How Bad Is Global Warming?

[DrEvil]

OK. What PR firms are you talking about, who are they working for, and how much money is involved?

[Ben D]

...fancy that... ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP sponsoring top climate science conference....author - Brad Johnson - Hill Heat....



But that's ok for big oil to sponsor the AGW bandwagon says AGW scientist..."Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., related a similar sentiment to Hill Heat. “Fossil fuels exist and will continue to do so,” Trenberth wrote. “Many of the companies have diversified into other areas of energy. So that alone is not a reason for inappropriateness."

Conference included presentations by such AGW luminaries as Naomi Oreskes and multiple presentations by John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Susan Hassol, and Dana Nuccitelli of SkS.

[BOOGIE66]

...fancy that... ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP sponsoring top climate science conference....author - Brad Johnson - Hill Heat....



But that's ok for big oil to sponsor the AGW bandwagon says AGW scientist..."Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., related a similar sentiment to Hill Heat. “Fossil fuels exist and will continue to do so,” Trenberth wrote. “Many of the companies have diversified into other areas of energy. So that alone is not a reason for inappropriateness."

Conference included presentations by such AGW luminaries as Naomi Oreskes and multiple presentations by John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Susan Hassol, and Dana Nuccitelli of SkS.

This implies the results of scientific research is influenced by who funds it. That ignores what science itself is.

[Ben D]

BOOGIE66, AGW has been mostly politics from the get go....real science has long since taken a back seat to nwo UN global warming politics....climategate exposed the farce.... If you can name a multinational corporation that takes an unambiguous, anti-AGW stand, I would be surprised...they don't bite the hand that feeds them....now and sustainably into the future they hope... The thing that will bring it all to naught is not the public influence of Anthony Watts and the merry rag tag band of skeptical science 'denier' blogosphere, but ironically the climate itself....it ain't cooperating with the computer models since the beginning of the 21st century....soon the true believers in AGW will start cursing Gaia itself for being the ultimate anthropogenic global warming denier!

[BOOGIE66]

Climategate has been debunked

[Sounder]

OK. What PR firms are you talking about, who are they working for, and how much money is involved?

Thanks Dr.Evil for the tonal change. I do not care to search for the specific details of your request but this pro-AGW article tells some of the story.

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_a ... te_deniers

WPP, Weber Shandwick, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide and several others in the top 25 global PR firms have told the Guardian they will not represent clients who deny man-made climate change, or take campaigns seeking to block regulations limiting carbon pollution.

The PR firms were responding to independent surveys conducted by the Guardian and the Climate Investigations Center (CIC), a Washington-based group that conducts research on climate disinformation campaigns. The purpose of the surveys was to better understand the mechanics behind the framing of messages on climate change, as well as the disinformation campaign.

Despite mounting evidence that climate change is, in fact, real and caused by man, environmental groups and scientists have struggled with the public relations war against well-funded oil and gas companies who continue to hamper broader public support for action.

Now, with ten of the world’s top PR firms saying they will not work with climate deniers, this could mark a momentous shift in the multi-billion dollar industry. PR companies have played an important role over the years in framing the debate on climate change and its solutions, as well as the widespread disinformation campaigns launched to block these initiatives.

“We would not support a campaign that denies the existence and the threat posed by climate change, or efforts to obstruct regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and/or renewable energy standards,” a spokesperson for Weber Shandwick told the Guardian.

UK-based WPP, the world’s largest advertising firm by revenue and parent company of Burson Marsteller and Oglivy Public Relations, said taking on a client or campaign disputing climate change would violate company guidelines.

“We ensure that our own work complies with local laws, marketing codes and our own code of business conduct. These prevent advertising that is intended to mislead and the denial of climate change would fall into this category,” the company said.

However, WPP also said its 150 companies make their own decisions on clients and would not rule out campaigns opposing regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
While only 10 of the 25 firms responded to multiple emails, phone calls and certified letters from the CIC, some that refused to comment included those that have worked for groups calling for action on climate change – as well as those working to block it.

Seven of the firms told the researchers their companies viewed climate change as a threat, but a smaller number would rule out taking on clients that deny climate change is occurring, or work on campaigns that seek to block policies to deal with climate change. The majority of the PR firms appear to want to keep their options open by remaining neutral on the issue, according to CIC.

With the effects of climate change becoming more and more difficult to ignore, perhaps more PR firms will come around to fight on the right side of history. And there is still time to act, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Though the effects of climate change already are occurring on all continents and across the oceans and the world, there still are opportunities to respond to such risks to avert catastrophe. Granted, these risks will be increasingly more difficult to manage as warming continues to increase.

But, but, the warming has not increased for 17 years now.

[Iamwhomiam]

Lord Balto wrote,
And one of the things that positively exercises the defenders of scientific orthodoxy is the notion that there was advanced civilization in the last ice age, and I can't see blaming that period of global warming on too many campfires

Smug and all comfy in your ignorance? Guess you missed this. Dozens of 200' and smaller craters, all on one peninsula.

How wonderful you've come out from your dusty archives, Lord Baldy. Here's an comparative example of the AGW denier's argument you should be able to relate to that astounds me, really it does.

LB, your research is meaningless and your timeline is skewed most egregiously, erroneous due to huge gaps in time and data as to be laughable to serious, credentialed researchers of Ancient Egyptian Histories. Your personal fantasy is not valid theory because it lacks necessary substantiating evidence.

I know this to be true although I will offer no argument as to why. You really don't want to ask my CV or credentials cause you may be shocked by their profundity or the lack thereof.

Defend yourself from your research being attacked without reason, as climate scientists have had to do, generally, by buffoons, few corporate hacks and a wacky weatherman or two. However, rest assured I am not one of those.

(Odd, isn't it, how some uncredentialed researcher will adopt and follow state of the art scientific orthodoxy while conducting his research and putting forth unsubstantial theory, and yet utterly reject it when another researcher, by comparison, a climate scientist far better credentialed in his area of research, suggests the excesses and exceedances of societal demands contributes to the warming we are now experiencing.)

We have gathered sufficient evidence from the sciences to have determined probable consequences from man's polluting contributions to our air, lands and waters will be devastating to our civilization. The warming potential of the pollutants absorbing heat from our Sun grows tremendously daily. Physics and fluid dynamics show runaway global warming due to anthropogenic cause not to be a myth, but reality.

When one looks at the photograph below, the narrow bright blue band illuminated by sunlight is our atmosphere. You can stuff only so much stuff that warms and holds heat after being exposed sunlight in a closed system before its full radiative force becomes irrevocable.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/atmosphere.jpg
Every day that passes, thousands of acres worldwide are deforested, ever diminishing the chance the lungs of the earth will again respire adequately enough to function as they have for thousands of years, helping to keep our ecosystem in a natural balance.
Like a terrarium, without smokestacks.

All climate scientists worthy of being called such agree that if the permafrost warms and releases its methane as it surely seems to be doing, it will be "game over."

Death and destruction. Chaos and horror. Suffering.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/AP203347184585-638x480.jpg
260 foot with crater located on the Yamal Peninsula estimated to be 200 to 300 feet deep. Ambient methane in crater 9x higher than normal average and that's after the belch.

Speaking of notable gaseous belches, this comes to mind, "That a minor 100- or 200-year blip in average temperature can be blamed on human activity by scientific types who clearly have no understanding of long term climate trends, and that vast armies of intellectuals can swallow this unjustified conclusion, positively astounds me, at least it would if I didn't understand the high level of ape psychology operating in human society."

Ah! You ascribe to yet another pseudoscience - Psychology!

My, you are just full of contradictions, aren't you. Perhaps you've read Toffler's "Future Shock"? This thread certainly proves we have our share of ape-brained humans; they ape the polluter's lie.

Funny how pointing a finger to identify probable shape-shifting lizards draws one's attention away from the pointer. A tactic I hear lizards are said to use often successfully themselves.

Whose side are you on boy, whose side are you on?

Lastly, because it's off-topic, I'll address this:
"Just as an example. let me quote you a few witnesses to the global catastrophe of AD 536 that led to the black plague and other nasty consequences:" Et cetera.

First, although off topic, I'd like you to substantiate how you tie these quotes to the topic being discussed, because I see it as only foolish and unnecessary diversion from serious discussion; second, I'd appreciate some verification, a citation or a link, linking the observations of those you quoted were describing to causing the plague. And please, do tell us what other nasty consequences this described lasting event brought down upon mankind.

Researchers today now recognize these observations may have been describing the effects of a monstrous and lasting Saharan sandstorm with updrafts carrying dust high into the atmosphere, but I think it's more likely to have been caused by a volcano.

I truly believe the time for us has passed. Greed won. Like any parasite, it sucked the lifeblood from that which sustained its life, and caused the death of both.

And that's what really irks my Buddhist ass, (yeah, being raised Christian left me with with all sorts of my own internal contradictions and conflicts, too), how astounding it is that those who complain about pollution while denying AGW have no understanding or recognition, though often reminded, that their position supports only wealthy corporate polluters who spend tens of millions for false propaganda denying reality in order to not only protect their profits, but to maximize them.

"Less regulation!" they cry. "Drill baby, drill." "More pipelines." "More oil and gas terminals" on or lake and rive shores.

Free will, free market exertion, while we choke and die from cancers rare or common, blood diseases, and more with increasing numbers of pregnancies not being carried successfully to term, infant and child premature development. Every woman of childbearing age has enough mercury in her body to cause fetal damage and every baby born today is born with its tiny body already burdened with more than 200 man made chemicals that are proven to have deleterious effects upon human health and longevity.

Denialist arguments only serve those who benefit from harming us and our children for profit. God gave mankind reign over the earth, some say, and some according to their own free will exploited the garden for their profit and have now assured its death.

[Ben D]

Climategate has been debunked

Yeah...and stalks deliver babies...

Now Boogie....with due respect to your general humanity, your statement above means you do not meet my prerequisite requirements of the state of climate science understanding to engage in a meaningful discussion on the state of climate science.

However, in case you are interested in actual reality, since you evidently have not read the relevant emails I will leave you with the background story so as to further your understanding....herein are listed the major players in all their disgusting fraudulent anti-scientific worst.... The Climategate Emails

Cheers...

[DrEvil]

Ben, climategate has been debunked, by eight different review panels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... nd_reports

@Sounder: Thanks, hadn't seen that before.

[Ben D]

Ben, climategate has been debunked, by eight different review panels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_R ... nd_reports

That is not a debunking...that the respective AGW supportive panels that investigated the AGW fraudulent scientists involved in the email scandal did not find official fraud merely indicates an embarrassing whitewash with a recommendation for them to clean up their act....but the extant emails are now in the public domain and can never be debunked....they are brought up regularly in the media as relevant and the AGW scientists involved and AGW fraudulent science in general will never live it down.

Read them and make up your own mind.... The Climategate Emails

[Ben D]

....another thing to add to the list of horrible things caused by global warming...Deadly irukandji and box jellyfish invading Sydney Harbour because of climate change, scientists say

[smiths]

why do you care so much Ben, fuck all is being done to really deal with the way we are poisoning the planet anyway,
so why the great campaign?

is it just a good feeling to feel like a maverick? when we zig you zag?

[Ben D]

why do you care so much Ben, fuck all is being done to really deal with the way we are poisoning the planet anyway,
so why the great campaign?

is it just a good feeling to feel like a maverick? when we zig you zag?

Thing is smiths, I truly think that AGW is a scientific fraud...not the GW part....but the blaming of climate change on humans. That the world has gone nuts and a crisis is near is something I'm in agreement with...but the plan to blame it on human CO2 emissions is not something I can see real scientific evidence of...yet.

That you don't see a problem with the AGW rhetoric is something I am ok with, post all the AGW stuff you want...but at the same time I would hope that you allow RI members who do see a problem, to challenge.....that way we all learn through looking deeper into the science. Take a look over the list of things that cause AGW...why do you think all those scientists of many different disciplines are producing endless studies that bring to attention some ecological phenomenon/problem that may be caused by AGW? Follow the money....scientific study grants rarely go to skeptical scientists...the UN IPCC - and adhering national governments of the world see to that...and so we see so many of these ridiculous studies that earn Phds, peer reviewed scientific publication, high powered positions, roof over the head, etc., for the sycophants of AGW.

Now I totally agree with you on the poisoning of the planet (with the exception that I don't see CO2 as a poison at the levels being talked about), but you know what I think is the real problem...the totally corrupt, foul, and greedy elite who run the show...and that includes the UN structure. There is nothing the masses of the world can do to correct the character of these foul creatures...without such correction the world is going to face a crisis like never before....and probably soon. To jump up and down about the poisoning of the planet and alerting the masses will not change planetary rulers...they will only do superficial things to appease the most vocal...the environmentalists/conservationists.....but the real problem is the evil rulers themselves.

Any ideas on how to make them good planetary citizens who love nature and their fellow billions of mankind like themselves?

[BOOGIE66]

Climategate has been debunked

Yeah...and stalks deliver babies...

Now Boogie....with due respect to your general humanity, your statement above means you do not meet my prerequisite requirements of the state of climate science understanding to engage in a meaningful discussion on the state of climate science.

However, in case you are interested in actual reality, since you evidently have not read the relevant emails I will leave you with the background story so as to further your understanding....herein are listed the major players in all their disgusting fraudulent anti-scientific worst.... The Climategate Emails

Cheers...

You assume to much. But im sure the passive aggressive insults and general condescending attitude is the best way to get me to consider anything you say. Oh my bad you put a smiley face at the end of it so its cool. Try to not assume so much.

[Ben D]

Ok fine Boogie66...but this works both ways.