Climate Change in Australia (Part 1)

To the point- you have been challenged many times on your empty thought bubble that CC occurs naturally therefore cannot be impacted by human activity. It is a poor argument and, in spite of requests, you never provide any meaningful data or analysis. Meanwhile you have the nerve to question the motives of people who devote their lives to study & research for a pittance. It is an insult. Your ‘argument’ is ignorant. And you are too arrogant to see it.

You are clearly motivated by politics not science. There is a Politics thread for your immature left / right barracking. Take it there.

2 Likes

Incorrect on every aspect again. I have provided plenty of examples in the past. You simply choose to believe I’m guessing out of fear.

Yeeeeaaah.
You’re all scaaaared.

Lol.
Why do you bother?

1 Like

Let me guess, the crop bed benfti’s wife worked on might have dried out normally 50, 10,000 or 500,000 years ago meaning humans aren’t increasing the greenhouse effect?

You really haven’t provided any meaningful analysis that I can recall - a chart that shows CC occured before the industrial revolution just doesn’t cut it.

And I’m motivated out of respect for the scientific process, not fear.
You seem like the type who respects science only when it agrees with your own empty thought bubbles. Then, when it doesn’t you insult the scientists (as if they are in it for the money - what a joke).

2 Likes

Actually, Al Gore controls all the scientists and tricks them into doing his evil work for him.

Step 4: profit.

1 Like

:offtopic:

Exxon Mobil misled the public on climate change, Harvard study finds

Tom DiChristopher | @tdichristopher
Published 5 Hours Ago | Updated 4 Hours Ago
CNBC.com

Exxon Mobil misled the public about climate change for years even as its research echoed the growing scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity, a new study finds.

The conclusion is based on a study by two Harvard University researchers, who used social science methods to compare what Exxon Mobil said in nearly 200 scientific publications and internal communications on climate change with what they presented in three dozen advertisements over 15 years.

The researchers’ takeaway is that the more publicly available advertisements sowed doubt that climate change is real and caused by humans, while the scientific studies and private exchanges more openly acknowledged that scientific fact.

“We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science — by way of its scientists’ academic publications — but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that Exxon Mobil misled the public,” the researchers wrote.

The findings potentially add grist to the mill as a number of attorneys general, including New York’s Eric Schneiderman, continue to investigate whether Exxon misled shareholders. The Securities and Exchange Commission is also probing how the oil major values its fossil fuel reserves in light of global warming.

“As detailed in our filings in New York court, the Attorney General’s investigation of Exxon Mobil has uncovered significant evidence indicating that Exxon may have misled New York investors and consumers about the risk of climate change to the company,” Amy Spitalnick, press secretary for the New York State Office of the Attorney General told CNBC.

“We will continue to vigorously pursue our investigation, regardless of Exxon’s unprecedented campaign of delay and distraction.”

The Harvard researchers, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, presented their findings in a peer-reviewed article in the journal Environmental Research Letters. In a New York Times op-ed, they said they were inspired to apply empirical analysis to the documents after investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times put forward the notion that Exxon obscured what it long knew about climate change.

One key finding is that Exxon acknowledges that climate change is real and human-caused in 83 percent of peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of internal documents. Yet 81 percent of editorial-style advertisements placed in the New York Times from 1989 to 2004 express doubt.

“In short, Exxon Mobil contributed quietly to climate science and loudly to raising doubts about it,” Supran and Oreskes said in the op-ed.

A March 2000 advertorial by Exxon opens this way: “Knowing that weather forecasts are reliable for a few days at best, we should recognize the enormous challenge facing scientists seeking to predict climate change and its impact over the next century.”

The Harvard report was funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has supported other work to reveal what Exxon knew about climate change and what it publicly disclosed.

“The study was paid for, written and published by activists leading a five-year campaign against the company. It is inaccurate and preposterous,” Exxon Mobil said in a statement.

“The study claims that Exxon Mobil advertorials in the New York Times cast doubt on climate science, which is the researchers’ opinion and not supported by fact,” the company added, noting its advertisements pointed to potential risks associated with climate change.

CNBC contacted about a dozen of Exxon Mobil’s largest investors. They either declined to comment or did not respond.

Exxon Mobil shareholders recently approved a nonbinding proposal that asked Exxon to disclose the impacts to its business of global climate goals enshrined in the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to prevent temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Baldwin Brothers, a wealth management firm with $800 million of assets under management, has been lobbying Exxon to disclose risks to its business related to climate change since 2014. Managing Director Dylan Sage said he grew concerned that policies aimed at mitigating global warming would leave much of Exxon’s reserves stranded in the ground.

“We wanted to have a better framework to understand under that scenario how much equity of ours is at risk,” he said.

“Subsequently, we’ve gotten out of a lot of our Exxon shares when they wouldn’t take seriously the risks to their business model around a low-carbon scenario,” he said.

2 Likes

Big tobacco all over again

4 Likes

Makes this report all the more interesting to read with that knowledge.

Yep, … and has been from the start.

Thing is, you can see it works in sucking in the nuffies,… with the likes of Weirdwolf & Tripper as our very own resident perfect exemplars.

1 Like

There is no way in their deep concious they actually believe the crap they say. It’s all about the optics, and being on message.

No sain person bets against their own life or the life of their loved ones.

Really

1 Like

I think you’re wrong here. I have no doubt that the more vocal ‘amateur’ climate reality deniers are 100% sincere.

I suspect there are a few ‘professional’ deniers who just parrot words they don’t really believe because they work for fossil fuel interests, or they’re pollies who know their voters believe this stuff. But I think they’re a tiny minority.

2 Likes

I’m taking about the locals around these parts, I, as Ian sure you have come up against the deniers who believe it with every fibre of their being. These people go to lengths to present information to support their claims, a lot of times presenting multipal sources. They are diven because they have found some research that they have found compelling.

They talk about the science and attempt to use science to disprove science.

None of the blokes here ever do that.

Sorfed is a bit like that but WW and trip have picked a political side and feel it their duty to deny. Science, and presumably the future that our kids inherit, appear to be of little or no concern. To them, accepting decades of scientific research over big coal propaganda would be like barracking for FCFC.

Wrong again on all counts.

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

1 Like

Mr Wolf, yep my morals are suspect and I am always immature, but I am not an idiot who attacks scientists for passionately doing their job. My Wife uses hypnotherapy in her practice and gets really good results for many. Now some discount hypnotists as frauds and quacks but given the positive results, who gives a Fark.

Rant as much as you like but climatology is a proven science and the facts show that humans have caused a change in climate due to their use of fossils fuels and other dumb practices. You know this is true, but you attack Benno’s Wife and call her a fraud, just for political reasons.

You are an oxygen thief, not thick skinned just thick.

1 Like

How is werewolf not banned yet? Not even representative of most conservatives. Can’t post an argument for his own point of view, viciously and continuously abuses people, then when someone finally cracks and returns the abuse has the gall to claim to be the victim.

The worst type of troll. Jesus Christ, mods.

3 Likes

Christ, 12 days in hospital, the 10 in the cardiac unit at St Vinnies and I still get a mention, I’m a farking legend.

And yeah Bacchus I pulled though.
Eat ■■■■ and die.

3 Likes

Made as an example?