Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S REAL

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
icVNHMdAo.PNG



The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

There were good reasons for doubt, until now.


<img src="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.969869.1320083003!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_485/image.jpg" width="400">
Richard Muller a top respected international physicist at Berkeley University was a global warming skeptic. The infamous KOCH BROTHERS heard about him and gave him $150,000 to do detailed research on 'climate change' which they hoped would help refute the 97% of peer reviewed scientists who say 'climate change' is real. When Professor Muller completed his research, to the dismay of the Koch Brothers he agreed with the 97% of peer reviewed scientists who realize that 'global warming' is real.



by Richard A. Muller

October 21, 2011


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be.

As many as 757 stations in the United States recorded net surface-temperature cooling over the past century. Many are concentrated in the southeast, where some people attribute tornadoes and hurricanes to warming.

The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, "most" of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.

We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by energy use and building materials; asphalt, for instance, absorbs more sunlight than do trees. Tokyo's temperature rose about 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and increases in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the global estimates? That warming may be real, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect and can't be addressed by carbon dioxide reduction.

Moreover, the three major temperature analysis groups (the U.S.'s NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.K.'s Met Office and Climatic Research Unit) analyze only a small fraction of the available data, primarily from stations that have long records. There's a logic to that practice, but it could lead to selection bias. For instance, older stations were often built outside of cities but today are surrounded by buildings. These groups today use data from about 2,000 stations, down from roughly 6,000 in 1970, raising even more questions about their selections.

On top of that, stations have moved, instruments have changed and local environments have evolved. Analysis groups try to compensate for all this by homogenizing the data, though there are plenty of arguments to be had over how best to homogenize long-running data taken from around the world in varying conditions. These adjustments often result in corrections of several tenths of one degree Celsius, significant fractions of the warming attributed to humans.

And that's just the surface-temperature record. What about the rest? The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that's in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touch down and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate.

Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above. I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org to solicit even more scrutiny.

Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that's where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.

We discovered that about one-third of the world's temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC's average of 0.64ºC.

To study urban-heating bias in temperature records, we used satellite determinations that subdivided the world into urban and rural areas. We then conducted a temperature analysis based solely on "very rural" locations, distant from urban ones. The result showed a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups. Only 0.5% of the globe is urbanized, so it makes sense that even a 2ºC rise in urban regions would contribute negligibly to the global average.

What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Mr. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of "Physics for Future Presidents" (W.W. Norton & Co., 2008).







<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>

common-dreams.png

The Most Important News Story of the Day/ Millennium


by Bill McKibben

December 5, 2011


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/05-8

<span style="background-color: #FFFF00"><b>The most important piece of news yesterday, this week, this month, and this year was a new set of statistics released yesterday by the Global Carbon Project. It showed that carbon emissions from our planet had increased 5.9 percent between 2009 and 2010. In fact, it was arguably among the most important pieces of data in the last, oh, three centuries, since according to the New York Times it represented “almost certainly the largest absolute jump in any year since the Industrial Revolution.”</b></span>

What it means, in climate terms, is that we’ve all but lost the battle to reduce the damage from global warming. The planet has already warmed about a degree Celsius; it’s clearly going to go well past two degrees. It means, in political terms, that the fossil fuel industry has delayed effective action for the 12 years since the Kyoto treaty was signed. It means, in diplomatic terms, that the endless talks underway in Durban should be more important than ever--they should be the focus of a planetary population desperate to figure out how it’s going to survive the century.

But instead, almost no one is paying attention to the proceedings, at least on this continent. One of our political parties has decided that global warming is a hoax--it’s two leading candidates are busily apologizing for anything they said in the past that might possibly have been construed as backing, you know, science. President Obama hasn’t yet spoken on the Durban talks, and informed international observers like Joss Garman are beginning to despair that he ever will.

Who are the 99%? In this country, they’re those of us who aren’t making any of these deadly decisions. In this world, they’re the vast majority of people who didn’t contribute to those soaring emissions. In this biosphere they’re every other species now living on a disorienting earth.

You think OWS is radical? You think 350.org was radical for helping organize mass civil disobedience in DC in August against the Keystone Pipeline? We’re not radical. Radicals work for oil companies. The CEO of Exxon gets up every morning and goes to work changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. No one has ever done anything as radical as that, not in all of human history. And he and his ilk spend heavily on campaigns to make sure no one stops them--the US Chamber of Commerce gave more money than the DNC and the RNC last cycle, and 94% of it went to climate deniers.

Corporate power has occupied the atmosphere. 2011 showed we could fight back. 2012 would be a good year to step up the pressure. Because this time next year the Global Carbon Project will release another number. And I’m betting it will be grim.



<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>
 
Last edited:
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

Of course "Global Warming" is real. The real question is mans influence in the matter. Do we have any affect on global warming whatsoever. Have we caused it? Can we stop it? Is it just the Earth doing what the fuck it has been doing since the beginning?
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

P.S. I didn't read any of that bullshit above my initial post.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

P.S. I didn't read any of that bullshit above my initial post.


There's a whole other board for people to comment without reading.

I appreciate this but the skeptics don't doubt climate change based on science but politics. Facts are irrelevent.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

I believe in the climate change. I just believe its natural.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

I believe in the climate change. I just believe its natural.

Being that you don't read asking what you based your opinion on is pointless. It's kinda of like faith I guess you just believe it's natural because that's what you want to believe. To even say global warming exists but is natural really shows you don't even know what global warming means.

I guess it's kinda of like the Koch brothers. But they want to believe global warming isn't real because they have a financial interest in the matter. I can't understand why the public would want to stick their head in the sand but we will look up when the climate kicks us in the ass.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

Sounds like reverse psychology to me.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

:roflmao:Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S REAL
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

I look at it like this;

Climate been changin everyday since Jesus walked the earth!

No arguments here
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

What do the Koch brothers have to gain from this? They own some eco friendly "green" companies or something? Whats the agenda? How will they benefit from people believing global warming is real, and that we can change it?
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

What do the Koch brothers have to gain from this? They own some eco friendly "green" companies or something? Whats the agenda? How will they benefit from people believing global warming is real, and that we can change it?

:smh:

Read the OP before you post again. You will have far fewer questions.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S




bump_signs.jpg




 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

usatoday.png



Key Climate-Change Measurement Imperiled

Within The Next Two to Three Years, The Measurement Will Stay Above 400 ppm Permanently



CO2_Climate_Change_01.jpg


The Keeling curve shows levels of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in Hawaii as of JULY 2015




March 19, 2014 | http://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...rve-mauna-loa-carbon-dioxide-scripps/6576803/

One of the planet's top dipsticks is in trouble.

The "Keeling curve," the most famous measurement of the world's rising levels of carbon dioxide for the past six decades, is in jeopardy from funding shortfalls.

<span style="background-color:yellow"><b>The Keeling curve, run by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, is the longest continuous record of carbon dioxide measurements on the planet. The measurements were begun in 1958 by Scripps climate scientist Charles David Keeling and are taken near the top of Mauna Loa on the Big Island of Hawaii.</b></span>

Keeling died in 2005, and his son, Ralph, is now the keeper of the "curve." A physicist himself, he says the ongoing measurements at Mauna Loa are on the "cutting edge of discovering what we're doing to the planet."

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the greenhouse gas responsible for most of the warming attributable to such gases, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Earth System Research Lab, which also measures carbon dioxide levels at Mauna Loa and other locations.

Increasing amounts of CO2 and other gases caused by the burning of the oil, gas and coal that power our world are enhancing the natural "greenhouse effect," causing the planet to warm to levels that climate scientists say can't be linked to natural forces.

<span style="background-color:yellow"><b>Carbon dioxide levels were around 280 "parts per million" (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. They're now near 400 ppm.</b></span>

"The programs have been supported over the years almost entirely through a bundle of federal grants, typically each lasting three years or so, with several grants running at one time," Keeling said on the Scripps blog. Calling the process "haphazard," he added that the past year was especially difficult because several grants expired.

A recent crowdsourcing appeal has brought in some money, he said, but more will be needed to keep the $1 million per year project going. Increased awareness of the funding issues, brought about by the crowdsourcing request, has spurred new funding opportunities from private sources.

"The situation is still very uncertain, but more hopeful," Keeling said. "Still, we don't know yet how these are going to turn out, and the immediate funding situation is still very urgent."

All of this comes against the backdrop of last week's CO2 rise above 400 ppm at Mauna Loa for the second straight year. (CO2 levels peak in the spring when plants come alive, then decrease when the plants die in the autumn.)

<span style="background-color:yellow"><b>Keeling says that within the next two to three years, the measurement will stay above 400 ppm permanently. "It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," he said. Consistent levels above 400 ppm haven't been seen in human history and perhaps as long as millions of years.</b></span>

"We are living in extraordinary times," Keeling said.






<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

climate-summit-5.jpg


warming-denier-cave.gif
 
Last edited:
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

0710Horsey_ClimateChange.jpg
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

source: The Guardian

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years


A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it

2400.jpg


Tugboats tow the oil tanker Exxon Valdez off Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound 5 April 1989. Exxon became aware of climate change as early as 1981, according to a newly discovered email. Photograph: Chris Wilkins/AFP/Getty Images

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.

However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.

In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981, when the company was considering the development of south-east Asia’s biggest gas field, off Indonesia.

That was seven years ahead of other oil companies and the public, according to Bernstein’s account.

Climate change was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

By that time, it was clear that developing the Natuna site would set off a huge amount of climate change pollution – effectively a “carbon bomb”, according to Bernstein.

“When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions,” Bernstein wrote.

The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”

Bernstein’s response, first posted on the institute’s website last October, was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Wednesday as part of a report on climate disinformation promoted by companies such as ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Peabody Energy, called the Climate Deception Dossiers.

Asked about Bernstein’s comments, Exxon said climate science in the early 1980s was at a preliminary stage, but the company now saw climate change as a risk.

“The science in 1981 on this subject was in the very, very early days and there was considerable division of opinion,” Richard Keil, an Exxon spokesman, said. “There was nobody you could have gone to in 1981 or 1984 who would have said whether it was real or not. Nobody could provide a definitive answer.”

He rejected the idea that Exxon had funded groups promoting climate denial. “I am here to talk to you about the present,” he said. “We have been factoring the likelihood of some kind of carbon tax into our business planning since 2007. We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.”

Exxon, unlike other companies and the public at large in the early 1980s, was already aware of climate change – and the prospect of regulations to limit the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, according to Bernstein’s account.

“In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue,” he wrote.

“Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations,” Bernstein wrote in the email.

Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University professor who researches the history of climate science, said it was unsurprising Exxon would have factored climate change in its plans in the early 1980s – but she disputed Bernstein’s suggestion that other companies were not. She also took issue with Exxon’s assertion of uncertainty about the science in the 1980s, noting the National Academy of Science describing a consensus on climate change from the 1970s.

The White House and the National Academy of Sciences came out with reports on climate change in the 1970s, and government scientific agencies were studying climate change in the 1960s, she said. There were also a number of major scientific meetings on climate change in the 1970s.

“I find it difficult to believe that an industry whose business model depends on fossil fuels could have been completely ignoring major environmental reports, major environmental meetings taken place in which carbon dioxide and climate change were talked about,” she said in an interview with the Guardian.

The East Natuna gas field, about 140 miles north-east of the Natuna islands in the South China Sea and 700 miles north of Jakarta, is the biggest in south-east Asia, with about 46tn cubic ft (1.3tn cubic metres) of recoverable reserves.

However, Exxon did not go into production on the field.

Bernstein writes in his email to Ohio University: “Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.”

Bernstein, who is now in his mid-70s, spent 20 years as a scientist at Exxon and 10 years at Mobil. During the 1990s he headed the science and technology advisory committee of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group that lobbied aggressively against the scientific consensus around the causes of climate change.

However, GCC climate experts accepted the impact of human activity on climate change in their internal communications as early as 1995, according to a document filed in a 2009 lawsuit and included in the UCS dossier.

The document, a 17-page primer on climate science produced by Bernstein’s advisory committee, discounts the alternate theories about the causes of climate change promoted by climate contrarian researchers such as Willie Soon, who was partly funded by Exxon.

“The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change,” the advisory committee said.

The 1995 primer was never released for publication. A subsequent version, which was publicly distributed in 1998, removed the reference to “contrarian theories”, and continued to dispute the science underlying climate change.

Kenneth Kimmel, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said ExxonMobil and the other companies profiled in its report had failed to take responsibility about the danger to the public of producing fossil fuels.

“Instead of taking responsibility, they have either directly – or indirectly through trade and industry groups – sown doubt about the science of climate change and fought efforts to cut emissions,” he wrote in a blogpost. “I believe that the conduct outlined in the UCS report puts the fossil fuel companies’ social license at risk. And once that social license is gone, it is very hard to get it back. Just look at what happened to tobacco companies after litigation finally pried open the documents that exposed decades of misinformation and deception.”

Keil, the ExxonMobil spokesman, confirmed that the company had decided not to develop Natuna, but would not comment on the reasons. “There could be a huge range of reasons why we don’t develop projects,” he said.

Full text of scientist’s email
Below is the text of an email from Lenny Bernstein to the director of the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), who had asked for ideas to stimulate students for an ethics day announced by the Carnegie Council.
Alyssa’s right. Feel free to share this e-mail with her. Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.

Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2. That CO2 would have to be separated to make the natural gas usable. Natural gas often contains CO2 and the technology for removing CO2 is well known. In 1981 (and now) the usual practice was to vent the CO2 to the atmosphere. When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions.

The alternative to venting CO2 to the atmosphere is to inject it into ground. This technology was also well known, since the oil industry had been injecting limited quantities of CO2 to enhance oil recovery. There were many questions about whether the CO2 would remain in the ground, some of which have been answered by Statoil’s now almost 20 years of experience injecting CO2 in the North Sea. Statoil did this because the Norwegian government placed a tax on vented CO2. It was cheaper for Statoil to inject CO2 than pay the tax. Of course, Statoil has touted how much CO2 it has prevented from being emitted.

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue. Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations. Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question – legitimately, in my opinion – the validity of some of the science.

Political battles need to personify the enemy. This is why liberals spend so much time vilifying the Koch brothers – who are hardly the only big money supporters of conservative ideas. In climate change, the first villain was a man named Donald Pearlman, who was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (In another life, he was instrumental in getting the US Holocaust Museum funded and built.) Pearlman’s usefulness as a villain ended when he died of lung cancer – he was a heavy smoker to the end.

Then the villain was the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a trade organization of energy producers and large energy users. I was involved in GCC for a while, unsuccessfully trying to get them to recognize scientific reality. (That effort got me on to the front page of the New York Times, but that’s another story.) Environmental group pressure was successful in putting GCC out of business, but they also lost their villain. They needed one which wouldn’t die and wouldn’t go out of business. Exxon, and after its merger with Mobil ExxonMobil, fit the bill, especially under its former CEO, Lee Raymond, who was vocally opposed to climate change regulation. ExxonMobil’s current CEO, Rex Tillerson, has taken a much softer line, but ExxonMobil has not lost its position as the personification of corporate, and especially climate change, evil. It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa’s e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.

Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. Safety is the clearest example of this. ExxonMobil knows all too well the cost of poor safety practices. The Exxon Valdez is the most public, but far from the only, example of the high cost of unsafe operations. The value of good environmental practices are more subtle, but a facility that does a good job of controlling emission and waste is a well run facility, that is probably maximizing profit. All major companies will tell you that they are trying to minimize their internal CO2 emissions. Mostly, they are doing this by improving energy efficiency and reducing cost. The same is true for internal recycling, again a practice most companies follow. Its [sic] just good engineering.

I could go on, but this e-mail is long enough.

 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

they got the masses fighting each other over

stupid shit, while they do what they want to OUR

planet any fuckin time they want....


we all need to step off this chess board, for a few seconds

and really look at how fucked we are in the game....and regulate...
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S


"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed"
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://i.min.us/iW6E1Tob.jpg" align="right"></div>
- Albert Einstein -



The Guardian article (post #20) above reveals unsurprisingly, and with evidence, that scientists working for the major fossil fuel companies knew about the dangers of rising CO2 emissions all the way back in 1981.

What did the major oil companies do when their own scientists told them in 1981 about climate change?? They said fuck the science, fuck the environment, let's lie about this as long as we can and make as much fucking $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ as we can. If we damage the planet earth fuck it, "shareholder value" rules, more money, more money, more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. It's the only thing that matters, that's how we keep score.











CO2_Climate_Change_01.jpg


The Keeling curve shows levels of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa in Hawaii as of JULY 2015





<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="8"></hr>
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S

For the price of a bgol subscription he could have gotten all the anti global warming info he needs, but wait, that's not all, if he acts now we will throw in information on the flat earth theory and other nut job conspiracies..
Just pay separate shipping and handling.
 
Re: Koch Brothers Hire Scientist To Prove 'Global Warming' a Hoax -HE CONCLUDES IT'S


The World’s Most Famous Climate Scientist James Hansen
Just Outlined An Alarming Scenario For Our Planet’s Future


July 2015

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/...blasts-global-warming-target-highly-dangerous


<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/135103285" width="500" height="285" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="https://vimeo.com/135103285">J.Hansen.on.GPS.2015.07.26.</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/user42517679">Reality_Based_World</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
 
Back
Top