This blog uses the best up-to-date peer-reviewed climate science, quality sources, logic and critical thinking to explain man-made climate change and to debunk fake news, propaganda, myths and conspiracy theories.
Bloggen bruker den beste oppdaterte fagfellevurderte klimavitenskapen, kildekritikk og kritisk tenking til å forklare de menneskeskapte klimaendringene og til å svare på falske nyheter, propaganda, myter, konspirasjonsteorier og alternative virkelighetsoppfatninger om klima.
The claim that Leonardo and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger).This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself
And isnt it convenient?
If DeCaprio doesn’t invest in green energy companies, you call him a hypocrite who isn’t willing to put his money were his mouth is. If he does, you accuse him of having a conflict of interest. Either way, you get to avoid actually considering what he’s saying.
He could live in a mud hut and walk everywhere and they'd call him a hypocrite because the aglets on his shoelaces were made of plastic, a petroleum product.
And behold:
The Michael Jordan Fallacy
This one can be used to impugn the motives of anyone in the world, in an effort to prove they are driven by greed and don't care about anyone else's problems:
"Just think if Michael Jordan had used all his talents and wealth to feed third world children, rather than to play a sport."
Of course, you can say this about anyone, famous or not:
"If your doctor really cared about people's health, he'd sell everything he owned and become a charitable frontier doctor in Africa."
Remarkably, CO2's role in global warming has been on the oil industry's radar since the 1950's:
"In 1954, the geochemist Harrison Brown and his colleagues at the California Institute of Technology submitted a research proposal to the API entitled “The determination of the variations and causes of variations of the isotopic composition of carbon in nature.” The scientists proposed the use of new mass spectrometers to investigate the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in terrestrial, marine and mineral systems to understand geological and biological carbon cycling.
The team had already carried out preliminary work, including on tree rings of various ages. “Perhaps the most interesting effect concerning carbon in trees which we have thus far observed,” the researchers reported to the API, “is a marked and fairly steady increase in the 12C/13C ratio with time.” The results indicated that fossil fuels had caused atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise by about 5% over the past century. Brown’s estimate was quite accurate: from 1854 to 1954, global CO2 concentrations had risen by 10% (from around 285 to 313 ppm), with about 4% of that from fossil fuels and the remainder from deforestation and other land-use changes.
A few years later, in 1959, petroleum industry leaders were notified of the danger of CO2 accumulation by the physicist Edward Teller, who warned them of global temperature and sea-level rise by the end of the century. Thus, even before early portions of the Keeling curve were published in 1960, leaders of the API and other segments of the oil industry were informed that fossil fuel products were causing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise, and that such a rise was potentially dangerous."
On its 100th birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. First of all, these energy resources will run short as we use more and more of the fossil fuels. [....] But I would [...] like to mention another reason why we probably have to look for additional fuel supplies. And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [....] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [....] The carbon dioxide is invisible, it is transparent, you can’t smell it, it is not dangerous to health, so why should one worry about it?
Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.
At present the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent [about 360 parts per million, by Teller’s accounting], if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5.
But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees over the whole globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise. Well, I don’t know whether they will cover the Empire State Building or not, but anyone can calculate it by looking at the map and noting that the icecaps over Greenland and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick."
Time is Running Out,' American Petroleum Institute Chief Said in 1965 Speech on Climate Change:
“This report unquestionably will fan emotions, raise fears, and bring demand for action,” the president of the American Petroleum Institute (API) told an oil industry conference, as he described research into climate change caused by fossil fuels.
“The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world's peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out.”"
The oil industry's leading pollution-control consultants advised the American Petroleum Institute in 1968 that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels deserved as much concern as the smog and soot that had commanded attention for decades.
Carbon dioxide was "the only air pollutant which has been proven to be of global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation," two scientists from the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) told the API.
This paper, along with scores of other publications, shows that the risks of climate change were being discussed in the inner circles of the oil industry earlier than previously documented. The records, unearthed from archives by a Washington, D.C. environmental law organization, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), reveal that the carbon dioxide question—an obscure corner of research for much of the 20th century—had been closely studied since the 1950s by some oil company researchers."
'Sources, abundance, and fate of atmospheric pollutants'
"In 1968, Stanford Reseach Institute (SRI) scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins produced a Final Report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) on SRI’s research in the sources, abundance, and fate of gaseous pollutants in the atmosphere. They reserved their starkest warnings to industry leaders for carbon dioxide. Robinson observed that, among the pollutants reviewed, carbon dioxide "is the only air pollutant which has been proven to be global importance to man's environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation."
Summarizing the findings of the President’s Science Advisory Council, Robinson noted that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were outstripping the natural CO2 removal processes that keep the atmosphere in equilibrium. He noted that the speed of CO2 accumulation would depend on fossil fuel consumption and projected that, on then-present trends, atmospheric CO2 could reach 400ppm by 2000, and that exploiting all then-recoverable fossil fuel would lead to concentrations of 830ppm.
The report warned that rising CO2 would result in increases in temperature at the earth's surface, and that significant temperature increase could lead to melting ice caps, rising seas, and potentially serious environmental damage worldwide. It noted that, even if Antarctic ice caps took 1000 years to melt, this would mean sea level rises of four feet per ten years—"100 times greater than observed changes."
Importantly, SRI acknowledged that of the various sources proposed for rising atmospheric CO2, "none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory."
Noting uncertainties about whether particulate pollution would offset some of this warming, SRI warned "…there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe…" The industry's own consulting scientists then confirmed that the most urgent research need was into technologies that could bring CO2 emissions under control." https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16 Exxon's own research confirmed fossil fuels' role in global warming, decades ago:
"a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles"
And
"Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed"
To sum, Exxon, circa 1980:
1) Accepted the CO2 effect.
2) Accepted ECS near +3 C.
3) Accepted that a consensus on AGW had emerged.
4) Accepted that prior to 2030 there would be hazardous impacts, with the possibility of catastrophic impacts beyond that.
"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."
Exxon's Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too
"Members of an American Petroleum Institute task force on CO2 included scientists from nearly every major oil company, including Exxon, Texaco and Shell"
And"Laurmann estimated that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would double in 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures with "major economic consequences." He then told the task force that models showed a 5 degrees Celsius rise by 2067, with "globally catastrophic effects.""
The industry then sowed doubt for decades about climate science, spending $2.9 billion on advocacy advertising alone in a 10-year period ending in 2015.
"ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial."
And
"the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line"
Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications. Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public."
Shell Oil's documentary from 1991, explaining global warming and sea level rise, how it will happen, and what to do about it.
Newly found documents from the 1980s show that fossil fuel companies privately predicted the global damage that would be caused by their products.
In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels).
Later that decade, in 1988, an internal report by Shell projected similar effects but also found that CO2 could double even earlier, by 2030. Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections.
Shell’s assessment foresaw a one-meter sea-level rise, and noted that warming could also fuel disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, resulting in a worldwide rise in sea level of “five to six meters.” That would be enough to inundate entire low-lying countries.
Shell’s analysts also warned of the “disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction,” predicted an increase in “runoff, destructive floods, and inundation of low-lying farmland,” and said that “new sources of freshwater would be required” to compensate for changes in precipitation. Global changes in air temperature would also “drastically change the way people live and work.” All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”
For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.” Like Shell’s experts, Exxon’s scientists predicted devastating sea-level rise, and warned that the American Midwest and other parts of the world could become desert-like.
https://skepticalscience.com/shell-exxon-secret-1980s-climate-warnings.html
Exxon predicted in 1982 exactly how high global carbon emissions would be today, predicting that a continued usage of fossil fuels would see atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reach today's levels by 2020. According to an internal 1982 document from Exxon Research and Engineering Company — obtained by InsideClimate News as part of its 2015 investigation into what Exxon knew about the impact of fossil fuels on climate change — the company was modeling out the concentration of carbon emissions several years into the future.
According to a graph displaying the “growth of atmospheric CO2 and average global temperature increase” over time, the company expected that, by 2020, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would reach roughly 400 to 420 ppm. This month’s measurement of 415 ppm is right within the expected curve Exxon projected under its “21st Century Study-High Growth scenario.”
Not only did Exxon predict the rise in emissions, it also understood how severe the consequences would be:
“Considerable uncertainty also surrounds the possible impact on society of such a warming trend, should it occur,” the internal document stated. “At the low end of the predicted temperature range there could be some impact on agricultural growth and rainfall patterns which could be beneficial in some regions and detrimental in others.” “At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact including the flooding of some coastal land masses as a result of a rise in sea level due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet,” it continued, stating this would only take place centuries after temperatures warmed by 3 degrees Celsius.
"About $2.08 billion (in 2016 dollars) was spent on climate lobbying between 2000 and 2016. This is about 3.9 percent of total lobbying dollars spent of $53.5 billion. The electrical sector spent 26 percent of the total. The fossil fuel sector spent 17.7 percent, and the transportation sector 12.1 percent." By contrast:
"Lobbying expenditures from 2000 to 2016 for environmental and renewable energy groups amounted to only five to seven percent of the total, or less than $145 million."
And "lobbying for and against climate legislation in this period was about evenly split, indicating that anti-climate change players were once again playing both sides of the discussion in an attempt to promote a false, or at least an unseeming support of climate legislation"
And "This analysis also illustrates the limitations of science advocacy efforts. Climate lobbying expenditures by environmental organizations constitute only 3% of total lobbying expenditures… There is no open debate or refutation of viewpoints offered by professional lobbyists meeting in private with government officials. Hence, control over the nature and flow of information to government decision-makers can be significantly altered by the lobbying process, and creates a situation of systematically distorted communication."
For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.
"In 2017, the world subsidized fossil fuels by $5.2 trillion, equal to roughly 6.5 percent of global GDP. That’s up half a trillion dollars from 2015, when global subsidies stood at $4.7 trillion, according to the IMF."
Wave of climate lawsuits threatens the future of Big Oil https://apps.publicintegrity.org/.../venue-of-last-resort/ The petroleum extraction companies researched the subject themselves and affirm the unassailable facts, physics and evidence of AGW.Per the oil companies, which admitted it in court, under oath:
"The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. "The People of the State of California vs BP PLC et al (page 6, line 6).
"Climategate" var en konstruert "kontrovers" skapt av fossilt brensel- interesser og fornekterbevegelsen- timet spesielt for å forstyrre klimaforhandlingene 2009 og 2011 og Cap and Trade-avtalen i USA.
Her er hva som skjedde:
Hackede e-poster tatt ut av sin sammenheng, distribuert fra en russisk server og videre til ekkokammeret av fornekterblogger og tenketanker og høyreorienterte medier som Fox News der alle hadde et forberedt manus?
HALLO??????????
KOM IGJEN!!
Tenk.
Og ikke le nå, men rett før neste globale klimakonferanse, FNs klimakonferanse i Durban, Sør-Afrika 28. november 2011, ble en ny serie på 5000 hackede e-poster lagt ut på en russisk server. Igjen blir e-postene kommunisert via linker i kommentarfeltene i blogger.
Den kanadiske nyliberianske tenketanken, Frontier Center for Public Policy, som angrep forskerne, har nå innrømmet at de tok feil og har bedt Michael E. Mann om unnskyldning.
Hvorfor Michael E.Manns "hockeykølle er kommet for å bli:
Den er akseptert av US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Den er er bekreftet og forbedret av 4 mest omfattende studiene på proxy-data (+ ca 200 andre studier).
Alle data er reprodusert i ettertid og bekreftet av ALL nyere forskning.
"The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data."
The Independent Climate Change Email Review gikk tilbake til primære datakilder og klarte å gjenskape CRUs resultater. Dette betyr at CRU ikke skjulte noe, og at de ikke hadde noe å skjule heller.
Hvorfor skulle noen "hide the decline" i en tid hvor alle tilgjengelige temperaturdata viste raskt oppvarming? Det hadde ikke skjedd noen nedgang i de globale temperaturene.
Studie: NASAs estimat av jordas langsiktige temperaturøkning de siste tiårene er nøyaktig til i løpet av mindre enn en tidel av en grad av Fahrenheit, og gir tillit til at tidligere og fremtidig forskning fanger riktig stigende overflatetemperaturer.
Studien bekrefter også hva forskere har sagt i noen tid nå: at jordas globale temperaturøkning siden 1880 - omtrent 2 grader Fahrenheit, eller litt mer enn 1 grad Celsius - ikke kan forklares med noen usikkerhet eller feil i dataene.
Fremover vil denne vurderingen gi forskere verktøyene til å forklare resultatene med større selvtillit. Nye studier øker tilliten til NASAs måling av jordens temperatur.
Satellittdataene fra UAH, drevet av kjente "skeptikere" John Christy og Roy Spencer, viser den samme trenden som alle de andre dataene. John Christy og Roy Spencer sier nå at planeten virkelig blir oppvarmet, og bekrefter at det hele var en konstruert "kontrovers".
7 minutter inn i videoen bekrefter Christy og Spencer at dataene var korrekte.
Hvilken trend viser UAH dataene til Christy og Spencer nå?
