Climate Change & Global Warming

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Who shot J.R ?

 

Nobody! that's just Television.

 

Why would they need to manufacture anything against man made climate change?

They just pump out less oil at an ever higher price. Big companies swallow up smaller ones, workers get payed off and we pick up the tab.

 

The real J.R wont be clearing his desk anytime soon; he'll just up your bill and jet around, looking for more pies to stick his greasy fingers in.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733060/

 

Claims by climate change alarmists that “deniers†are all funded by oil companies is yet another crudely contrived hoax. In reality, oil companies are the most vocal proponents of man-made climate change and the most aggressive in pushing to tax CO2 emissions.

[Gibber]

They just pump out less oil at an ever higher price.

 

Why can't they do that anyway?

 

In reality, oil companies are the most vocal proponents of man-made climate change and the most aggressive in pushing to tax CO2 emissions.

 

Why would they want tax concessions for alternative energy sources?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Diversified oil companies will stand to profit from dipping into alternative forms of pies.

[Gibber]

So oil companies are supporters of taxing CO2 emissions to enable a tax concession paid with by this revenue, so they can take advantage of it to invest in green technologies that in conjunction with oil sales will be as profitable (or more) as oil alone?

 

Why risk other companies outwith the cartel of oil companies taking advantage of tax concessions and getting these pies?

 

And especially, why risk it now when oil is still abundant and super profitable? Oil has a history of subverting alternative energy sources why be in favor of them now for the sake of a tax break that also runs the significant risk of some tech corp coming up with a green technology that makes oil redundant, researched and developed with the money from these tax concessions?

 

Why not wait for the oil to run out before risking their business by diversifying it? Oil is a licence to print money, business doesn't risk giving that up on the chance that windmills or solar engines (that another company may just as easily take all the profit from) will add to their super profitable revenue stream.

 

Why would an alternative energy source necessarily add to oil revenue? It sounds like canabilizing the business because if you have a solar car your oil revenue is gone and is replaced by the initial cost of the car or licence to use the technology or servicing or the consumable technology or commodity you need to run a solar car. This element will need to be incredibly profitable, especially in the early days of the technology to match the established profit on petrol, or the tax concession would need to be huge to offset this. Huge on a scale that I would have thought the US would be more likely to get NASA to do it and take some national credit for saving the earth.

 

And if there is genuinely a profit that oil is interested in within green technology (that can be proven to work to provide accountability to the tax payers) then I'm all for it, even at the bare minimum level of 'just in case the earth is heating up due to man', or 'great no more smog and oily cormorants'.

 

Either the science that states there is a need to reduce burning oil cannot be disproved by the oil companies or oil is going to be gone in the very near future and the oil companies (and governments) are actually desperate for green technology. But why dress it up as climate change in the latter case? Just tell the 'truth' that there is no oil in 10 years time and we need something else which means we need to increase taxes.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

They wont be giving up on oil; more likely they keep pumping while using there considerable influence, money and power to gain as much of a foothold in the new scheme of things as possible. If every car was taken off the roads and every streetlight was turned off; we're still going to need oil.

 

The oil won't be running out anytime soon...

 

Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oil market.

 

A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.

 

Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.†Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.

 

The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was also given support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of “Peak Oil†as fallacious. Instead, he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints, including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece

 

and since it's abiotic and not really a fossil fuel; perhaps never.

[Gibber]

There is no reason for them to support a new scheme of things when the current scheme is so profitable.

 

I'm not saying oil is going to run out soon but it would be a reason to support alternative energy (through carbon tax) by oil companies if it were.

 

Either the science that states there is a need to reduce burning oil cannot be disproved by the oil companies or oil is going to be gone in the very near future

 

I don't see a third way that results in oil companies supporting CO2 tax and its attendant green progress. The former seems more likely, namely the science is sound and oil companies have to follow the emergent green policies of governments.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Here is another excellent comment found online at daily telegraph

 

 

 

 

The FUTILITY of Man-made Climate Control by limiting CO2 emissions

 

Just running the numbers: watch

 

 

On average world temperature is ~+15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at ~-18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.

 

Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:

• Greenhouse Effect = ~33.00 deg C

• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C

• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C

• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane, Nitrous Oxide and other GHGs = ~1.24 deg C

• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93%

• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C

• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1.74 thousandths deg C

• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17.6 thousandths deg C

 

So closing all the carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than -0.09 deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions and draconian taxes are able to limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?

 

So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.

 

As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:

• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.

• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.

• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.

• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.

• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.

 

Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. It remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:

• environmental pollution.

• over fishing.

• forest clearance.

• industrial farming.

• farming for bio-fuels .

• and other habitat destruction.

 

And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:

• security of supply

• increasing scarcity

• rising costs

• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

 

The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.

 

However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.

 

All because CO2 based Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.

And now after “Splattergate†thanks to the 10:10 organisation everyone now knows exactly how they think.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/10/murdering-people-who-disagree-with-you/

Splattergate is classic NOBLE CAUSE CORRUPTION. It is probably the most egregious piece of publicity ever produced in the Man-made Global Warming cause. This short film shows doubting schoolchildren being blown up and having their entrails spread over their classmates because they may have been less than enthusiastic about the CAUSE.

So any misrepresentation is valid in the Cause and any opposition however cogent or well qualified is routinely denigrated, publically ridiculed and as we now see literally terminated.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

I realize my last post goes against what I said previously and directed towards Arabia Terra, in that this debate needs to move away from trawling the internet to post some information that corresponds to which any one of us happens to believe.

The bottom line, regardless of what we believe regarding climate change, is that there is a day of reckoning out there in the not to distant future. That day or period could be described as " the resource bottleneck" caused by the ever growing population and the increasing number of that population wanting to live the good life against a dwindling reserve of conventional energy sources remaining, you just have to look at the new emerging superpowers with billion+ populations to see how this is already happening.

The fact of the matter as I see it, is there needs to be a complete paradigm shift in everbody's methods or lifestyle as regards all of our energy usage and that means worldwide.

That is still clearly not happening yet at any level.

Be it the government who talk of carbon tax and renewable production percentages by year dot, whilst at the same time propping up our failed economic system, bailing out the car industry and also giving the green light to oil drilling in virtually any and every location.

Or our own community, viking windfarm and its supporters, the council and everybody who have been seduced by this notion of getting rich from wind power.

To really make the shift should not be about getting rich and our lifestyles not changing, it will achieve nothing for the environment on that basis.

[shetlandpeat]

Should be not just be using less, wasting less and think of how our actions can affect others. You don't really need numbers or the higher moral ground to be nice.

 

Then a debate on the subject

[Guest Anonymous]

Considering the 900 billion kWh per year that the Internet uses (just to operate, not including the manufacture of infrastructure). Maybe users that are concerned about doomsday could further extend their lifestyles by not discussing it on the web. They'll not only be less frustrated but probably perceived as being less hypocritical.

[ArabiaTerra]

Just to pick one line from Gorgo's latest post:

Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than ~93%

Bollox (Damn, must remember to be polite)

 

Wrong!

 

The pre industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm.

 

The current level is 390 ppm.

 

This means 40% of the current CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made, not 7%.

 

That kinda changes your conclusion, doesn't it, Gorgo?

 

And if your source can't even get the basic facts right, how can he be trusted with anything else?

[Guest Anonymous]

edited.

[Snaz]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/tea-party-climate-change-deniers

 

No big surprise there...

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Nope, no surprise.

 

If you actually take the trouble to look into the funding sources of the organisations denying climate change, you almost always find fossil fuel industry money at the bottom.

 

It's something I wish more people would do before swallowing their lies. Always check the source of your information, especially if it claims to contradict the established science, or contains allegations of corruption and conspiracy.

 

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Among California's major oil refiners, Shell Oil opposes the November ballot initiative to suspend the state’s global warming law. Chevron Corp. is officially neutral. Exxon Mobil and BP have decided not to get involved. ConocoPhillips has yet to contribute.

 

Oil-company divisions may reflect the fact that firms such as Chevron, which have upgraded their facilities, may have to spend less than competitors to comply with future rules to cap refinery emissions.

 

“The costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will fall to California consumers,†Chevron said in a prepared statement.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/09/prop-23-big-oil-chevron.html