• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chevron says it will not dispute climate science in U.S. lawsuit

longview said:
What they did not say, is that they were hedging their bets.
Oil companies have a long history of supporting candidates from both political parties, so they
are on record as having supported the winner.
I think the oil companies, (we should really call them finished fuel product companies because they do not sell oil)
may want to see some sort of carbon tax, because they already have a way to enhance profits with a carbon tax.
They do not want the liability of a settlement from imaginary damages.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just accept the science.....like they said they did. LOL
 
Sunsettommy said:
You talk like a troll since that blog SUPPORTS YOUR position.

Like I said earlier you are not very bright at this:

From the blog you irrationally flog:


Sea Level Rise Is Accelerating

The graph to the left depicts the mean sea level rise from 1870 to May of 2014. The measurements in blue from 1870 to 2001 are based on tide gauge measurements by Church and White. The data from 1993 to 2014, shown in red, are satellite recordings compiled by the University of Colorado. Recurrent seasonal variations have been removed from all data.
As one can see, the rate of sea level change has increased by a factor of 4 (3.2 mm divided by 0.8 mm) over the last 144 years. If we assume that the 0.8 mm rise of the late 1800s, (which was due to nature) continues until today; then the other 0.24 mm, 75% of the current rise, is human induced.


Why don't you stop being stupid?
Click to expand...

Ooooh. More insults. I accept your concession
 
vegas giants said:
Or maybe they just accept the science.....like they said they did. LOL
Click to expand...
I accept the science, it means very little.
The Science is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Every scientist who studies this would say that the forcing warming from
doubling the CO2 level would be about 1.1 C, That's the science.
Everything beyond that is speculation.
There is very likely some amplified or attenuated feedbacks to the warming from the added CO2,
but the level of those is highly uncertain, hence the 1.5 to 4.5 C range,
FYI, to get to 1.5 from 1.1C only requires .4 C of feedback
while going from 1.1 to 4.5 C requires 3.4 C of feedback.
This is a very large range!
 
Tim the plumber said:
To those who think there is danger in a slightly warmer world,

If this case collapses and the oil companies show that there is no problem, that the court agreeas with them that there just is not actual danage, will you think about it at all or just shout about corrupt courts?
Click to expand...

I think you don’t get the concept.

No one in this case believes that climate change will not be harmful.

Mostly because no one in this case is that stupid.
 
Sunsettommy said:
vegas giants wants to keep ignoring IPCC failures by pushing his consensus mantra, which doesn't help the IPCC at all.

Will he address this failure at all?

In 1990 IPCC report published several scenarios, the main one they though was most likely to happen was the average Per Decade warming rate of .30C and 1C warming to year 2025. Reality is that it is about .16C per decade instead only about .40C to 2018.

UAHv6

Epic Fail!

Consensus didn't help, evidence did.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

The prediction was about 0.2 per decade for the last couple decades. It’s basically right at the point.

Future warming will go up to 0.3 C per decade, and more. Given that the models were so accurate over the last 30 years, I expect even better accuracy with the better data we have now.

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
 
Threegoofs said:
The prediction was about 0.2 per decade for the last couple decades. It’s basically right at the point.

Future warming will go up to 0.3 C per decade, and more. Given that the models were so accurate over the last 30 years, I expect even better accuracy with the better data we have now.

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Click to expand...
A bit of contention, .2C per decade for the last couple of decades, what does the data say?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
last couple of decades 1997 to 2017,
1997 .390
2017 .675
delta .285C
.285/2 decades = .1425/decade
No wonder the models are wrong!
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]With the dismissal of the #ExxonKnew lawsuits, climate alarmists are now in “bizarro world”[/h]Yesterday we reported that the #ExxonKnew lawsuit was summarilarly dismissed by the federal judge, who saw through the smoke and mirrors complaint created by Al Gore, Bill McKibben and NY attorney general Eric Schneiderman, and said there was no evidence of a conspiracy to hide information on risks of AGW from the public. But, something…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

LOL.
Nothing was dismissed.

The trial and arguments havent started yet.

WUWT..wrong again.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.
Nothing was dismissed.

The trial and arguments havent started yet.

WUWT..wrong again.
Click to expand...

The third option applies.

dis·miss
disˈmis/
verb
past tense: dismissed; past participle: dismissed

  • order or allow to leave; send away.
    • discharge from employment or office.
    • treat as unworthy of serious consideration.




 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
The third option applies.

dis·miss
disˈmis/
verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important]past tense: dismissed; past participle: dismissed[/COLOR]

  • order or allow to leave; send away.
    • discharge from employment or office.
    • treat as unworthy of serious consideration.
Click to expand...

Didn’t do that either.

He only stated he hasn’t seen the evidence to date, but is willing to look at it.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Not once have you engaged in any kind of debate, just childish replies is all you can muster, you are now on my IGNORE list.

Congratulations!
Click to expand...

Does this mean no more insults? Sad face.
 
longview said:
I accept the science, it means very little.
The Science is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Every scientist who studies this would say that the forcing warming from
doubling the CO2 level would be about 1.1 C, That's the science.
Everything beyond that is speculation.
There is very likely some amplified or attenuated feedbacks to the warming from the added CO2,
but the level of those is highly uncertain, hence the 1.5 to 4.5 C range,
FYI, to get to 1.5 from 1.1C only requires .4 C of feedback
while going from 1.1 to 4.5 C requires 3.4 C of feedback.
This is a very large range!
Click to expand...

Yeah that's bad. Time to reduce green house gases
 
vegas giants said:
Yeah that's bad. Time to reduce green house gases
Click to expand...
If you look at the actual data, It's not bad, and of little consequence.
We have an energy problem, addressing our energy problem will solve any issues that may exists with
CO2 as a side effect. The IPCC was founded based on identifying the wrong problem.
It is really unlikely that the IPCC will produce a solution, when they have not identified the correct problem!
 
longview said:
If you look at the actual data, It's not bad, and of little consequence.
We have an energy problem, addressing our energy problem will solve any issues that may exists with
CO2 as a side effect. The IPCC was founded based on identifying the wrong problem.
It is really unlikely that the IPCC will produce a solution, when they have not identified the correct problem!
Click to expand...

Well you have an opinion....now if you could just get one reputable science agency to agree with you
 
Sunsettommy said:
I am talking about the CHART.
Click to expand...
Did you actually look at your chart? Or better yet, the page where the chart came from? Here's what you seem to have missed:

Rising seas are not a new phenomenon, they have been rising for a very long time. However, they have been rising very modestly for the last 5,000 years. Data from 1901 to 2000, shows that global sea levels rose by only 7.5 inches (19 cm). which is 0.075 inches (1.9 mm) per year. While the average temperature increase over this same period was 1.1°F (0.6°C).

But, from 1993 to 2014, the seas have increased by 0.13 inches (3.2 mm per Colorado University) per year almost a 70% increase. Sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries.
(Emphasis added)

The acceleration is almost certainly due to human activity. Uh oh.

In addition to this acceleration, the world has changed a tiny bit since Helike was destroyed by a tsunami. There were probably around 200 million humans on the planet at that time; today, there are around 6 billion humans, and IIRC around 40% live near coastal areas. In some cases, this includes some of the world's most valuable real estate (New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo etc) and also some of the poorest (Mumbai, Mogadishu etc). We're also talking about some of the densest and most populated cities in the world. I'm gonna say that a storm which impacts the 1.6 million Manhattan residents is a tiny bit worse than one which affected the 5k - 6k residents of Helike. Just a guess.

Or, another way to consider your argument...
• The world has suffered plagues before. That doesn't mean we should do nothing to prepare for an outbreak today, or take no steps to stop a future outbreak.
• The world has experienced earthquakes before. That doesn't mean that we should refuse to make any preparations for earthquakes (such as making sure buildings in earthquake zones are designed to withstand a quake), even though this adds costs.
• The world has experienced floods before. That doesn't mean we should do nothing to mitigate the likely negative effects of future floods.

I.e. merely saying "floods are not new" does not prove that human activity is not causing a threat; and does not make that threat go away.
 
vegas giants said:
Well you have an opinion....now if you could just get one reputable science agency to agree with you
Click to expand...
My opinion is not contrary to the science, The political solutions recommended although vague, are political not scientific.
I have read about, and lived through a lot of history, people adapt to new technology in very contained patterns.
Price is important, but mostly the new technology must offer some clear advantage over what they are already doing,
without changing so much that it is completely different.
The national governments can artificially increase the price of oil through taxation, but that will only affect that nation,
and place them at an economic disadvantage with their competition.
I see this as happening a bit differently based on the simple raw volume of infrastructure.
At about $90 a barrel oil, the refineries will be able to make their own carbon neutral feedstock,
for cheaper than they can buy oil. Fuel from oil may still be available at the gas pumps, but at a higher price.
Most people will choose the lower cost option, and very quickly oil will move off of being used for fuel, and will be
only used for plastics and medicine.
Whoever comes up with the better process, will license it to the other refineries, and the use of man made
carbon neutral fuels will spread around the world.
Countries with large supplies of alternate energy will become fuel producers.
(Think about Iceland being a stopover on transatlantic flights, because they sell jet fuel for half of the cost
of anyone else.)
At this stage the best thing the federal government can do, is to smooth the path home solar installations.
I think we need a national grid tie policy, that is agreeable to both solar homeowner and electrical utility.
many of the current laws are toxic to solar growth.
 
vegas giants said:
Does this mean no more insults? Sad face.
Click to expand...

It’s a clever strategy to make him feel like no one ever questions his thinking.

If you isolate yourself from all opposing opinions, then you are always the brilliant one!
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]With the dismissal of the #ExxonKnew lawsuits, climate alarmists are now in “bizarro world”[/h]Yesterday we reported that the #ExxonKnew lawsuit was summarilarly dismissed by the federal judge, who saw through the smoke and mirrors complaint created by Al Gore, Bill McKibben and NY attorney general Eric Schneiderman, and said there was no evidence of a conspiracy to hide information on risks of AGW from the public. But, something…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...


A cute little cartoon which is a rather sad attempt to tell the readers that something happened in the courtroom which supposedly "destroyed the climate alarmists" case against the five energy companies. For some reason, gee I wonder why, the only 'reporters' telling us that the judge dismissed the "core" of the alarmists case are Phelim McAleer and Amy Westervelt - both of whom work for denialist websites.

The most detailed article I have found so far is from The Verge.
Wednesday’s session was not a trial, or really even a hearing in the typical sense of the word. It was, in Judge Alsup’s terminology, a “tutorial” — a session in which the legal teams for both sides present background facts for his edification. It’s not discovery, it’s not evidence, and just because it was presented Wednesday, it’s not necessarily admissible for a jury in the future should this case go to trial. Nonetheless, the hearing marked a moment in which major oil companies went on the record to say that human-caused climate change is real. At this point, the science is so undeniable that it no longer makes sense for oil companies to try and refute it.
(. . .)
The thrust of Boutrous’ presentation wasn’t that climate science was wrong — he, too, took a turn running through graphs showing the precipitous rise in global temperatures and sea levels — but he also took care to show the rate of emissions in China and India, lingering particularly on a graph that said that China’s emissions currently exceed the United States. He said that this was largely due to the burning of coal, which is being reduced in the US. In fact, Boutrous even credited hydraulic fracking with reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the US.

Boutrous seemed to say that fossil fuel companies aren’t responsible for how people use their products. “IPCC doesn’t say that the extraction or production of fossil fuels leads to emissions,” Boutrous said. “It’s energy use, the economic activity, that drives the demand for fuel that leads to emissions.”
(. . .)
Still, on the basic facts, the two sides agreed more than they disagreed — which kept arguments over whether or not climate change was real from derailing the hearing. This wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the deniers: academics William Happer, Richard S. Lindzen, and Steven E. Koonin requested leave to file their own scientific presentation, which questions anthropogenic climate change. Happer and Lindzen are climate deniers; Koonin claims climate science is “not settled.” Another group of deniers, led by a British viscount with a degree in classical architecture, asked to file an amicus brief in the case. Neither group has yet received permission to contribute to the case, but the judge has asked both to disclose their funding sources and any links to either of the parties in the case. Notably, Koonin disclosed that he had “some money vested in a BP pension plan arising from his employment that ended nine years ago.” (He was chief scientist at BP for five years, according to his NYU bio.)
Click to expand...

I wonder why the denialists are lying about what took place on Wednesday, Mar 21 :roll:
 
longview said:
So be so kind as to point out where I said that Human activity is not causing a temperature change?
You table does not seem to include what clouds do, and according to the CERES satellite, they do a lot.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad. You just don't think it matters that temperatures are going up.


longview said:
I accept the science, it means very little.
The Science is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Every scientist who studies this would say that the forcing warming from
doubling the CO2 level would be about 1.1 C, That's the science.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much.

Every scientist who studies this would realize you're deliberately ignoring feedback effects, and correct you on that point.

What you're suggesting is like saying "you can eat 3,500 calories per day and not exercise, and that will cause you to gain 2 pounds per week, and no other harm will result." But that's not the case. Gaining too much weight, and not exercising, will have secondary effects -- heart disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, perhaps cancer....


There is very likely some amplified or attenuated feedbacks to the warming from the added CO2,
but the level of those is highly uncertain, hence the 1.5 to 4.5 C range....
Click to expand...
Yeah, thing is? "Uncertain" does not mean "it will definitely be in the lowest end of the range.


FYI, to get to 1.5 from 1.1C only requires .4 C of feedback
while going from 1.1 to 4.5 C requires 3.4 C of feedback.
This is a very large range!
Click to expand...
OMG NOOOO!!!

Oh, wait. Much of the uncertainty is because we don't know what humans will do. If we cut back on greenhouse gas emissions and other contributing factors, it'll be on the low end of the scale -- but still rising for decades due to what we've already done. If we continue on the path we're on, it will likely be closer to 3ºC. If we keep at it, and feedbacks are stronger than scientists currently calculate, we're looking at 4.5ºC.

Some of us realize that this will be a serious problem for societies of the future. Which is why we want to act now, before it's too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom