Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gupie says> "what is the rational for not going with the consensus of 97% of climate scientists?" Simply that there is no such consensus - "'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong": https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-cl... From the article: "Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need..…
Your source for that article is a man named Alex Epstein, who is paid by coal industry figures to advocate for a "new industrial revolution". > In a September 11, 2018 piece at the CIP website, Epstein disclosed “proudly” that one of his industry clients was Tyler White, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. [22] Also interesting: > Alexander Epstein planned to release his “Energy Liberation Plan” for considera…
Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
291–300 of 340 posts
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that consensus would approve of. Is it really important that I "believe" all the things people are afraid of? I'm pretty content to leave some topics unresolved until I get more information.
I am not a fan of "believe" or dogma of any kind myself. I tend to go on likelihood. I ask myself is it more likely that the 97% are correct or the 3%?
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
If half of the media tells it's a hoax, why would the population want to endure inconvenience for it. Denialism has a real effect.
Was this a hoax? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm It isn't necessarily denialism nor shilling to question the validity of predictions. It's a good thing. Unfortunately the whole topic has become breathless "99% of scientists!" and tied in with social economic programs to the point I'm not convinced any more. To say nothing of failed predictions. Ya, I believe C02 _should_ warm the earth based on…
I think it's more about the way we communicate model results. In the media, it's communicated as absolutes like "The ice caps will be gone by 2100!"
In reality, the model results are communicated in uncertainty. More akin to "There's a 70% chance the ice caps will be gone by 2100 if the current level of CO2 emissions are not abated." That's a much less sexy headline to say nothing about the fact that most people wouldn't be shocked if a 3 in 10 chance event actually happens. Nate Silver does a much better job explaining this in his book "The Signal and the Noise"
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's a physicists. Why would he have any idea about climate? He's just a person with an opinion not a dissenting scientist. And if his work suffered as a result of voicing such opinion then it was only to be expected. If you voice stupid opinion regarding domain you know almost nothing about and prop it up with your work reputation it's only fair if that reputation takes a hit.
The climate is a physical phenomenon.
Everything in existence is a physical phenomenon. That doesn't mean physicists have authority on everything.
You might as well consider every philosopher an authority on everything because every problem ever solved was solved by thinking and that's what philosophers do. While in reality philosophers are only authorities on (the history of?) philosophy.
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is that scientifically demonstrated to happen (not just speculated) and keep in mind Methane has a "half life"
I don't know about you, but I see a pretty clear trend here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions#/medi...
Where is it shown it's runaway?
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree "per capita" can be misleading, but China and India are growing faster than the US, and China is outputting more CO2 than the US.
China has a lot more people than the US, and they do a lot of the US's manufacturing too. Many people think that the US should not try to cut carbon emissions because China swamps us in this. I strongly disagree with that.
The thing is: we are cutting emissions, but it probably won’t save the planet, if China and India keep growing. The “fairness“ of per capita usage is a separate issue from climate change
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
The climate is a physical phenomenon.
Everything in existence is a physical phenomenon. That doesn't mean physicists have authority on everything. You might as well consider every philosopher an authority on everything because every problem ever solved was solved by thinking and that's what philosophers do. While in reality philosophers are only authorities on (the history of?) philosophy.
that's too harsh. philsophers are experts at a particular way of thinking: logic. it is surprisingly powerful for clarifying ideas and advancing knowledge, in much the same way as mathematics or the scientific method are. we would not say mathematicians are only experts on "numbers"
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#298Maybe no help from Exxon, but US per capita CO2 has been decreasing since 1978. But China and India have increased per capita, which is scary given their huge populations.
Both US population and absolute US greenhouse gas emissions have been growing over time. Population has simply grown proportionally faster than emissions. So yes, US emissions per capita have decreased over time, but total US emissions have been rising, and that's what affects climate.
How much of that decrease is just moving the factory to China?
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the proposal is mandatory restrictions on CO2 emissions then giving every citizen an equal share of the allowed emissions vastly beats giving those to industry or taxing people. Doing this also creates awareness about CO2 usage among the populace. Opinions on climate change are irrelevant to my proposal to give the credits equally to everyone or some other scheme. If the population isn't in favor of a carbon regul…
> Opinions on climate change are irrelevant to my proposal How would such a proposal be enacted to begin with? My comment was that for a proposal like that to be passed initially, it would almost certainly need the support of a politician's respective constituents. Anything else would be political suicide and have slim-to-no chance of even getting debated. Blame it on lobbying, or career politicians, or whatever else…
I was just responding to the proposal put forward upstream with a number of points enumerated. Things can be dictatorial but fair. And realistically I think most western countries can maintain their current standard of living while reducing emmisssions, as I too believe we are capable of solutions. It doesn't mean sacrifice if carbon became part of the economy. Honestly it could be the unit of exchange if we chose to make it so.
Re: Exxon knew that fossil fuels were influencing the climate in 1978
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to add, in case you don't know what I'm refering to: There is a large movement widely called "Fridays for Future" going on lots of european cities (large and small) in which students will go on a school strike to demonstrate for sensible climate policy.
Sure, and there's the Extinction Rebellion stuff in the UK. Here in Australia we're kind of complacent/lazy, not often giving a stuff about anything except sports, celebrities, and limitless acquisition of consumer crap. But there is a bit of the school strike stuff happening. It's all a bit marginal though, isn't it? People might object to the 'quasi religious' aspect of what you're talking about. I'd make the point…
>I'd make the point though that any culture which acknowledges even minimally the true nature of the living planet that is our home would appear mystical or religious to the deathly bloodless denatured worldview that so ruthlessly holds power now.
I call it the 'Global Non-Denominational Death-Cult'. Ultimately it favours no particular group, but the tithe is very high.