Report: All Major Oil Companies Knew of Climate Change by 1970s

2ANONYMOUS · Dec 26, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
6.6 hours of that, every day, in oil..

It's pretty amazing people still exist who believe that can't affect the planet..

Truth is we are destroying our selfs at a record speed and there will come a point where Earth will not be able to repair her self , all because of money and greed ,,
Ask your self who killed the Electric car big oil companies and there political allies

Padawanbater2 · Dec 26, 2015

2ANONYMOUS said:
Truth is we are destroying our selfs at a record speed and there will come a point where Earth will not be able to repair her self , all because of money and greed ,,
Ask your self who killed the Electric car big oil companies and there political allies

I think Earth will be here millions of years after we're gone. I'm not so much worried about the Earth as I am for the life relying on its systems for survival - humanity being one of them

2ANONYMOUS · Dec 26, 2015

Who knows what the future brings from Nuclear war killing everything to a asteroid impact killng us all ,, but what we need to address, is are we that barbaric to be blind , or ateast try to make a change for the better..
We can all stop arguing about whether the climate is changing. Evidence is overwhelming, from shrinking glaciers to melting polar ice caps and seas rising at twice the rate of the pre-industrial era. Animals are changing migration and mating patterns; in the North, 125 lakes disappeared; river ice is melting sooner in spring. This year is expected to be the hottest, stormiest and driest on record. The big remaining question is how much of the trend is natural (scientists admitted they know little about the Sun's role!) and how much is exacerbated by greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, a host of studies made dire predictions about the inevitability of rising temperatures and swamped coastlines over the next century. Nasty side effects were predicted: more intense rainstorms; worse droughts;stronger hurricanes; increased allergies; ice-free arctic summers; and economic costs. A couple novel solutions were proposed: altering airline flights and lofting a ring of miniature satellites to shade the equator. Tempers rose in 2005, too, with the year closing on a low note from the perspective of more than 150 nations who pledged to do something about the problem, without the support of the United States or China.

Truth is how much more do we need to say ok lets least try to do something

Padawanbater2 · Dec 26, 2015

2ANONYMOUS said:
Who knows what the future brings from Nuclear war killing everything to a asteroid impact killng us all ,, but what we need to address, is are we that barbaric to be blind , or ateast try to make a change for the better..
We can all stop arguing about whether the climate is changing. Evidence is overwhelming, from shrinking glaciers to melting polar ice caps and seas rising at twice the rate of the pre-industrial era. Animals are changing migration and mating patterns; in the North, 125 lakes disappeared; river ice is melting sooner in spring. This year is expected to be the hottest, stormiest and driest on record. The big remaining question is how much of the trend is natural (scientists admitted they know little about the Sun's role!) and how much is exacerbated by greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, a host of studies made dire predictions about the inevitability of rising temperatures and swamped coastlines over the next century. Nasty side effects were predicted: more intense rainstorms; worse droughts;stronger hurricanes; increased allergies; ice-free arctic summers; and economic costs. A couple novel solutions were proposed: altering airline flights and lofting a ring of miniature satellites to shade the equator. Tempers rose in 2005, too, with the year closing on a low note from the perspective of more than 150 nations who pledged to do something about the problem, without the support of the United States or China.

Truth is how much more do we need to say ok lets least try to do something

Give it 10-15 years before the vast majority of the deniers die off - that's when actual progress will be made. Fortunately, it'll still be within the window of opportunity

heckler73 · Dec 27, 2015

There is no such thing as global average temperature.

OddBall1st · Dec 27, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Reread what you wrote and ask yourself if this is the best, most concise way to express your opinion

I'm positive I'm not the only one with this opinion, I'm not interested in reading jumbled incoherent ramblings that resemble Navajo dialogue. I've skipped your posts for the past couple months because of this.

Again, just my opinion, but you really need to work on this.

You still mad about Noah`s Ark ?

I communicate just fine for what I want to say, problems you have, are yours. It`s not my fault you need simple.

So yes, calling this study a day late and two dollars short for implying the world is dumb and they save face is correct ,....Please understand at least I don`t care what you think. After all, the Ark was brain fry for you and you`re still in the cave with buck.

It`s no fun reading teacher cut-n paste,...

Harrekin · Dec 27, 2015

2ANONYMOUS said:
Truth is we are destroying our selfs at a record speed and there will come a point where Earth will not be able to repair her self , all because of money and greed ,,
Ask your self who killed the Electric car big oil companies and there political allies

You STILL haven't answered, is your house off the grid and do you drive an automobile?

Harrekin · Dec 27, 2015

2ANONYMOUS said:
Who knows what the future brings from Nuclear war killing everything to a asteroid impact killng us all ,, but what we need to address, is are we that barbaric to be blind , or ateast try to make a change for the better..
We can all stop arguing about whether the climate is changing. Evidence is overwhelming, from shrinking glaciers to melting polar ice caps and seas rising at twice the rate of the pre-industrial era. Animals are changing migration and mating patterns; in the North, 125 lakes disappeared; river ice is melting sooner in spring. This year is expected to be the hottest, stormiest and driest on record. The big remaining question is how much of the trend is natural (scientists admitted they know little about the Sun's role!) and how much is exacerbated by greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, a host of studies made dire predictions about the inevitability of rising temperatures and swamped coastlines over the next century. Nasty side effects were predicted: more intense rainstorms; worse droughts;stronger hurricanes; increased allergies; ice-free arctic summers; and economic costs. A couple novel solutions were proposed: altering airline flights and lofting a ring of miniature satellites to shade the equator. Tempers rose in 2005, too, with the year closing on a low note from the perspective of more than 150 nations who pledged to do something about the problem, without the support of the United States or China.

Truth is how much more do we need to say ok lets least try to do something

So will you finally answer?

Is your house connected to the electrical grid and do you drive an automobile?

OddBall1st · Dec 27, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Reread what you wrote and ask yourself if this is the best, most concise way to express your opinion

I'm positive I'm not the only one with this opinion, I'm not interested in reading jumbled incoherent ramblings that resemble Navajo dialogue. I've skipped your posts for the past couple months because of this.

Again, just my opinion, but you really need to work on this.

What happened to the reply to this I did earlier ???

It started with,..

....Are you still mad about Noah`s Ark ?

Then I said something about you being to simple and me not catching it.

So then when I said it`s no fun reading Mrs. teacher cut-n-paste, you lost it and killed the reply ??

I don`t expect you to leave the cave soon or at all.

OddBall1st · Dec 27, 2015

heckler73 said:
There is no such thing as global average temperature.

Are you suggesting the Hemispheres are streaked ? We could have a skid mark average instead.

heckler73 · Dec 27, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
You're mistaken

No...it is you who made the mistake.

This chart shows how the NCDC have tinkered with the values of just TWO data points since May of 2008, for the points of Jan 1915 and Jan 2000.
Isn't it odd that there would be this widening spread, and suddenly, sometime in late-June/early-July, they squeeze it back to a slightly less obvious distortion of the data.
What's the net result?

Wow... what magic... All of a sudden there is a roughly 0.2 degree change from the 1930s to the present.
Isn't that amazing? Fabricated trends from already fabricated trends.

But surely that isn't perverting the message, is it? (Yes, the following relations are to scale. It has been that bad.)

UncleBuck · Dec 27, 2015

heckler73 said:
There is no such thing as global average temperature.

i hear that if you spam it three times in three threads, you're still a nutty denier.

OddBall1st · Dec 28, 2015

heckler73 said:
There is no such thing as global average temperature.

Are you suggesting the Hemispheres are streaked and we can have skid mark averages ? It makes more sense.

OddBall1st · Dec 28, 2015

Like this, and who knows, maybe it`ll develop an eye like the other guy out there .....

OddBall1st · Dec 28, 2015

Maybe I`ll learn to use these machines one day.......

ttystikk · Dec 28, 2015

2ANONYMOUS said:
Well i look at some indicators for one when oil started getting pumped out of the ground the increase in volcanic eruptions , Earthquakes there is no doubt According to the EM-DAT, the total natural disasters reported each year has been steadily increasing in recent decades, from 78 in 1970 to 348 in 2004. what could be causing this ??? sure we can say well its natural, and we also can say well with the amount of sinkholes , mud slides do to man destruction lumber business major cause of mud slides has anyone ever wondered what a full grown spruce tree drinks in one year as in volume of water ???? now remove 1000's of trees from a area ???
Where does the underground water go now ???
When pumping oil out of the ground what fills up them empty porous rocks when all oil is taken ??
Now i have drilled injection wells, Fracking , etc pumping everything from steam to chemical to get what ever oil is remaining but this also creates pollution, as in H2S contaminting water and so on
to give you a idea cause many people tend to forget the mass in oil pumped out on a daily basis or even what the world uses in one day .. here we use three billion, five hundred and seventy million gallons of oil (3,570,000,000). DAILY and that is 3.billion 570 million barrels

Niagara falls has a flow rate of 150,000 U.S. gallons per second.

3,570,000,000 of oil / 150,000 gallons per second = 23,800 seconds of flow equivalent.

In other words, if by some horrific means you were able to replace the flow over niagara falls with nothing but oil for 6.6 hours a day, that’s how much oil the 6 billion inhabitants of the earth burn every single day of every year
puts a new meaning to everything i mean you think

Scientists know exactly why the number of recorded volcanoes and earthquakes rose over the last century; it's because we got better at finding them and recording them when they happened in remote locations! No mystery there. AT ALL.

ttystikk · Dec 28, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
I think Earth will be here millions of years after we're gone. I'm not so much worried about the Earth as I am for the life relying on its systems for survival - humanity being one of them

George Carlin; 'the earth will rid herself of her infestation of us humans, like shaking off a bad case of fleas!'

ttystikk · Dec 28, 2015

heckler73 said:
There is no such thing as global average temperature.

That is a completely silly statement. It certainly exists, as difficult as it may be for our science to determine and track.

heckler73 · Dec 29, 2015

ttystikk said:
That is a completely silly statement. It certainly exists, as difficult as it may be for our science to determine and track.

Read the paper (the one I uploaded with highlights). If you want to discuss the thermodynamic argument, I'll be glad to participate for the purposes of elucidation. I found the argument rather interesting, and I honestly have not thought of it in that sense, because I considered the Earth as a singular system which could be broken down into microcanonical ensembles (constant E,V,N). That is not the case, at all. The Earth is neither closed, nor insulated. Really, I don't think it is even possible to properly apply a Canonical (constant T and N) or Grand-Canonical (const. T and μ) ensemble to this question.

Why?
Let's start with the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other
(Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, p.102)

It is this condition which allows for a "thermometer" to be used as a metric reference. What is equilibrium for global temperature? Is it the temperature of the Sun? Perhaps the temperature of the moon? Is it the temperature of space? Perhaps it's Buck's methane effusions? If one wants "average" temperatures then it is requisite to throw some wide error bars in there which negates the point of "average global temperature" for the purposes of proving warming or cooling, since the errors would be ORDER(S) OF MAGNITUDE greater than the anomalies presented (e.g. 0.2 +/- 2.0 K). I believe this is one critique I've heard used by others in the past (like Lindzen), although, they never explained it in this sense.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The statistics have overrun the physics. This is why 4 different "averages" (NCDC, HADCrut, RSS, UAH) can disagree, because they do not have a common physical basis for their averaging operators, or algorithms. At the end of the day, one can go ahead and "torture the data to make it confess" as Ronald Coase would've put it, but that still leaves a void in the SCIENCE to explain its reasoning.

From the perspective of Thermodynamics, that link appears to be wholly non-existent.
Nevertheless, if you know better, please feel free to correct me at your leisure.

UncleBuck · Dec 29, 2015

heckler73 said:
Read the paper (the one I uploaded with highlights). If you want to discuss the thermodynamic argument, I'll be glad to participate for the purposes of elucidation. I found the argument rather interesting, and I honestly have not thought of it in that sense, because I considered the Earth as a singular system which could be broken down into microcanonical ensembles (constant E,V,N). That is not the case, at all. The Earth is neither closed, nor insulated. Really, I don't think it is even possible to properly apply a Canonical (constant T and N) or Grand-Canonical (const. T and μ) ensemble to this question.

Why?
Let's start with the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other
(Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, p.102)

It is this condition which allows for a "thermometer" to be used as a metric reference. What is equilibrium for global temperature? Is it the temperature of the Sun? Perhaps the temperature of the moon? Is it the temperature of space? Perhaps it's Buck's methane effusions? If one wants "average" temperatures then it is requisite to throw some wide error bars in there which negates the point of "average global temperature" for the purposes of proving warming or cooling, since the errors would be ORDER(S) OF MAGNITUDE greater than the anomalies presented (e.g. 0.2 +/- 2.0 K). I believe this is one critique I've heard used by others in the past (like Lindzen), although, they never explained it in this sense.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The statistics have overrun the physics. This is why 4 different "averages" (NCDC, HADCrut, RSS, UAH) can disagree, because they do not have a common physical basis for their averaging operators, or algorithms. At the end of the day, one can go ahead and "torture the data to make it confess" as Ronald Coase would've put it, but that still leaves a void in the SCIENCE to explain its reasoning.

From the perspective of Thermodynamics, that link appears to be wholly non-existent.
Nevertheless, if you know better, please feel free to correct me at your leisure.

so, which denier did you plagiarize this nonsense from?

ttystikk · Dec 29, 2015

heckler73 said:
Read the paper (the one I uploaded with highlights). If you want to discuss the thermodynamic argument, I'll be glad to participate for the purposes of elucidation. I found the argument rather interesting, and I honestly have not thought of it in that sense, because I considered the Earth as a singular system which could be broken down into microcanonical ensembles (constant E,V,N). That is not the case, at all. The Earth is neither closed, nor insulated. Really, I don't think it is even possible to properly apply a Canonical (constant T and N) or Grand-Canonical (const. T and μ) ensemble to this question.

Why?
Let's start with the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other
(Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics, p.102)

It is this condition which allows for a "thermometer" to be used as a metric reference. What is equilibrium for global temperature? Is it the temperature of the Sun? Perhaps the temperature of the moon? Is it the temperature of space? Perhaps it's Buck's methane effusions? If one wants "average" temperatures then it is requisite to throw some wide error bars in there which negates the point of "average global temperature" for the purposes of proving warming or cooling, since the errors would be ORDER(S) OF MAGNITUDE greater than the anomalies presented (e.g. 0.2 +/- 2.0 K). I believe this is one critique I've heard used by others in the past (like Lindzen), although, they never explained it in this sense.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The statistics have overrun the physics. This is why 4 different "averages" (NCDC, HADCrut, RSS, UAH) can disagree, because they do not have a common physical basis for their averaging operators, or algorithms. At the end of the day, one can go ahead and "torture the data to make it confess" as Ronald Coase would've put it, but that still leaves a void in the SCIENCE to explain its reasoning.

From the perspective of Thermodynamics, that link appears to be wholly non-existent.
Nevertheless, if you know better, please feel free to correct me at your leisure.

You add up your data points and divide by the number of them = average.

It really does not have to be so complicated, and in fact overcomplicating the discussion is a great way to hide the truth.

Harrekin · Dec 30, 2015

ttystikk said:
You add up your data points and divide by the number of them = average.

It really does not have to be so complicated, and in fact overcomplicating the discussion is a great way to hide the truth.

That's a very basic mean and suffers all sorts of anomalies when ignored for a long time.

Floating point errors get compounded, etc.

hellmutt bones · Dec 30, 2015

The man keeps fuqing us and what do we do???

Harrekin · Dec 30, 2015

hellmutt bones said:
The man keeps fuqing us and what do we do???

Your name sounds awfully like a reference to the SS...

ttystikk · Dec 30, 2015

hellmutt bones said:
The man keeps fuqing us and what do we do???

I'm am activist on many levels. I recommend that all my fellow Americans do the same!

2ANONYMOUS · Dec 30, 2015

ttystikk said:
I'm am activist on many levels. I recommend that all my fellow Americans do the same!

I'm a hacktivist at many levels ?? not a site or forum i can not get into

there always a back Door

with the right tools ..

spandy · Dec 30, 2015

hellmutt bones said:
The man keeps fuqing us and what do we do???

Become the man.

Report: All Major Oil Companies Knew of Climate Change by 1970s

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads