backtop


Print 101 comment(s) - last by PittmanKen18.. on Jul 7 at 12:03 AM


Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO
He also addressed fears associated with drilling techniques and oil dependency

ExxonMobil's CEO defended oil and gas drilling by saying that climate change is something humans can adapt to.

Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, said issues like climate change, energy dependence and oil/gas drilling are blown out of proportion. He blames a lazy press, illiterate public and fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil industry.

Climate change is a controversial topic that has been subjected to much debate. Tillerson said that fossil fuels may cause global warming, but argued that humans can easily adapt to the warmer climate. More specifically, he said that humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he doubts the validity of climate modeling, which predicts the magnitude of impact associated with climate change.

"We have spent our entire existence adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

Others, however, disagree with Tillerson's assessment. Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling and analysis at Canada's University of Victoria, said that adapting to climate change would be much harder than just preventing it in the first place.

In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of global warming.

An example of such a measure is the proposed fuel standards for 2017-2025, which will require automakers to create vehicles capable of 54.5 MPG by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil. These standards will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012. Such measures could hit ExxonMobil's wallet with less gas used.

Tillerson also addressed the topic of consequences related to oil/gas drilling techniques, saying that drilling will always present possible risks like spills and accidents. But he mentioned that such risks are manageable and worth the end result, which is the energy provided.

Tillerson also said that drilling in shale formations doesn't pose life-threatening risks to those living nearby. However, drilling mixes millions of gallons of water with sand and chemicals that creates drilling wastewater. If this water is not treated, it can contaminate drinking water through cracked drilling pipes.

Tillerson also mentioned his problem with views on oil dependency. He said that there will always be access to oil, and that it doesn't matter where the U.S. gets oil because it is priced globally. Tillerson added that the U.S. only receiving oil from North America would still increase gas prices in the U.S. because it would cause a "disruption" in the Middle East.

Source: The Hook



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/29/2012 8:12:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A) Adaptation- this usually takes time and is a painful process when a species threatening event occurs.


False. You're making a statement that implies adaptation only happens when there is an imminent threat. Adaptation is constantly finding newer and better ways to survive. That is why some forms of life go extinct while others thrive. The dog, a domesticated wolf, has adapted on its own as well as with the assistance of breeders to coexist with humans...this happened over a relatively short period of time - hundreds of years, not thousands or millions.

quote:
Mammals didn't immediately develop thicker flesh and fur immediately in the onset of the ice age, adaptation took time and killed off many before a species adapted.


Up until modern humans, mammals had to primarily rely on their own natural attributes. They lacked to ability to use technology, even in primitive forms, to deal with rapid changes. We can. If an ice age hit tomorrow, we would be able to survive because we know how to make a fire and stay warm.

quote:
Is it better to avert a danger before it reaches critical mass, or adapt at a time of emergency? We attack countries before they develop nukes, so why do conservatives say something different with regards to oil? Oh yeah, there's money to be made...


Please provide some evidence of this impending doomsday disaster you're talking about...oh...wait, you're not different than the guy standing in the street with a sign telling us to repent because the sky is going to fall tomorrow.

Who the hell cares? SOONER OR LATER THE WORLD IS GOING TO END, so you might as well enjoy it while it lasts. Do you go on a "dream vacation" and spend your entire time on vacation worrying about what you are going to do when you get home? No...well, maybe you do, but I don't. I enjoy the vacation.

quote:
B)There's risk with everything, yes. But existing risk doesn't excuse you the responsibility of properly managing it.


Considering the proliferation of the human species across this planet I'd say that most countries are doing a decent job of managing risk. Most people are able to sustain a quality of life that is quite a bit better than it would be if we were still living in the hunter-gatherer days...and we're so good that some people can choose to live like primates and be cool with it.

quote:
I accept oil spills can happen, but we shouldn't have to accept the impact on countless fishing business in the Gulf when you didn't spend the money or properly manage the resources to accomplish the task; let alone the waste of revenue, loss of needed usable energy and increase in oil/gas prices when you spilled it all over the gulf.


What are you talking about? We did. It happened, it was dealt with...get over it.

BTW an eruption of the super volcano under yellowstone park will cause a disaster on a global scale that makes any man-made disaster pale in comparsion...but that's how it is - a cycle of creation and destruction that keeps things interesting.

quote:
C)Thank you for admitting Global Warming is occurring.


What's not occuring is man-made global warming or climate change. The processes that are occuring are largely natural. Man can affect localized areas, i.e. the way LA was covered in smog...but even with LA as bad as it was in the 80s, all that pollution failed to have an effect on even the state of California.

Thank you for continuing to remain ignorant and ensuring we never have a surplus of kool aid.


RE: Talk about BS
By boeush on 6/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By boeush on 6/29/2012 8:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
manmade global warming / climate change is a lie fabricated by people who receive funding for environmental research and need to keep the dollars flowing
No, it is far more likely an alien plot to prepare the planet for colonization. After all, the various "think tanks" spreading the putrid BS you just regurgitated aren't receiving funding from organizations like ExxonMobil, who need to keep the dollars flowing...
quote:
you didn't even try to take a position
Didn't I? I'm with science and reality on this one. Sorry: that means I'm not with you, I'm afraid...
quote:
America has been dumbed down enough
Speak for yourself there, Professor.


RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 3:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, it is far more likely an alien plot to prepare the planet for colonization. After all, the various "think tanks" spreading the putrid BS you just regurgitated aren't receiving funding from organizations like ExxonMobil, who need to keep the dollars flowing...


Choosing not to accept fact simply because it doesn't sound nice or doesn't fit into your ideal agenda doesn't make it any less true. Idiots want to believe manmade global warming exists because it means man can do something to stop or fix it. The "putrid BS" reality is that there is very little man can do in the grand scheme of things, so making life miserable for everyone under the guise of averting a non-existent cataclysmic event is idiotic...never mind the dimwitted McScientists that keep popping up every other day claiming that the end is near while holding out their hand asking for more research funding.

quote:
Didn't I? I'm with science and reality on this one. Sorry: that means I'm not with you, I'm afraid.


Science and reality do not conclusively support or even hint at man made global warming unless the data is manipulated and cherry-picked. What the data does suggest is that the earth goes through regular heating and cooling phases...and that the current phase may actually be abnormal - the "normal" for this planet is likely an atmosphere with higher concentrations of so-called "greenhouse" gases, denser atmosphere and a warmer global climate.

What kind of life was inhabiting this planet for billions of years? NOT humans and not most of the life we have right now.

Just because we exist now doesn't mean that now is the "norm" and deviation from our current state is abnormal. If the earth was a hot, humid rock for the last few eons then by definition THAT would be its normal climate.

quote:
Speak for yourself there, Professor.


Are you enjoying being a proof-of-concept?


RE: Talk about BS
By boeush on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 8:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Takes an idiot to know an idiot, I guess.


Your razor sharp wit keeps everyone guessing.

quote:
On the other hand, reasonable people believe in syllogisms. When the laws of physics say that X causes Y, and X is a verified observable, then Y must be the expected outcome.


Now this is a physics problem? When did we shift into that realm of discussion. Meteorology =/= physics and observation does not tell the full story. You don't seem to get the fundamentals of science - that is to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis and either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Performing experiments with the sole intention of supporting a hypothesis is what the "climate change" retards do. They choose a result they want then devise a series of "tests" or "experiments" that produce the desired result.

quote:
That's where science comes in, and where you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.


It has already been established that you're the one in the dark here, as such none of your responses have been able to directly counter anything I said. You believe that shifting the topic to something less relevant (despite you being equally inept on the other topic) is going to bolster your flawed views.

quote:
You know, lowly little blue-green algae back in the day managed to transform the planet's entire atmosphere from anoxic and noxious into what it is today. Men (at least modern, industrialized men aided by modern technology -- a few billion of them and counting) are far more industrious and prolific over far shorter periods of time. We're terraforming our own planet all around us, and it is definitely within our collective power, as a globe-spanning technological civilization, to do so.


The origins of life on earth are still theoretical. Don't talk about it like it's a certainty. It doesn't matter what our atmosphere is now - we, as lifeforms, adapted to live in this type of atmosphere...but we could just as easily have evolved to live in a bath of scalding hot sulfuric acid...so to say that they organisms changed the earth for their own benefit is inaccurate - they adapted to exist on the earth as it was at that time, and continued to evolve as the earth changed.

For all that man has accomplished technologically, we're hardly making a mark on this planet. A few hundred to a few thousand years after man goes extinct, there would be very little if anything to show that we were ever here. The earth is going to go along its own way regardless of what we do...you are greatly overestimating humans' collective influence on this planet as a whole.

quote:
Every year we excavate and spew into the atmosphere (and into the carbon cycle) more additional fossil carbon than 100 years worth of natural volcanic activity (yes, that's correct: look it up.) And that amount keeps on growing with each passing year, as the world's economies keep on growing. That's like an extra mega-volcano erupting every year, with clockwork regularity, for a couple of centuries in a row (projected). Nah, that couldn't possibly make any difference -- what, are you insane? Past mass extinctions on our planet have been caused by far less drastic upheavals.


How many mass extinctions have happened in recent time as a direct result of our gradual consumption of fossil fuels? Hint: none. Grats, you just made yourself look dumb again.

You're moronic analogy equating our emissions to that of a volcano are laughable. The effects of volcanos is evident in the land you are standing on. NOTHING we've done comes even close to making an entire continent.

You end by stating that it couldn't possibly make any difference, but let's note that you did not specify any difference that our industrialized civilization has made. You're simply trying to break it down into bite-size buzz phrases that other idiots like yourself can agree on without doing any real independent research. FYI reading biased materials provided by or funded by the organizations spreading this nonsense does not qualify as research...it qualifies as indoctrinating yourself with additional stupidity.

quote:
What is making you so miserable about scientific facts and reality in general, pray tell?


You have yet to produce even one fact, nevermind a scientific fact.

quote:
And aren't you the bright bulb in the pantheon of science? Who the hell do you think you are to even have opinions on this matter? Do you feel qualified to bloviate or pass judgement on any other field of science where you personally have 0 expertise?


Here we go again, you are making assumptions about me when you don't even know a thing about me, other than I am smarter, richer and probably better looking than you. I can pass judgement on people who like yourself who are a bane to the human civilization, because you've consistently proven to have "strong opinions" with an inability to substantiate any one of your views. In other words you're wrong and in denial.

quote:
That line of BS has a strong ExxonMobil stench to it. It also has no relationship to any scientific fact or theory, or any manner of truth.


Really? So I guess there wasn't a recent scandal involving several McScientists who were deliberately falsifying "data" to support their worthless careers...or theories. By simply denying it you've essentially validated it as being true. For you to continue knowing that you're perpetuating a lie not only makes you an idiot, it makes you a scumbag.

quote:
So does your backyard, on a daily basis. Which of course means that your air-conditioning equipment is all a bunch of claptrap, because natural variation excludes ipso facto any possibility of artificial forcing. QED?


Your back yard would qualify as a "highly localized area". I am talking about the earth as a whole. Pwned by lack of reading comprehension...again.

quote:
Even more to the point, what do you actually know about heat transport through the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect, the balance of incoming solar and outgoing thermal energy on Earth's surface? Have you ever heard of the (hilariously, funded and championed by "skeptics") Berkeley Earth study? Do you know what the Sun's energy output has been like for the past 30+ years? Do you know what's been happening to Earth's glaciers and top-layer ocean heat content in the meantime? Do you think energy conservation no longer applies? Do you know anything about the science involved with these issues?


Attempting to shift the topic again because you're tired of looking like a horse's a55? We're talking about the global climate...i.e. average temperatures planet-wide. The underlying processes are irrelevant to this topic.

Do you think the earth had glaciers or liquid water when it formed? Do you think that trees and meadows full of frolicking unicorns were standard features? Apparently you do, because you're dumb...and dumb people believe sh1t like that.

quote:
Are you enjoying flouting your ignorance and brainwashed, programmed talking-point responses in public?


I'm not the one jumping back to google and wikipedia every time I post a reply to this thread...that would be you. It's obvious, because you don't know what you're talking about and the responses suggest you're trying to sound authoritative, but you are unable to directly contradict anything I've said.

quote:
Do you enjoy your open contempt for science and objective thought?

Are you an enthusiastic and knowing sock puppet for the likes of ExxonMobil, or are you just another hapless rube?


Why do you think asking rhetorical questions would be in your favor. You should be providing some kind of substance to support your position, not asking more inane questions that only make you look more foolish than you would have if you didn't reply in the first place. lol


RE: Talk about BS
By knutjb on 7/3/2012 2:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
The truth hurts. They will slam a successful company but fail to mention the real money made in oil is held by Venezuela, Iran, SA, Russia, Kuwait, UAE, to name a few...all governments.

Then they slam religion because it cannot be proven to their satisfaction. Yet they spew evolutionary theory as though fact but cannot reproduce said theory in the lab.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in their argument and am not pushing religion. They push Global cooling, no global warming, no climate change! How vague can an argument get?


RE: Talk about BS
By c_woof on 7/6/2012 6:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
@EricMartello
What a moron.

As the guy said, Exxon would be proud. So how long have you been on the payroll?
I guess then that you disagree with the CEO -- isn't that jeopardizing your paycheck?
So many words, so much blather, so little science.


RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/2012 7:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Science and reality do not conclusively support or even hint at man made global warming unless the data is manipulated and cherry-picked. What the data does suggest is that the earth goes through regular heating and cooling phases...and that the current phase may actually be abnormal - the "normal" for this planet is likely an atmosphere with higher concentrations of so-called "greenhouse" gases, denser atmosphere and a warmer global climate.

What kind of life was inhabiting this planet for billions of years? NOT humans and not most of the life we have right now.

Just because we exist now doesn't mean that now is the "norm" and deviation from our current state is abnormal. If the earth was a hot, humid rock for the last few eons then by definition THAT would be its normal climate.


it's more likely oil company is the one who's paying their scientist to manipulate the data, perhaps you should check when the warming begins, if it's happen at this rate long before we start using our fossil fuel, than you can claim, ok it's not our fault :p

btw, i don't want to extinct, so even if global warming is so called nature cycle, i would like to disrupt the cycle :p


RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 9:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's more likely oil company is the one who's paying their scientist to manipulate the data, perhaps you should check when the warming begins, if it's happen at this rate long before we start using our fossil fuel, than you can claim, ok it's not our fault :p


We have only been tracking weather since the 1800s, and the technology back then was not nearly as accurate or as comprehensive as what we have today, even in the last 40-50 years. Considering the age of the earth, ~200 years of data is very little to work with and not a reliable foundation for drawing any conclusions upon. It's like trying to figure out where a river flows by looking at a 3 x 3 foot area of shoreline.

Is the earth warming? I don't deny that - but I do have a problem with the notion that humans are causing this effect.

quote:
btw, i don't want to extinct, so even if global warming is so called nature cycle, i would like to disrupt the cycle :p


Well I can't say I want to be extinct either but we all kick the bucket sooner or later. Being dead is just like things were before you were born.


RE: Talk about BS
By semiconshawn on 7/2/2012 5:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
No its Al Gore. After he invented the internet he figured out how to monetized global warming. Go around creating a problem then offer a high price solution. Carbon offsets. HAHAHAHA freakin genius. Suckers.


RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/2012 7:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
more like oil company was creating a lie that global warming doesn't exist, to protect their profit :p then after spent a lot of money, now they think it's cheaper to say, it's ok world goes warmer and sea level rising, we can adapt to it :D


RE: Talk about BS
By jeffkro on 6/29/2012 11:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
You left one risk out, traditionally when resources get scarce humans go to war. So ever increasing population stressing climate threatened food supplies and modern weapons could lead to a very dangerous situation.


RE: Talk about BS
By jeffkro on 6/29/2012 11:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
PS was watching a show where they were saying the Pentagon was taking this scenario very seriously


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2012 5:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
traditionally when resources get scarce humans go to war.

And when humans go to war humans tend to die. Humans dying tends to free up resources. We call that a "self-correcting problem".


RE: Talk about BS
By sviola on 7/2/2012 12:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that with the weapons available, resources could become unavailable. Specially if nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are used.


RE: Talk about BS
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 2:32:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You left one risk out, traditionally when resources get scarce humans go to war.
All of this doomsday stuff. Reminds when I was a kid and the threat of nuclear annihilation from the former Soviet Union was imminent! Just around the corner! We're all going to die! Does society REALLY have a need to be on the edge of death all of the time? What's the next mass extinction gonna be in the next 10 years?


RE: Talk about BS
By bupkus on 6/30/2012 1:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If an ice age hit tomorrow, we would be able to survive because we know how to make a fire and stay warm.
This is so very funny I just can't believe it.
Now, imagine 300 million Americans all staying warm from burning wood. That would consume more wood than is currently burning in Colorado.


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2012 5:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, many would die horrendously if the world shifted dramatically... just as many would die horrendously if we, for instance, stopped using oil right this second. In fact, the only reason we have so many people to begin with is because we adopted certain industrialized practices that permit the feeding, clothing, and reliable comfort of billions. Pull that out from under 'em, and you get billions dead.

So what's the difference? One means that many will probably die, the other means that many will definitely die. Choose wisely!


RE: Talk about BS
By nolisi on 6/30/2012 2:37:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
What are you talking about? We did. It happened, it was dealt with...get over it. BTW an eruption of the super volcano under yellowstone park will cause a disaster on a global scale that makes any man-made disaster pale in comparsion...but that's how it is - a cycle of creation and destruction that keeps things interesting.


You undermine your own credibility in this statement it's useless reasoning with you when you claim "it was dealt with". You're seriously suggesting that BP's minute video apology made up for the millions that Americans spent on the spike in gas prices due to the spill? Or how about the wasted oil?

You're not even capable of thinking about this economically, let alone intellectually. I'll stick to my Kool Aid. At least mine doesn't have me believing the Green Lobby is outspending the Oil Lobby.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 6/30/2012 6:34:33 AM , Rating: 4
oh dear..

quote:
What's not occuring is man-made global warming or climate change


Three things:
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas
* The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased
* Humans have caused the CO2 level increase

All of these things are true, the only question is how much warming is being caused by humans. Scientists (and other people much smarter than you) believe that MOST of the warming is caused by humans.

QED.


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/1/2012 6:12:22 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So is water vapor. In fact, water vapor is a BETTER greenhouse gas. How does water vapor behave?


And so is Methane and Nitrous oxide and Ozone, none of those stop the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'm glad you mentioned water vapor, it's one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases, as anyone who has ever boiled anything, you should have noticed that the hotter water gets, the more water vapor is produced, without having to use much brainpower anyone should be able to see that this leads to a runaway heating effect. (maybe that's not the answer you were looking for though!)

quote:
The increase FOLLOWING rises in temperature, not preceding it. Thus, the cause-effect relationship is reversed.


Ah, one of the much bandied cries of the head-in-the-sand crowd. To say that cause-effect is reversed is a gross misunderstanding of the facts.

Just because SOME rise in temperature occurred BEFORE a CO2 increase does not mean that further temperature increases were not caused by CO2.

You've probably seen historical graphs where CO2 increase follows behind temperature increase and you have come to the conclusion that temperature increase causes a CO2 increase.....
Yea.
Well, that actually true.
So well done there.
As the oceans heat up they give off CO2 and stop absorbing as much CO2 as they did.

But here's the problem, because the CO2 level is now slightly higher, more heat is retained, thus the oceans give off more CO2.

CO2 does not have to be the one starting this runaway effect, that can be other greenhouse gases, solar or orbital effects etc.. The crux of the heat-CO2 problem is that it is self-reinforcing.

It's not a "single cause" leads to a "single effect" phenomenon.

quote:
The biggest concern of which is acid rain. There's a whole host of other pollution concerns that take precedence over this "global climate change" malarky.


Yes, there are other pollution concerns, I never said there wasn't. As for your assertion that climate change is "malarky" you have not shown this to be the case.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/1/2012 1:17:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
quote:
Just because SOME rise in temperature occurred BEFORE a CO2 increase does not mean that further temperature increases were not caused by CO2.
Oh brilliant logic there. Because science works so much better when we throw out observation, fact, and control groups.


If you don't understand this then I'm at a loss. I'll point you to these clever people:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatu...

You accuse me of throwing out science logic and fact, but you can't put 2 and 2 together.

1. increased CO2 causes warming
2. warming causes increased CO2

Just because CO2 didn't start the problem does not mean that it does not occur.

If you bother to take the time to look up that link you'll see that, historically, earth comes out of an ice age because of an orbital shift. But these orbital are once-off effects essentially, increased warming comes from the increase in CO2. So much so, that 90% of the warming occurrs after the increase in CO2.

I get it, you think that because somebody showed you a slide with the level of CO2 increasing after the increase in temperature, you think that the link goes in one direction only, that's very simplistic of you. It's not doing science, logic or fact any favors to look at the issue with such a one-dimensional mind.

Maybe with your simplified logic and watered down science, everything has a single cause and that single cause has a single effect, but the atmosphere of this planet is much more complicated than that.

I'll quote the above link:
quote:
Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/1/2012 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Right which is why we have proof that when there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, there was NO runaway "greenhouse effect". Because C02 always causes warming? False.


Jebus, you're going back 400 million years now, do you know just how different the planet was back then?
Anyway you can't say that there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, that's plain stupid. The percentage was 20 times higher, but there's no way the total amount of gas in the atmosphere was exactly the same as today, in other words the atmospheric pressure was probably (according to all the studies I've seen on this) a lot lower. And atmospheric pressure also has a large effect on the greenhouse effect. The fact that you don't know the different between a percentage and a total amount is very worrying, it shows that your grasp on the area is very poor indeed.

Or maybe you just heard this "20 times higher" factoid without looking any deeper, probably because it just fit your pre-existing world view so well.

quote:
There's more than enough evidence coming out, finally, that man made global warming is nothing but a hoax, perpetrated by people who sought out to pervert the peer review and scientific process.


My ass. Just because a few of the scientists on the climate change side are dishonest does not mean they all are. And it's not like the anti-climate-change scientists are any more honest.

quote:
I'm not a scientist or a climatologist, and neither are you.


I think I've shown that I know more about this than you though ... "percentage = amount" hehe

quote:
What a very in depth and multifaceted evaluation of the hundreds of systems and elements involved in detailing atmospheric conditions!! Talk about simplified and watered down science.


I'm trying to simplify it down to your level, I just hope you look into in in more detail.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is no debate on that. The properties of the gas have been known for 200 or so years. The only debate can be on how much warming the CO2 causes, and it's not zero.

quote:
You're a waste of time, and most likely, a hypocrite. You generate just as much C02 as the next guy here.


At least I'm not so stupid as to fall for that "CO2 percentage = amount" argument that the less intelligent climate change deniers fall for :-))


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2012 9:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
Your side started C02 percentage = amount, thank you very much. Go watch "An Inconvenient Truth". Hockey Stick anyone?

quote:
Jebus, you're going back 400 million years now, do you know just how different the planet was back then?


This is not a valid argument. The planet sure was "different", however how C02 interacts with the atmosphere to "cause warming" sure wasn't different. If you're claiming our atmosphere worked in a completely different way than it does today, I think you're going to have to explain this difference.

Oh and the pressure was "probably" lower? That's funny because I've read papers that suggested it was "probably" higher. But, of course, your side is right on that too. Because..uhh, you said so.

Not that you can, because it didn't. And not that you wanted to even attempt to do so, because the fact is the truth isn't very convenient for you now, is it.

quote:
I think I've shown that I know more about this than you though


No. You've shown that you can repeat what you've heard on the news, or read on Liberal blogs. But true knowledge? You're not showing it at all because you aren't able to form your own opinions. You aren't applying critical thinking, you're arbitrarily deciding something and backing it up with bias. Regurgitation isn't knowledge.

quote:
Just because a few of the scientists on the climate change side are dishonest does not mean they all are. And it's not like the anti-climate-change scientists are any more honest.


Case in point. It doesn't matter if a "few" scientists were dishonest. The point is the data they fabricated, the numbers they massaged, was the very blueprint for the Man Made Global Warming theory that nearly EVERY climatologist based his opinion on. If you bothered to use deductive reasoning you would realize the significance of this.

You're a bore. You sweep aside any evidence or proof contrary to your beliefs with a wave of your hand, as if it no longer exists. And you drone on about science?

quote:
At least I'm not so stupid as to fall for that "CO2 percentage = amount" argument that the less intelligent climate change deniers fall for :-))


Apparently you're "too stupid" to actually notice that as C02 increases, we're not actually warming. The icecaps aren't melting and flooding the oceans. Etc etc etc.

Have fun waiting for your inevitable doomsday!!! I only hope for your sake it happens, so that you can feel validated and feel better about yourself.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 2:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
Don't blame me for mistakes others have made.

quote:
This is not a valid argument. The planet sure was "different", however how C02 interacts with the atmosphere to "cause warming" sure wasn't different.


Huh, was the planet considerably different or not, was the orbit different, was the sun different, was the solar wind different. So "the atmosphere is complicated" argument only works for you and no one else.

quote:
Oh and the pressure was "probably" lower? That's funny because I've read papers that suggested it was "probably" higher. But, of course, your side is right on that too. Because..uhh, you said so.


So you think the pressure was different. And you still think that because the LEVEL of CO2 was 20 times higher, that the AMOUNT of CO2 was ALSO 20 times higher. WOW I thought you were stupid, but that's completely retarded. You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?

quote:
Case in point. It doesn't matter if a "few" scientists were dishonest. The point is the data they fabricated, the numbers they massaged, was the very blueprint for the Man Made Global Warming theory that nearly EVERY climatologist based his opinion on.


That's not true and you know it.

quote:
But true knowledge? You're not showing it at all because you aren't able to form your own opinions. You aren't applying critical thinking, you're arbitrarily deciding something and backing it up with bias. Regurgitation isn't knowledge.


But you are just repeating incorrect knowledge. The majority of Climate Scientists agree that global warming and climate change is real. Only a few disagree, and most of those that disagree are not climate scientists.

quote:
Apparently you're "too stupid" to actually notice that as C02 increases, we're not actually warming. The icecaps aren't melting and flooding the oceans. Etc etc etc.


Umm. the earth is warming, the highest temperatures on record were in the last decade. Sorry there's not the perfectly linear increase that you would apparently require.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2012 9:32:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't blame me for mistakes others have made.


When you repeat their mistakes I most certainly CAN blame you.

quote:
You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?


Why do you keep harping on this? Yes I know that. There was almost 2000 parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere, and NO runaway greenhouse effect. The amount AND percentage was higher, get over it.

quote:
That's not true and you know it.


It IS true. The IPCC data was the foundation on which nearly all AGW studies were built on! How can the study be valid if the models, data, math and conclusions were all false?

quote:
The majority of Climate Scientists agree that global warming and climate change is real. Only a few disagree, and most of those that disagree are not climate scientists.


I'm actually impressed you've gone this long without resorting to the false, and often used, "majority" argument. But ultimately when reason fails, your side will simply repeat this as if it ends the discussion. First off there is no majority, that's a crock. Secondly science isn't a democratic process, or a popularity contest. Was the Earth the center of the Universe because a then "majority" of scientists agreed it was?

quote:
Umm. the earth is warming, the highest temperatures on record were in the last decade. Sorry there's not the perfectly linear increase that you would apparently require.


Excuse me? We're coming out of a 15 year period where when the temps were supposed to be rising due to increased C02 (yes amount and percentage, asshole), we saw no global temperature rise. It's not us that claimed we would see linear increases, again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!


RE: Talk about BS
By senecarr on 7/2/2012 2:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Excuse me? We're coming out of a 15 year period where when the temps were supposed to be rising due to increased C02 (yes amount and percentage, asshole), we saw no global temperature rise. It's not us that claimed we would see linear increases, again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!

Actually, from 98-08 we haven't seen the temperature going up at its previous rate. This is very likely due to increased aerosols in the atmosphere. During that same time period, China made a massive increase in dirty coal plants that put sulfates in atmosphere. They obscure the CO2 heating trend because the aerosols reflect sunlight.


RE: Talk about BS
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, from 98-08 we haven't seen the temperature going up at its previous rate.
Thanks for the info. Not trying to be an ass here but I would like to learn more about this. Do you have a reference I could look up?


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 5:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
And the extra particles in the atmosphere from the dirty coal can cause increased cloud formation which can also leads to reflecting more heat away from the planet.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 4:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Was the Earth the center of the Universe because a then "majority" of scientists agreed it was?


The universe has no center, anyone who has studied the big bang knows that. Religions have said that the earth is the center of the universe (and also the solar system) in an attempt to give people the warm and fuzzy feeling that god started everything and is in control of the planet. Scientists always followed the data on the "center of the solar system" issue though. Although there are of course people and even some scientists who cannot accept that the earth can change and move over time, you know, people a bit like you who think nothing will change and we can't affect the planet.

quote:
again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!


And YOUR SIDE believes the earth was created 6000 years ago, so burn fossil fuels burn... There you go, if you lump me with what you perceive to be one side I'll do the same.

Only it's not that simple is it? It's not just black and white, there's more than just 2 sides, just like there's more than just one cause leading to one effect.

quote:
quote:
You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?
Why do you keep harping on this? Yes I know that.


Why did you use AMOUNT in your post then??? Nobody knows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere half a billion years ago because nobody knows the amount of atmosphere back then. If you knew it, what was you intent, to fool the weak minded into thinking that the world is exactly as it was half a billion years ago.

And if you are so sure that there was more atmosphere back then, then show us your data, there's far more studies to say that there was less atmosphere in the past, or do you have your blinkers on when looking at those studies as well? I've learned that you're great at picking and choosing science in order to justify your pre-existing beliefs.

Here's a hint, toss out your beliefs and look at the science with an open mind.

quote:
First off there is no majority, that's a crock


It's not just a majority, it's an overwhelming majority, you really are a very special person if you think otherwise.

quote:
Secondly science isn't a democratic process, or a popularity contest.


That's actually true, I like the way you sneaked that small truth in there to make it look like you know what you're talking about (did you get that snippet from a tv program?) But it's also no justification whatsoever for you to hold a such a narrow view on the field. You don't get to decide what's true, the scientists, the real climate scientists do. And they think that more CO2 is bad, just how bad varies, but it's not a good thing.

As for the rest of the crap you spout I'll let other people take care of it.


RE: Talk about BS
By JediJeb on 7/2/2012 5:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because CO2 didn't start the problem does not mean that it does not occur.


If you use that reasoning then you debunk the notion that humans releasing CO2 is what caused the current warming period in the first place.


RE: Talk about BS
By SRHelicity on 6/30/2012 3:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's not occuring is man-made global warming or climate change. The processes that are occuring are largely natural.


That's patently incorrect. As a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, there is very strong evidence that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. There are a myriad of peer-reviewed, independent publications that support the conclusion that (a) climate change is occurring (ocean acidification, SST changes, GHG changes, sea level changes, lower-tropospheric thermal changes, etc. and (b) it is very much affected by human activity.

I'm open for scientific debate, but you need to "debunk" the rigorous science that has been done by hundreds of scientists associated with hundreds of independent entities first.

Why is there misinformation so easy to spread? Saying what you said above is flat out incorrect, at least according to nearly all scientific exploration done in the past 20 years.


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2012 5:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
As a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, you must really suck at your job if you think 20 years is any significant amount of time.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 5:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
hyperbole much?


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki