Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
scas wrote:I find it interesting that 6s protects his skeptics argument, yet berated the video dissection i posted. In that video, they use a temperature graph with data to 1990, but label 1990 'now' to give the impression of no heating.
There is no problem with the hockey stick, and there is no controversy.
A leading climate sceptic patronised by the oil billionaire Koch brothers faced a potential investigation today on charges that he misled Congress on the extent of his funding from the oil industry.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a thinktank founded by Charles and David Koch to promote their libertarian, anti-government views, appeared before the house energy and commerce committee in February 2009.
At the time, the committee was headed by the California Democrat Henry Waxman and Michaels was the only one in the line-up of witnesses to cast doubt on global warming, testifying that mainstream science had exaggerated the threat posed by climate change.
Now, Waxman writes in a letter to the incoming committee chair, Fred Upton, it appears as if Michaels may have misled the committee. In 2009, Michaels said 3% of his $4.2m in financial support came from the oil and gas industry. But in an appearance on CNN in August last year, and in subsequent interviews, Michaels suggested that figure was 40%.
Science blogger Anthony Watts has read numerous WikiLeaks diplomatic cables related to climate change and has noticed a common theme -- an attempt by Second World nations to siphon wealth and political power from First World nations, all in the name of Third World nations assumed to be "victims" of global warming. At the same time, the US and other First World nations tried to offer aid directly to Third World nations; certainly a curious case of "better the devil you know" diplomacy.
scas wrote:What's your deal with ice core data? They can only be taken from Greenland and Antarctica. Ocean cores, lakebed cores, pollen measurements, petrified trees, and fossils can be taken from various locations...and they all point to warming.
Sixstrings wrote:But if you're representative of the activist movement overall then any kind of mitigation is hopeless. If you won't even talk, and be polite and refrain from insults, then there's zero chance of EVER swinging conservatives and independents over to your side.
Lore wrote:Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.
Politics: The State of the Union Is All About Energy—Not Climate
Tonight's State of the Union may be remembered as the moment when the White House stopped working on climate—and started working on energy.
But there's no avoiding the fact that a candidate who spoke of climate change as an existential threat on the 2008 campaign trail—and whose diplomats were still promising to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 as recently as last month in Cancun—didn't mention the term "climate change," nor "global warming," nor "carbon." As Climate Progress's baleful Joe Romm put it:
These omissions were depressingly predictable (see “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?“) and thus, predictably, depressing to climate hawks.
Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility
Sixstrings wrote:And there will be time for me to finally get answers about the little ice age, medieval warm period and ice cores.
sixstrings wrote:Nothing big is going to get done for a few years at the least (actually probably the rest of the decade), so we'll have that time to get a better handle on what the climate change situation really is.
Sixstrings wrote:I was just freaking out about cap and trade,
mos6507 wrote:Lore wrote:Ultimately they get tangled up in conflicting facts or poorly studied and reasoned research to finally dissolve into making accusations of uncertainty, conspiracy, deceit and lies. Which is all they have left to shield their denial.
There's one final stop for the denialist, and that's an acceptance along the lines of "it's too late to do anything". You see, it's not the denial that a denialist cares about the most, it's personal restraint. They may not like conceding that we're screwed, and we're responsible, but if they feel they are "off the hook" because we've passed all the tipping points, they can at least eat drink and be merry for what little time of normalcy is left.
Right now I'm clinging to the idea of doing something about AGW more to avoid being confused by the above contingent than any realistic hope that it's gonna "save us". Some things you just have to do out of principle.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 7 guests