Big oil propaganda in disguise

[ScottW]

I'm "hoping" that most tech-savvy folks here support the notion that humans are to blame for global warming, as science has decreed, regardless of their political affiliation. If so, please visit http://tinyurl.com/2ddaex and give that book a bad review. It's a one-sided book of lies, half-truths, and oil industry propaganda, written by an oil industry lobbiest (horner).

[jokostel]

were partly to blame...

But a pin-prick in the grand scheme of things.... considering the levels of co2 that are pumped out with natural disasters.

[Atomic Rooster]

I don't think we are to blame for "global warming". It's a natural process that's been going on since the beginning of the Earth that we have added to somewhat. Even the scientists agree that there's nothing we can do to stop it.


Hey Scott,
Did you even read the book, or did you just discard it out of hand because of the author?


.

[RobRich]

I'm "hoping" that most tech-savvy folks here support the notion that humans are to blame for global warming, as science has decreed, regardless of their political affiliation.

Sadly, probably not. Case in point:

Finally, a video to counter 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Accordingly, I feel the need to cite the non-partisan WMO report yet again for those somehow still in disbelief.

Paris, 2 February 2007 – The first major global assessment of climate change science in six years has concluded that changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps show unequivocally that the world is warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that major advances in climate modelling and the collection and analysis of data now give scientists “very high confidence” (at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) in their understanding of how human activities are causing the world to warm. This level of confidence is much greater than what could be achieved in 2001 when the IPCC issued its last major report.

Today’s report, the first of four volumes to be released this year by the IPCC, also confirms that the marked increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) since 1750 is the result of human activities.

An even greater degree of warming would likely have occurred if emissions of pollution particles and other aerosols had not offset some of the impact of greenhouse gases, mainly by reflecting sunlight back out to space.

Three years in the making, the report is based on a thorough review of the most-up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific literature available worldwide. It describes an accelerating transition to a warmer world marked by more extreme temperatures including heat waves, new wind patterns, worsening drought in some regions, heavier precipitation in others, melting glaciers and Arctic ice and rising global average sea levels. For the first time, the report provides evidence that the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland are slowly losing mass and contributing to sea level rise.

“This report by the IPCC represents the most rigorous and comprehensive assessment possible of the current state of climate science and has considerably narrowed the uncertainties of the 2001 report,” said Michel Jarraud, Secretary General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). “Progress in observations and measurements of the weather and climate are keys to improved climate research, with National Meteorological and Hydrological Services playing a crucial role.”

“While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities. The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries. It is a question of when and how much, and not if,” he said.

“In our daily lives we all respond urgently to dangers that are much less likely than climate change to affect the future of our children,” said Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which, together with WMO, established the IPCC in 1988.

“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive. Momentum for action is building; this new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.

The report also concludes that:

If atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases double compared to pre-industrial levels, this would “likely” cause an average warming of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a range of 2 - 4.5°C (3.6 - 8.1°F). For the first time, the IPCC is providing best estimates for the warming projected to result from particular increases in greenhouse gases that could occur after the 21st century, along with uncertainty ranges based on more comprehensive modelling.

A GHG level of 650 parts per million (ppm) would “likely” warm the global climate by around 3.6°C, while 750 ppm would lead to a 4.3°C warming, 1,000 ppm to 5.5°C and 1,200 ppm to 6.3°C. Future GHG concentrations are difficult to predict and will depend on economic growth, new technologies and policies and other factors.

The world’s average surface temperature has increased by around 0.74°C over the past 100 years (1906 - 2005). This figure is higher than the 2001 report’s 100-year estimate of 0.6°C due to the recent series of extremely warm years, with 11 of the last 12 years ranking among the 12 warmest years since modern records began around 1850. A warming of about 0.2°C is projected for each of the next two decades.

The best estimates for sea-level rise due to ocean expansion and glacier melt by the end of the century (compared to 1989 – 1999 levels) have narrowed to 28 - 58 cm, versus 9 - 88 cm in the 2001 report, due to improved understanding. However, larger values of up to 1 m by 2100 cannot be ruled out if ice sheets continue to melt as temperature rises. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume caused the sea level to rise by 4 to 6 m.

Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Large areas of the Arctic Ocean could lose year-round ice cover by the end of the 21st century if human emissions reach the higher end of current estimates. The extent of Arctic sea ice has already shrunk by about 2.7% per decade since 1978, with the summer minimum declining by about 7.4% per decade.

Snow cover has decreased in most regions, especially in spring. The maximum extent of frozen ground in the winter/spring season decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere over the latter half of the 20th century. The average freezing date for rivers and lakes in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 150 years has arrived later by some 5.8 days per century, while the average break-up date has arrived earlier by 6.5 days per century.

It is “very likely” that precipitation will increase at high latitudes and “likely” it will decrease over most subtropical land regions. The pattern of these changes is similar to what has been observed during the 20th century.

It is “very likely” that the upward trend in hot extremes and heat waves will continue. The duration and intensity of drought has increased over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and subtropics. The Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia have already become drier during the 20th century.

The amounts of carbon dioxide and methane now in the atmosphere far exceed pre-industrial values going back 650,000 years. As stated above, concentrations of carbon dioxide have already risen from a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to around 379 ppm in 2005, while methane concentrations have risen from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1,774 in 2005.

A number of widely discussed uncertainties have been resolved. The temperature record of the lower atmosphere from satellite measurements has been reconciled with the ground-based record. Key remaining uncertainties involve the roles played by clouds, the cryosphere (glaciers and ice caps), oceans, deforestation and other land-use change, and the linking of climate and biogeochemical cycles.

The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its reports have played a major role in inspiring governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

The Summary for Policymakers for IPCC Working Group I, which was finalized line-by-line by governments during the course of this week, has now been posted in English at www.ipcc.ch. The full underlying report – “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” – will be published by Cambridge University Press.

The report was produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the Summary line-by-line during the course of this week before adopting it and accepting the underlying report.

The Working Group II report on climate impacts and adaptation will be launched in Brussels on 6 April. The Working Group III report on mitigation will be launched in Bangkok on 4 May. The Synthesis Report will be adopted in Valencia, Spain on 16 November. Together, the four volumes will make up the IPCC’s fourth assessment report; previous reports were published in 1990, 1995 and 2001.

Note to journalists: For more information, please see www.ipcc.ch, www.wmo.int or www.unep.org, or contact:

UNEP – Michael Williams at +41-79-409-1528 or michael.williams@unep.ch; Robert Bisset at +33-6-2272-5842 or robert.bisset@unep.org; or Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson, at +254-2-623084 or nick.nuttall@unep.org.

WMO – Mark Oliver, Press Officer, at +41-22-730-8417 or moliver@wmo.int; or Carine Richard Van-Maele, Chief of Communications and Public Affairs, at +41 22 730-8315 or cvanmaele@wmo.int.

Just give it a few minutes, the amateur "climatologists" will soon speak up.

[The Real Bingo]

Methane in the ice caps is the problem. Bad for the ozone and lets more sun and heat in. The more let in, the more the ice caps melt and release methane. It's a crappy, unstoppable cycle. Also, killing the Amazon (oh look, amazon.com) doesn't help much either.

Besides, I don't know why big oil has to result to "propaganda". They have the developed world by the balls...airplanes, cars, buses, and some trains need oil - no option. What difference does it make what this guy says?

[him61]

Well, I had a snappy and witty retort to your (at the moment) only comment... But since I have to buy something to be able to comment, I couldnt post it.

Anyway, keep up the good work Scott!

[Atomic Rooster]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to be asked to post a negative review for a book that we haven't even read.

[jokostel]

damn the internet for forcing us into the next ice age!


@ this point.. there isnt much we can do.... as you said Binder, its pretty much at a runaway point already.... theres no stoppin it... mother nature will eventually right itself... (ice age)

[BBA]

Scientists are as a whole blind to reality. Scientific advances usually progress beyond the collective stupidity of scientists when a real genius shows up and shows them the error of their logic.

This is no different, it's too political, practical common sense will tell you that since it happenned before we were here, it will still happen after we are gone, long beyond the limits of our own environmental contributions.

I would say to most keep an open mind and this BS will pass in about 10 to 20 years or so, just as the global cooling doom and gloom predictions of the 70's passed.

[jokostel]

hopefully...

[RobRich]

Methane in the ice caps is the problem. Bad for the ozone and lets more sun and heat in. The more let in, the more the ice caps melt and release methane.

Curious Bingo, have you submitted your accredited research findings to the WMO for further evaluation?

Besides, I don't know why big oil has to result to "propaganda".

You actually study business and economics. When it comes to oil companies and their evironmental track records, please tell me that I do not have to explain the concepts of lobbying and marketing.

[Knothead]

We're addicted to fossil-fuel-burning machines.

ADDICTED, I say...and until that addiction gets broken, we'll continue merrily along this path, and along the way, continue to make the oil companies (and their investors) rich.

Scott, you say an oil industry lobbyist has produced a volume of propaganda and lies to justify the oil industry's rapaciousness? HAHAHAHA, what else is new?

I think I'll grab a copy of Horner's book and read it. More fuel for the fire, as I'm becoming very pessimistic about the future of mankind on Earth.

[RobRich]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to be asked to post a negative review for a book that we haven't even read.

Simply enough solution. It is $12. Buy it. Read it. Review it, positive or negative.

[him61]

Scientists are as a whole blind to reality.

So are corporate lobyists, if it realy hurts their interests. Wait a minute... One of them wrote this book!!!

Now, in most cases I dont judge a book by it's cover... But when people are payed by a company to do "research" to support their own interests, and then write a book about it, it's a no-brainer. I'd say that there is a 99.9% chance that the entire book is a load of BS. You can't trust people who get payed on a regular basis to lie. (Yes, this is true for politicians too).

That's my stance anyway. Also,IMO, this probably should be moved to DebateIMO.

[BBA]

Sadly, probably not. Case in point:

Finally, a video to counter 'An Inconvenient Truth'

Accordingly, I feel the need to cite the non-partisan WMO report yet again for those somehow still in disbelief.



Just give it a few minutes, the amateur "climatologists" will soon speak up.

Thanks for the post, but this one paragraph should sum it up for you:

The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its reports have played a major role in inspiring governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

In political words that means they are not objective and do not want to find the real answer, instead they want to make policy assessments of existing literature which may or may not be politically motivated. I guess they get to choose what literature it is they read.

[BBA]

So are corporate lobyists, if it realy hurts their interests. Wait a minute... One of them wrote this book!!!

Now, in most cases I dont judge a book by it's cover... But when people are payed by a company to do "research" to support their own interests, and then write a book about it, it's a no-brainer. I'd say that there is a 99.9% chance that the entire book is a load of BS. You can't trust people who get payed on a regular basis to lie. (Yes, this is true for politicians too).

That's my stance anyway. Also,IMO, this probably should be moved to DebateIMO.

Then again, sometimes, when a company pays someone to do research, they might end up with actual facts.

You can not debate any of the facts in the book, but you can debate the political motivation of the author.

[RobRich]

I would say to most keep an open mind and this BS will pass in about 10 to 20 years or so, just as the global cooling doom and gloom predictions of the 70's passed.

Congratulations, you have exemplified and typified a common logic fallacy.

Trying to maintain open mindedness, I have weighed the political arguments of global warming. I have examined the business arguments of global warming. I found neither to outweigh the scientific research behind global warming, IMO of course. The WMO report is credible, and widely accepted by scientists, politicians, and even many businesses.

[Knothead]

Scientists are as a whole blind to reality. Scientific advances usually progress beyond the collective stupidity of scientists when a real genius shows up and shows them the error of their logic.

Umm...

Okay: [sarcasm] Those dang scientists! Alla time investigating natural phenomenons! Who the heck do they think they are? Did we have any problems before Scientists showed up?

NO!!

[/sarcasm] I haven't the sense of humor to continue, I guess.

260 Scientists, and you're waiting for a...uh..."real genius" to show them the "error of their ways", huh?

Wave your flag, guy. Wave on, wave on.

[BBA]

We're addicted to fossil-fuel-burning machines.

ADDICTED, I say...and until that addiction gets broken, we'll continue merrily along this path, and along the way, continue to make the oil companies (and their investors) rich.

I intend on breaking this addiction. I think alternative fuels are the way to go, mostly ethanol from produce. We could stop paying farmers NOT to farm and pay them to make alcohol for fuel.

Gee, that would keep money in the US and decrease the burden of tax payers supporting farmers.

What a concept!!!!


In the meantime, I will burn as much gas as I can afford in my SUV in an attempt to rid the third world of it's money making oil supplies...only then will terrorism stop.

[RobRich]

In political words that means they are not objective and do not want to find the real answer, instead they want to make policy assessments of existing literature which may or may not be politically motivated. I guess they get to choose what literature it is they read.

Had you bothered to research the report, you would find the research is from accredited sources from multiple points along the spectrum. Instead, you once again postulated an uninformed idea without research. Seems like a common trend.