• 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!

Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

Jack Hays said:
There is much less to all that than meets the eye. These are scary headlines that don't have much evidence or substance to back them up.
Click to expand...

Here are some examples from the Climate Deception Dossiers.

Page 13:
Internal documents have shown that a key component of the major fossil fuel companies’ deception campaign about climate change has been the cultivation of so-called “astroturf” organizations, groups created to falsely represent grassroots opposition to forward-looking policy on climate change and renewable energy. These activities have rarely been revealed as starkly as in a presentation leaked in 2014 from the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United States and the oldest petroleum trade association in the country (Figure 5, p. 14 and Appendix C, p. 39).
Click to expand...
Page 16:
While the surreptitious funding of astroturf groups to disseminate a corporate message is certainly a deceptive practice, on at least one key occasion, some fossil fuel companies have gone much further, backing an effort in which forged letters from actual nonprofit groups were sent to members of Congress in an effort to influence a vote on key federal climate change legislation.
Click to expand...

Page 19:
Long before the formation of the ACCCE, U.S. coal companies and their allies formed a short-lived but potent front group in 1991 called the Information Council on the Environment (ICE) with the express purpose of deceiving the public about climate science. Like the oil and gas industry, the coal industry put forth scientist spokespeople and ran ad campaigns through ICE. And like those of the oil and gas industry, the coal industry’s tactics stayed under the radar until they were exposed by leaked documents…
ICE’s $500,000 advertising campaign was designed to disparage climate science and cherry-pick the data to highlight claims of cooling temperatures in order to confuse the public. Print and radio ads presented climate science as alarmist and out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Page 22:
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that purports to stand for free-market principles, provides a venue for industry groups to influence policy makers behind closed doors. Leaked internal documents show that ALEC, backed by many industry groups including many major fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Shell, continues to serve as an important conduit for climate misinformation and policy proposals designed to block climate action today. (Figure 8 and Appendix F, p. 42). Like other industry groups, ALEC provides a means for major fossil fuel companies to pay lip service to the realities of climate science in their public-facing materials while their behind-the-scenes memberships and sponsorships support misinformation and block climate action.
Click to expand...

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

You can also click through the slides on the homepage.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WtMOOi5uaUk
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Here are some examples from the Climate Deception Dossiers.

Page 13:

Page 16:


Page 19:


Page 22:


https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

You can also click through the slides on the homepage.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.WtMOOi5uaUk
Click to expand...

It's called lobbying, and every industry does it. It's normal activity and not nefarious. Your own zealotry is the problem here.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's called lobbying, and every industry does it. It's normal activity and not nefarious. Your own zealotry is the problem here.
Click to expand...

Funny how he's worried about the AstroTurf finding, but doesn't care about the funding of George Soros et. al...
 
Jack Hays said:
It's called lobbying, and every industry does it. It's normal activity and not nefarious. Your own zealotry is the problem here.
Click to expand...

You can call it unmoral that the largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. That their own scientific studies showed that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time most of communication to the broader public, expressed doubt about climate change.

It is even more unmoral that the big fossil fuel companies created groups that could falsely try to represent grassroots organization that opposed policies on climate change and renewable energy.

Also, shouldn’t it be illegal to send forged letters claiming to be from actual nonprofit groups to members of Congress to influence votes on federal climate change legislation, like fossil fuel companies have done at least on one occasion?

You can also find it problematic how much influence fossil fuel companies have over policies on climate change and renewable energy through their lobbying campaigns. There those lobbying efforts often happen in secret.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
You can call it unmoral that the largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. That their own scientific studies showed that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time most of communication to the broader public, expressed doubt about climate change.

It is even more unmoral that the big fossil fuel companies created groups that could falsely try to represent grassroots organization that opposed policies on climate change and renewable energy.

Also, shouldn’t it be illegal to send forged letters claiming to be from actual nonprofit groups to members of Congress to influence votes on federal climate change legislation, like fossil fuel companies have done at least on one occasion?

You can also find it problematic how much influence fossil fuel companies have over policies on climate change and renewable energy through their lobbying campaigns. There those lobbying efforts often happen in secret.
Click to expand...
How does an origination claim to be an actual non profit group, they ether are are they are not,
what they promote is not much of a factor in their non profit status, they just cannot make any income.
What is claimed about the oil companies is that they knew that burning fossil fuels could increase CO2 levels,
and the CO2 was a greenhouse gas. There were people in the the oil companies who voiced concerns similar to James Hansen,
but the uncertainty was just as high back then as it is now.
The Science is simply that if we double the CO2 level, we could raise the average temperature by about 1.1 C.
The uncertainty is weather that 1.1 C is a good thing or a bad thing.
Further uncertainty is if the 1.1 C will be amplified through feedbacks to produce additional warming.
These ideas are nothing new, Businesses, Governments, and Organizations, all understood the risks, but also saw the benefits.
People can say the Oil companies conspired to hide this truth from people, but the reality is that they were all complicit.
The risks were known, and accepted.
I think the risks are still acceptable, because the data does not support high levels of feedback,
so we can use fossil fuels until the economic forces displace them from the market.
The best our Government can do at this point, is to ensure that home power generation is not restricted in it's growth.
Current grid tie laws, are toxic to the growth of grid tied home power generation.
 
longview said:
How does an origination claim to be an actual non profit group, they ether are are they are not,
what they promote is not much of a factor in their non profit status, they just cannot make any income.
What is claimed about the oil companies is that they knew that burning fossil fuels could increase CO2 levels,
and the CO2 was a greenhouse gas. There were people in the the oil companies who voiced concerns similar to James Hansen,
but the uncertainty was just as high back then as it is now.
The Science is simply that if we double the CO2 level, we could raise the average temperature by about 1.1 C.
The uncertainty is weather that 1.1 C is a good thing or a bad thing.
Further uncertainty is if the 1.1 C will be amplified through feedbacks to produce additional warming.
These ideas are nothing new, Businesses, Governments, and Organizations, all understood the risks, but also saw the benefits.
People can say the Oil companies conspired to hide this truth from people, but the reality is that they were all complicit.
The risks were known, and accepted.
I think the risks are still acceptable, because the data does not support high levels of feedback,
so we can use fossil fuels until the economic forces displace them from the market.
The best our Government can do at this point, is to ensure that home power generation is not restricted in it's growth.
Current grid tie laws, are toxic to the growth of grid tied home power generation.
Click to expand...

The mere existence of the ice ages is already evidence of strong positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system. How else could the tiny variations in incident solar radiation arising from Milankovich cycles have given rise to such large variations in global temperature?
 
Surface Detail said:
The mere existence of the ice ages is already evidence of strong positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system. How else could the tiny variations in incident solar radiation arising from Milankovich cycles have given rise to such large variations in global temperature?
Click to expand...
The existence of the ice age cycles is the evidence that strong positive feedbacks do not exists.
Consider that if ECS were 3C, this would imply the feedbacks had a gain of 2.73, but the system is incapable
of discriminating the source of the warming, so all warming would have the same gain applied.
If the lag between the input and output were 1000 years,we would have had 12 cycles since the end of the last ice age.
Let's go on the extreme low side, and say the last ice age was only 4 C lower than the 1880 temps.
4 X 2.73= 10.92, 10.92 X 2.72= 29.7, 29.7 X 2.72=80.78C,
Wow, if the gain were that high, well we would not be alive!
Most Scientist do not think the lag is as long as 1000 years, but that would mean more cycles,
If strong positive feedbacks existed, Humans would not!
 
longview said:
How does an origination claim to be an actual non profit group, they ether are are they are not,
what they promote is not much of a factor in their non profit status, they just cannot make any income.
What is claimed about the oil companies is that they knew that burning fossil fuels could increase CO2 levels,
and the CO2 was a greenhouse gas. There were people in the the oil companies who voiced concerns similar to James Hansen,
but the uncertainty was just as high back then as it is now.
The Science is simply that if we double the CO2 level, we could raise the average temperature by about 1.1 C.
The uncertainty is weather that 1.1 C is a good thing or a bad thing.
Further uncertainty is if the 1.1 C will be amplified through feedbacks to produce additional warming.
These ideas are nothing new, Businesses, Governments, and Organizations, all understood the risks, but also saw the benefits.
People can say the Oil companies conspired to hide this truth from people, but the reality is that they were all complicit.
The risks were known, and accepted.
I think the risks are still acceptable, because the data does not support high levels of feedback,
so we can use fossil fuels until the economic forces displace them from the market.
The best our Government can do at this point, is to ensure that home power generation is not restricted in it's growth.
Current grid tie laws, are toxic to the growth of grid tied home power generation.
Click to expand...


Oh, look.

Here’s some ECS data you’ve never heard of.

Understandable, since the numbers are not what you like, and you already found a ten year old paper you’re sticking with.


https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/
 
Threegoofs said:
Oh, look.

Here’s some ECS data you’ve never heard of.

Understandable, since the numbers are not what you like, and you already found a ten year old paper you’re sticking with.


https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/
Click to expand...
I saw the abstract when you brought it up earlier.
I do not think measuring the energy imbalance at the tropopause is valid for modeling.
The edge of the system, the top of the atmosphere is the better place to measure the total energy in and out of a system.
It would be like counting people riding the elevator in a 40 story building who passed the 20th floor,
as the total people who entered and left the building.
 
longview said:
I saw the abstract when you brought it up earlier.
I do not think measuring the energy imbalance at the tropopause is valid for modeling.
The edge of the system, the top of the atmosphere is the better place to measure the total energy in and out of a system.
It would be like counting people riding the elevator in a 40 story building who passed the 20th floor,
as the total people who entered and left the building.
Click to expand...

I’m always impressed by your amateur reflexive dismissal of published work.

It’s like denier overdrive.
 
Threegoofs said:
I’m always impressed by your amateur reflexive dismissal of published work.

It’s like denier overdrive.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to measure the total energy in and out of a system,
where would you measure it, at the edge of the system, or somewhere inside?
 
longview said:
If you wanted to measure the total energy in and out of a system,
where would you measure it, at the edge of the system, or somewhere inside?
Click to expand...

I look forward to your published paper.

Or will you just submit it to DP, since those scientists who read J Am Met Soc don’t understand science as well as you, LoP and JH?
 
Threegoofs said:
I look forward to your published paper.

Or will you just submit it to DP, since those scientists who read J Am Met Soc don’t understand science as well as you, LoP and JH?
Click to expand...
Appeals to authority do not surpass simple logic, also you did not answer the question.
 
Threegoofs said:
So I take it I won’t see your paper.

I think we all know why.
Click to expand...
You won't see my paper, because I do not work in that area, and have not contributed any new art to the subject.
Logic is still logic , and the same rules apply, you cannot measure a change at a boundary, by looking at an internal step.
 
longview said:
You won't see my paper, because I do not work in that area, and have not contributed any new art to the subject.
Logic is still logic , and the same rules apply, you cannot measure a change at a boundary, by looking at an internal step.
Click to expand...

IOW, you really dont know what you’re talking about.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
You can call it unmoral that the largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. That their own scientific studies showed that climate change was real and was caused by humans. While at the same time most of communication to the broader public, expressed doubt about climate change.

It is even more unmoral that the big fossil fuel companies created groups that could falsely try to represent grassroots organization that opposed policies on climate change and renewable energy.

Also, shouldn’t it be illegal to send forged letters claiming to be from actual nonprofit groups to members of Congress to influence votes on federal climate change legislation, like fossil fuel companies have done at least on one occasion?

You can also find it problematic how much influence fossil fuel companies have over policies on climate change and renewable energy through their lobbying campaigns. There those lobbying efforts often happen in secret.
Click to expand...

They are people with whom you disagree. That's the only thing they've done "wrong."
In the current California trial it's the defendants who are citing the IPCC because it expresses great uncertainty.
 
Threegoofs said:
IOW, you really dont know what you’re talking about.

Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, which has even less value.
SCience and logic still have worth,
And you still have not answered the question, about where you would measure the total energy in and out of a system.
 
longview said:
The existence of the ice age cycles is the evidence that strong positive feedbacks do not exists.
Consider that if ECS were 3C, this would imply the feedbacks had a gain of 2.73, but the system is incapable
of discriminating the source of the warming, so all warming would have the same gain applied.
If the lag between the input and output were 1000 years,we would have had 12 cycles since the end of the last ice age.
Let's go on the extreme low side, and say the last ice age was only 4 C lower than the 1880 temps.
4 X 2.73= 10.92, 10.92 X 2.72= 29.7, 29.7 X 2.72=80.78C,
Wow, if the gain were that high, well we would not be alive!
Most Scientist do not think the lag is as long as 1000 years, but that would mean more cycles,
If strong positive feedbacks existed, Humans would not!
Click to expand...

Please explain how the Earth's global average temperature can have changed by more than 4 C as a result of tiny orbital perturbations in the absence of strong positive feedback effects.
 
Surface Detail said:
Please explain how the Earth's global average temperature can have changed by more than 4 C as a result of tiny orbital perturbations in the absence of strong positive feedback effects.
Click to expand...
I don't have to! that the earth did change by 4 C is not up for discussion.
Whatever feedbacks that exists, would act on any warming present.
 
longview said:
I don't have to! that the earth did change by 4 C is not up for discussion.
Whatever feedbacks that exists, would act on any warming present.
Click to expand...

The point I am making is that the Earth's temperature cannot have changed by 4 C (at a minimum) without the existence of strong positive feedback effects. The changes in total incident solar radiation would have been nowhere near sufficient to have brought about such a temperature change by themselves. And there is no reason to think that the feedback effects that operated then would not operate today.
 
Surface Detail said:
The mere existence of the ice ages is already evidence of strong positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system. How else could the tiny variations in incident solar radiation arising from Milankovich cycles have given rise to such large variations in global temperature?
Click to expand...

Do the math sometime of the variations for the obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. Then consider that the incidental radiation behave differently on land vs. the sea. The oceans have far more area in the southern hemisphere, and right now... look at they seasonal alignment with the sun, and how long it is expected to last.
 
Surface Detail said:
Please explain how the Earth's global average temperature can have changed by more than 4 C as a result of tiny orbital perturbations in the absence of strong positive feedback effects.
Click to expand...

The large change is likely from the changing albedo of the earth. We are still retreating in ice coverage from coming out of the last ice age, so we will continue to warm.

Do you think an earth with a 50% or more coverage of ice retains the same heat as an earth with only around 10% coverage?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Do the math sometime of the variations for the obliquity, eccentricity, and precession. Then consider that the incidental radiation behave differently on land vs. the sea. The oceans have far more area in the southern hemisphere, and right now... look at they seasonal alignment with the sun, and how long it is expected to last.
Click to expand...

Again.

Earth albedo changes with the type of land coverage.
 
Lord of Planar said:
The large change is likely from the changing albedo of the earth. We are still retreating in ice coverage from coming out of the last ice age, so we will continue to warm.

Do you think an earth with a 50% or more coverage of ice retains the same heat as an earth with only around 10% coverage?
Click to expand...

Ice doesn't melt spontaneously; it melts because the Earth warms. So that's one positive feedback effect that still operates, albeit less strongly, today. Perhaps you can think of more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom