Mr. Miyagi Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I doubt that very much, given both the complexity of the science and the propensity of human beings towards irrational behaviour. Surely AGW has got to be just about the most questioned scientific theory under the sun? <cough>wattsupwiththat</cough> <cough>telegraph</cough> etc. A global warming scientist who shows it's not happening or not caused by humans would be rich beyond his or her wildest dreams, courtesy of Exxon, and would no longer need a job. Shell campaigned for a price floor on carbon trading within the E.U. Oil companies are among the largest investors in current renewable energy. Your implication that big oil is in someway behind 'climate skepticism' is quite frankly nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Shell campaigned for a price floor on carbon trading within the E.U. Oil companies are among the largest investors in current renewable energy. Your implication that big oil is in someway behind 'climate skepticism' is quite frankly nonsense. I would say that is a non sequitur. Oil compaies are in the energy business. Oil will not last or be cheap for ever, they want their companies to last forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I would say that is a non sequitur. Oil compaies are in the energy business. Oil will not last or be cheap for ever, they want their companies to last forever. They have a vested interest in AGW and current policies to reduce the implied threat, it makes perfect sense to support the current 'consensus', it make no sense to actively fund scientists to derail the apparent consensus on AGW. They (the big oil companies) can't lose either way. Snowflux's constant implication that big oil somehow funds AGW skepticism is therefore a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 ....Snowflux's constant implication that big oil somehow funds AGW skepticism is therefore a nonsense. If we don't want to buy their oil then don't worry, the Chinese and Americans will happily take every drop and more. It makes no difference to Exxon if we choose to believe in AGW or not. But without AGW the whole green energy industry collapses together with a lot of the environmental movement and all of the well paid jobs that goes with it. So who really has the incentive to corrupt the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 If we don't want to buy their oil then don't worry, the Chinese and Americans will happily take every drop and more. It makes no difference to Exxon if we choose to believe in AGW or not. But without AGW the whole green energy industry collapses together with a lot of the environmental movement and all of the well paid jobs that goes with it. So who really has the incentive to corrupt the debate? Are you really saying that no one in the world will behave in an environmentally friendly manner if AGW is not true? What, we'll all pollute like there's no tomorrow, belching out smoke and noxious fumes, polluting rivers and seas with chemicals even more than now, all because AGW doesn't exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Miyagi Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 If we don't want to buy their oil then don't worry, the Chinese and Americans will happily take every drop and more. It makes no difference to Exxon if we choose to believe in AGW or not. But without AGW the whole green energy industry collapses together with a lot of the environmental movement and all of the well paid jobs that goes with it. So who really has the incentive to corrupt the debate? That the point though, energy is energy and big oil companies know that they can't keep sucking a finite resource out of the Earth forever. They need to invest in alternative energies as not to do so would be incredibly short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Are you really saying that no one in the world will behave in an environmentally friendly manner if AGW is not true? What, we'll all pollute like there's no tomorrow, belching out smoke and noxious fumes, polluting rivers and seas with chemicals even more than now, all because AGW doesn't exist? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 They have a vested interest in AGW and current policies to reduce the implied threat, it makes perfect sense to support the current 'consensus', it make no sense to actively fund scientists to derail the apparent consensus on AGW. They (the big oil companies) can't lose either way. Snowflux's constant implication that big oil somehow funds AGW skepticism is therefore a nonsense. Hence it is not contradictory to want to encourage the continued burning of oil today while investing heavily into renewables for tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 That's just wrong. You need to actually learn something about the field before telling people what they are doing in it. And if you want to claim that people are making up results for money then you may want to offer some evidence for it. Instead of smears and innuendo. There's a relevant link for you to ignore here And they were so wright in the past http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/scientists-considered-pouring-soot-over-the-arctic-in-the-1970s-to-help-melt-the-ice-in-order-to-prevent-another-ice-age.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 If we don't want to buy their oil then don't worry, the Chinese and Americans will happily take every drop and more. It makes no difference to Exxon if we choose to believe in AGW or not. But without AGW the whole green energy industry collapses together with a lot of the environmental movement and all of the well paid jobs that goes with it. So who really has the incentive to corrupt the debate? Exxon putting money into global warming denial is a matter of record. Coal companies have even more incentive. As far as looking to the future goes.. very few companies are looking 10 years into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migrant Mother Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Quick reply... Anyone noticed James Lovelock said 'Global warming? What global warming?' says High Priest of Gaia Religion last year Also did anyone else note two young (aged 49 and 35) British global warming scientist's who were close colleagues, Seymour Laxon and Katharine Giles BOTH died in separate accidents since Christmas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Also did anyone else note two young (aged 49 and 35) British global warming scientist's who were close colleagues, Seymour Laxon and Katharine Giles BOTH died in separate accidents since Christmas Maybe they were about to switch to the other side or worse reveal insider info that would further discredit the 'global warming' campaign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 But without AGW the whole green energy industry collapses together with a lot of the environmental movement and all of the well paid jobs that goes with it. Don't be stupid. Without Peak Oil the whole industry collapses, Climate Change is simply tied into that. A lot of mitigation and adaptation efforts are not simply focused on dealing with environmental change but also moving to a low energy environment. I don't understand why anyone bothers arguing with the deniers - they have lost the argument. Climate change and peak oil are acknowledged worldwide and extensive efforts are going into adaptation and mitigation. Clearly some bored IT guys manage to work out things which are eluding the finest minds China, India, Japan, Germany, UK, US and so on have to offer. If only the world was run by bored IT people. Back in the real world, there is a realisation in developing countries (80% of the world's population) that they will not be able to develop in the same manner as the current developed countries and are looking for low energy solutions (although with mixed success). There is a ton of money to be made exporting low energy solutions to Asia and the Koreans and Japanese (amongst several) are actively attempting to do so. The Germans as well are very much present and many multinationals are currently trying to find ways of marketing clean, low cost solutions to Asian environmental problems (again with mixed success as their usual distribution channels are not always effective). If the UK wants to stand on the sidelines as usual whilst others take up the opportunities that green technology provides then so be it. The world is moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Climate change and peak oil are acknowledged worldwide These are two completely seperate issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 These are two completely seperate issues. Indeed. There is more doubt and uncertainty around peak oil, if only because you have to first get people to agree on what counts as oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Quick reply... Anyone noticed James Lovelock said 'Global warming? What global warming?' says High Priest of Gaia Religion last year Also did anyone else note two young (aged 49 and 35) British global warming scientist's who were close colleagues, Seymour Laxon and Katharine Giles BOTH died in separate accidents since Christmas Aye... my conspiracy antennae did twitch rather at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 No. And what if AGW is found to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Indeed. There is more doubt and uncertainty around peak oil, if only because you have to first get people to agree on what counts as oil. You see its statements like the above that just add to peoples cynicism. In your opinion there is more doubt and uncertainty about one than the other. That's an opinion - yet you state it as a fact. Do you not understand how this just makes people doubt things more and more. And what is with the constant use of the word 'deniar' ? It makes everything sound very religious. What is a deniar ? All the people on this and all the other threads on this subject described as such - just seem to not be convinced yet one way or the other. What exactly is it they are 'denying' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 And what if AGW is found to be true? The world will get warmer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 You see its statements like the above that just add to peoples cynicism. Kurt Barlow is the best of this unholy triumvirate. Back when he was the vampire he was an interesting poster who was, apparently, some kind of legalist for a pubco with a sideline in environmental health issues and Heath Robinson style home power generation. Next thing he's digging for oil in the Persian Gulf. Then he's doing God knows what in Australia. Now he only comes on here to sneer at people who disagree with his World view. I'll say this for him though. For somebody so concerned about the future of the planet he sure does love aeroplane travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 These are two completely seperate issues. No, not really. Lets imagine that climate change is shown to be fake and Delingpole is crowing on top of his 4WD as he races round London. What does this change if peak oil is still a fact? Not much. The solution to both, to a large extent, is renewables. You can huff and puff all you like about climate change, but unless you have a solution for peak oil the outcome is still the same - a big push towards renewables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Kurt Barlow is the best of this unholy triumvirate. Back when he was the vampire he was an interesting poster who was, apparently, some kind of legalist for a pubco with a sideline in environmental health issues and Heath Robinson style home power generation. Next thing he's digging for oil in the Persian Gulf. Then he's doing God knows what in Australia. Now he only comes on here to sneer at people who disagree with his World view. I'll say this for him though. For somebody so concerned about the future of the planet he sure does love aeroplane travel. My tenant (You can add BTL to the list of my crimes ) is well impressed with the solar water heating and wood burning stove Meanwhile China is now responsible for 24% of the worlds investment in renewable energy. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/17/news/economy/china-green-energy/index.html?iid=Lead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 You see its statements like the above that just add to peoples cynicism. In your opinion there is more doubt and uncertainty about one than the other. That's an opinion - yet you state it as a fact. Estimates of climate sensitivity cluster strongly around 2.7K, from a variety of sources. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. In order to claim otherwise you have to basically abandon a huge amount of scientific research, and claim that hundreds if not thousands of scientists are faking things. On the other hand, estimates of peak oil range from perhaps 2005 for a narrow definition of Conventional oil to as far out as 2030 if you include absolutely every extractable liquid, with ultimates ranging from 1800 to 3500 billion barrels. This too is a matter of fact, or more like 'lack of fact'. So no, it's not just some opinion. Do you not understand how this just makes people doubt things more and more. That's strange logic. 'I cannot challenge this person's arguments on factual grounds, therefore I must doubt them more'. Which is the logic of the madhouse, where experts are automatically wrong by virtue of being experts. What is a deniar ? All the people on this and all the other threads on this subject described as such - just seem to not be convinced yet one way or the other. What exactly is it they are 'denying' ? A denier is a person who denies a large body of scientific evidence - evidence that they are usually not particularly familiar with - for reasons that are essentially political. There's even a wikipedia entry I don't see you as a denialist, you merely use the false-balance fallacy a lot. As in 'Some people claim triangles have 4 sides and get very upset with the '3-siders'. Some claim 3 sides and get very upset with the '4-siders'. Therefore the only sensible position is that triangles have 3 and a half sides and we should leave it at that'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 My tenant (You can add BTL to the list of my crimes ) Noted I might soon be in the same boat through no fault of my own, so I'll go easy on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 No, not really. The solution to both, to a large extent, is renewables. You can huff and puff all you like about climate change, but unless you have a solution for peak oil the outcome is still the same With you till that point.... whereas I conclude 'More expensive oil' to be the main thing... with a drive for better efficiency following on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.