very technical, my opinion is worthless. What matters is where I get my opinion. Dr Barry Brook is the professor of environmental science at Adelaide University and runs this blog.

Renewable Limits « BraveNewClimate

He is very concerned about climate change, a little concerned about peak oil, but mostly concerned that climate change activists have poor energy literacy. It's an enormously technical debate, but he concludes that wind & solar can't do baseload. Not yet, not reliably, and not cheaply enough. Instead he recommends deployment of both nukes AND renewables, where nukes provide the baseload power and we play with renewables and continue to try and perfect battery and other energy storage technologies that might one day make renewables viable.

New nukes are safer, and burn nuclear waste. Just today's waste could run the world for 500 years in breeder reactors. We know the physics of breeding uranium into plutonium work, and have over 300 reactor years of breeding this fuel. We know a variety of ways to make Fukishima styled melt-downs impossible. We also know, as you said, that peak oil is coming. This means we'll need a lot more (not less) night time electricity to charge all those electric cars consumers will want. (Why? Don't they know cars are killing them and choking our cities and New Urbanism is a more humane way to live?)

Built To Last - YouTube

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I don't really care all that much about Climate Change policies. Most of them are flawed in one aspect or another and since with peak oil expected in the next decade or so, it's a problem that will solve itself.

But the policies are a direct result of the science that is foisted on people.

What I do care about is economics. Right now, the largest producers of energy are oil companies, the largest ones can operate with in excess of 300 billion in revenues a year. The largest solar companies on the other hand operate on less than 3 billion in revenues. In terms of this thread, it's quite obvious which side has more buying power.

Shouldn't you look at the revenues the various factions spend on propaganda instead of their total revenues?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Well, it's not like there's any money in schemes that are made possible by policies that are the result of climate change hype, none at all. All the global warming supporters are altruists who are interested in saving the planet. And, people in third world countries won't be displaced as a result of global warming related policies. Not at all.

Don't you long for the day when these people with their hateful propaganda, their morally and economically destructive ideologies, and corrupt money-laundering schemes (ala Solyndra et. al.) just go away and leave us all alone?

It's getting old having to point out the obvious hoax that is global warming, having to point out the clearly political forces behind it, and the glaringly, painful ramifications of what it's already beginning to do to the world's economy. And it's sad to see how so many have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker - who continue to dutifully propogate the hoax...

...and now the latest threat - prosecution for not believing as they do.

 

[Ton80]

Don't you long for the day when these people with their hateful propaganda, their morally and economically destructive ideologies, and corrupt money-laundering schemes (ala Solyndra et. al.) just go away and leave us all alone?

It's getting old having to point out the obvious hoax that is global warming, having to point out the clearly political forces behind it, and the glaringly, painful ramifications of what it's already beginning to do to the world's economy. And it's sad to see how so many have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker - who continue to dutifully propogate the hoax...

...and now the latest threat - prosecution for not believing as they do.

You have pointed out nothing here except for your own hate against those who believe global warming is a big problem.

 

[disciple2011]

Mankind has an ego problem.

They have always thought of themselves at being the centre of the universe.

Even without religion, science now only looks at extrasolar planets for the possibility of US living on them.
They facilitate the continued notion that we are so great, so intelligent, so important.

Yet, we are still easily stricken down by microorganisms that without some power grid and a special microscope we can't see. Much less understand half the time.
We are still discovering more species of things that we never knew existed,
And still war and feud amongst ourselves while many "lesser" creatures don't.

And now the human race has the unmitigated gall to say not only are we destroying a planet that will easily after our extinction go on without us, but we have the ultimate amount of arrogance to say we can save it as well.

Global climate change will not destroy all life on the planet. But it may knock down humans a peg or two. Some humans will survive it. Hopefully those that make it will learn some humility.

I doubt it. The survivors will just say they are superior to all other humans because of what they went through.

 

[Fantine]

I'm listening to the audio book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

It shows not only that climate change is occurring, and what will happen to earth if we don't deal with it, but also how the first country to go green will have a huge advantage in the global economy as fossil fuels grow more expensive and scarce.

If you're not a believer, read Thomas Friedman (this book is available for borrowed downloads from most public libraries that use the technology.)

 

[lemur]

But the policies are a direct result of the science that is foisted on people.

No, the policies are the result of politicians trying to appeal to the green vote, the science isn't. While the science of it is sound with next to every scientist agrees with the general consensus that the theoretical models and experimental data agree, the actual act of determining how bad it will be in a given year and what to do to change this along with the costs associated with that action has largely not been pursued.

Shouldn't you look at the revenues the various factions spend on propaganda instead of their total revenues?

When there is a factor of 100 difference between the revenues, there's no point. Renewable companies could be outspending oil companies relative to the money earned, and I wouldn't be surprised if indeed they are, but a factor of 100 might as well be considered impossible since the operating costs increase when this action is taken and they're already on the high end relative to oil so there's less room to expand in that direction without being completely taken out of the market.

 

[Steve Petersen]

... and promoted by the old Bush regime.

If you are a right-wing climate denier, the chances are the scientists and even the Christian ministers you listen to have been funded by Exxon, or influenced by the following think tanks.

Check out this short 3:30 minute video.
The Koch Brothers & Their Amazing Climate Change Denial Machine - YouTube

Not only that, but the former Bush regime persecuted various climatologists and did everything they could to downplay and disregard the science.
The Denial Machine
The Kocsh brothers and Exxon Mobile have funded it, and the Bush regime have worked tirelessly to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about climate change.


Dr Naomi Oreskes published a peer-reviewed paper on the status of the peer-reviewed papers, and concluded that the vast majority of climatologists accept the basics of global warming.
Naomi Oreskes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now she has turned her attention to how American Politics has become so warped and paranoid about a basic matter of scientific fact.
Merchants of Doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It boggles my imagination that so many American Christians are so paranoid about basic scientific facts. Global warming is happening, and is just another result of our greedy, fallen natures. There are other ways of generating electricity and yet we continue to burn fossil fuels, even though we know it is hurting the poor and will hurt the economies of our children and grandchildren. Not only this, but the convenient fossil fuels are running out. There's more than enough coal left to cook this planet 5 times over, but it is going to rise in price. It also kills innocent citizens through lung and throat cancers.

In other words, there is every reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and move to GenIV nukes that burn nuclear waste and could run the world for 500 years just on today's nuclear waste and NO reason to continue burning fossil fuels!

Deniers are corrupted by private money, but advocates are NOT corrupted by government money?

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I really don't understand why Christians are so opposed to environmentalism. This is god's earth is it not? Shouldn't you be working to protect god's creation rather than destroy it? Regardless of climate change, can you honestly argue that how we treat it ISN'T harmful?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I really don't understand why Christians are so opposed to environmentalism. This is god's earth is it not? Shouldn't you be working to protect god's creation rather than destroy it? Regardless of climate change, can you honestly argue that how we treat it ISN'T harmful?

Look at the history of planet earth. Several mass extinctions.

I think we ought to be more concerned about how Mother Earth has treated us and plan for THAT, not some highly debatable 'tipping point.'

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Look at the history of planet earth. Several mass extinctions.

I think we ought to be more concerned about how Mother Earth has treated us and plan for THAT, not some highly debatable 'tipping point.'

I'm saying from the Christian point of view.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Look at the history of planet earth. Several mass extinctions.

I think we ought to be more concerned about how Mother Earth has treated us and plan for THAT, not some highly debatable 'tipping point.'

First:
Yes the earth's history is replete with many examples where nature has not been kind to all manner of life.

Second:
Human impact on the environment is not really "debatable". Perhaps a tipping point is of some debate, but our impact is not really debatable.

Now, let's take your metric of using earth's history. I like that!

At the end of the Permian Period in geologic history there was a mass extinction of about 95% of the earth's life forms. Many scientists believe this was due to or made much worse by global warming.

Of course at that time it would have been a "natural" cause, but fast forward to a time when we have a "new" causative agent (man) who is burning gigatons of carbon pumping it into the air. This carbon is a known greenhouse gas (ergo known to be able to increase the surface temperature), and it has had the measurable impact of:

1. Changing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
2. Corresponding to a rise in temperature
3. Changing the isotopic signature of the carbon in the atmosphere almost exactly as one would expect from the burning of masses of fossil and vegetal fuels and starting about the time the Industrial Revolution kicked into gear!

The fact that the "earth" has been unkind to some life forms does not mean that mankind (a part of nature I might add) cannot also have a measurable impact. In fact using the very history of the earth many "skeptics" and "denialists" love to rely on professional scientists have arrived at the conclusion that humanity is having a measurable impact on global climate.

So I'm always curious why people who are skeptical of some claims of climate science rely on the earth's history when that same history is used to support and bolster the conclusions that AGW is likely real.

It is an interesting conundrum for the "skeptics".

 

[oldbetang]

I'm listening to the audio book "Hot, Flat and Crowded" by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

It shows not only that climate change is occurring, and what will happen to earth if we don't deal with it, but also how the first country to go green will have a huge advantage in the global economy as fossil fuels grow more expensive and scarce.

If you're not a believer, read Thomas Friedman (this book is available for borrowed downloads from most public libraries that use the technology.)

Is Thomas Friedman really a believer? He talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk: