Shell and BP still funding climate change denial

TZW

Not many people want to pay for research into proving that it has bugger all to do with us….

You don't seem to understand the concept of research.

Basspine put up a nice diagram on the first page that shows how it works, why don't you have a look at it?

Not sure that I get what you're saying there Dave. Why would fuel companies want to prove that humans don't cause climate change? They want to keep the amount of oil that they have, for as long as possible, thereby driving up the price. Getting individuals to think of oil as a precious yet damaging commodity and to use less would seem to be a good way of doing that.

TZF

Is this the full half hour argument?

I understand the theory of research very well. I also understand the practicalities of research too though. I have seen many very good papers fail to get into a journal simply because they dont fit with the editor's standpoint on a subject. Research isn't free and people need to get published to get more funding to stay in their jobs.

Also, of course I know that neither you nor anyone else can prove anything. If we all know this to be the case, why is the scientific consensus always represented as proof?

TZW,

We seem to be getting off the point (unfortunately). However, you say…

…why is the scientific consensus always represented as proof?

Well, actually I don't think it is. And I don't think you will hear many scientists talking like that (they always talk in terms of probabilities when talking about future events). Maybe some journalists or politicians will but probably only as shorthand, and I don't think that politics is in any way leading the science.

Just think back over the last few years at how the world's governments have done anything they could to delay taking serious action on climate change. They've had to be dragged to the point where they are really considering doing anything because they know that action on climate change will make them unpopular. Our entire economy is based on continuous growth to service debt, but action on climate change will stall the world economy. That is why governments don't want to act. The trouble is that it is now becoming so obvious what is happening that if they don't act now, then things will be even worse later. Unfortunatley for all of us the choice we have is tough times now, or even tougher times later.

Personally I think one of the problems of climate change is that the scientists are too conservative when they talk about it. I would like more scientists to be more definitive about what is going on, because I know that those I've that spoken to are actually more pesemistic than they are prepared to put down on paper.

.. So, you're also saying its not necessarily about human activity/CO2, but there are other factors in play that we're not entirely sure about, and we may have to adjust our calculations and predictions to fit the physical evidence…

No, I'm telling you that the natural cycles that affect the climate are well researched and understood, which is why we know that the output from the sun is low at the moment. Natural factors are used in the models, which show that the earth is still getting warmer, bang in line with the IPCC prediction.

Of course predictions are refined in the light of new evidence – why would they not be?

Not sure that I get what you're saying there Dave. Why would fuel companies want to prove that humans don't cause climate change?

Because a shift away from fossil fuel use could damage their interests.

We know that Exxon have invested a great deal of time and money in trying to deny anthropogenic climate change.

ransos – would it damage their interests? I'd say running out of oil would do more damage.

deadkenny wrote, "Then there's the ice shelf in the Antarctic itself. Some of the more sensational scientific papers, media reports and government reports presents us with an image that it will all melt and we'll have massive rises in sea levels. However take a look at the predicted temperature rises, then consider that much of the Antarctic sits at temperatures of -40C and is covered in ice nearly 3 miles deep. This isn't going to melt."

The shelf ice doesn't have to melt to change ocean levels, it only has to move. The West Antartic Ice Shelf is the best example of this- it's unstable, and contains 10% of all the antartic ice, which means if it was all to melt ocean levels would rise by 4.8 metres (not to mention that it would significantly alter ocean salinity) As it stands, the ice flow from the 3 biggest WAIS glaciers is demonstrably much greater than the ice growth- they're not melting but they're flowing to the ocean faster than they're being replaced by snowfall. In this exact situation, ocean levels will rise- ice is moving from supported to unsupported, and not enough water is returning to the ice. Antartic ice loss shows short-term signs of increasing, which might not continue of course but doesseem likely to.

ransos – would it damage their interests? I'd say running out of oil would do more damage.

We're not going to run out of oil. And known existing reserves of fossil fuels, if combusted, would wreck all the targets we have for stabilising the climate.

But 6yrs ago, the scientific consensus said that we only had 8yrs worth of oil left.

TZF wrote, "But 6yrs ago, the scientific consensus said that we only had 8yrs worth of oil left."

Did it really? THink you'll find that's nonsense tbh.

Yes indeed it did.

Trolling Zoo Fighter – Member
But 6yrs ago, the scientific consensus said that we only had 8yrs worth of oil left.

In the 1890s there was scientific consensus that there was a limited amount of coal left. I think it was supposed to run out in the 1920s. This may have had something to do with the admiralty's switch to oil fired ships just before WW1, and hence a sudden need to be concerned about Iraq.

I got a bit of stick for this question

I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.

I can't remember when I read it (I'm fairly sure it was in the Times) but there was concern that the Mafia had got its hooks into companies concerned with wind generation and they were pushing these for the subsidies. I'm happy to be corrected on this.

However, I haven't seen any response to my other questions:

Has anyone got a chart of the output of the sun for the last 200 years?
Has anyone got the figures for the output of volcanic action for the last 200 years?
Has anyone got the figures for CO2 released by bush fires (Australia will do) compared to that country's industrial output?

I need convincing that anything happening with the climate is not as a result of forces beyond our control.

The issue of oil is truly frightening, supplies will peak in the next five years or so – anyone who has access to the production / demand stats will see that.

The supplies of oil left are expensive to extract, the Canada Tar sands need oil at $80-90 a barrel before they make economic sense because they're tricky to get to and hard to refine. Governments (particularly in Europe) aren't doing enough to mitigate these problems, public transport costs are subject to ridiculous levels of inflation, while the treasury doesn't want to lose out on £50bn of tax revenues.

Until our government takes this issue seriously and is forcibly weaned off green taxes then it'll only get worse.

A quick search tells me that the UK is responsible for around 2.5% of the worlds CO2 emissions
I can't see how us reducing is going to have a significant effect – let the others do it instead

Fire up the Quattro 😉

How does that 2.5% translate into the total CO2 entering the atmosphere from all sources?

Has anyone got the figures for CO2 released by bush fires (Australia will do) compared to that country's industrial output?

That's just showing your ignorance.

Why would you want to compare CO2 already in the contempory carbon cycle (released during bush fires) with CO2 that has already been captured, fossilised and taken out of the carbon cycle only to be added again (industrial output).

Why is it showing ignorance? I don't get why where the co2 comes from makes a difference. Pretty sure that the atmosphere doesn't differentiate.

I've worked in various environmentaly focussed jobs (both as a volunteer and as a paid member of staff) for about 14 years now. I can only say that I think that the majority of climate change arguments are absolute tosh, especially the whole CO2 thing. Water vapour and methane are far more damaging to the atmosphere but these are two things that aren't really tackled. Guardian readers will no doubt want to try to stop cows farting now that I've mentioned methane…
I also object to the way emotional rhetoric has been allowed to dominate green issues and the associated research. Where is the definitive empirical scientific data to back up the claims of Greenpeace, F0E etc? Oh, thats right, there isn't much if any that can actually be replicated and verified. Instead we have a political and environmental agenda that has been railroaded by a few over emotional 'green' groups which has only resulted in higher taxes for all (imposed on environmental grounds) and very little environmental improvement.
The Earth is a far more complex system than we could ever hope to understand or influence and whilst we have undoubtedly done some very stupid things to the environment we live in over the years there is very little we can do to stop any changes.
MTFU people. We live on a big, complex and varied planet and in truth we have no idea what will really happen next.

Why is it showing ignorance? I don't get why where the co2 comes from makes a difference. Pretty sure that the atmosphere doesn't differentiate.

And he's out of the game……..

Dave – there is only one person showing ignorance in this exchange and it sure as hell isn't me. And to think that you're supposedly a moderator too….

I've worked in various environmentaly focussed jobs (both as a volunteer and as a paid member of staff) for about 14 years now.

What jobs?

I can only say that I think that the majority of climate change arguments are absolute tosh, especially the whole CO2 thing.

You're rejecting the research of countless scientists? On what basis are they "absolute tosh"? What are you basing your argument on?

Water vapour and methane are far more damaging to the atmosphere but these are two things that aren't really tackled.

You have sources for this information? How do you know thats not "absolute tosh"?

Where is the definitive empirical scientific data to back up the claims of Greenpeace, F0E etc?

You know about this right?

Home Page

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=4761gclid=CNT1j_SJ_J0CFYwA4woduDbkpQ

Why is it showing ignorance? I don't get why where the co2 comes from makes a difference.

You do know you have answered your own question dont you?

Hmm, lets see. My jobs have included: Sustainability consultant, Environmental Project Officer, Environmental Manager, Environmental Consultant, Recycling Officer and now I work exclusively in the recycling industry (less chance of having to deal with hairy legged vegan women in hand knitted shoes). In my time I've worked for national and international organisations on everything from developing assessment methods, implemented environmental management systems and intepretating legislation. I've also done a huge amount of work for the National Trust in my spare time. I also have an honours degree and an MSc in relevant subjects. Though I don't class myself as an expert in anything I think I've seen and done enough to form a decent opinion.

Am I rejecting the work of countless scientists? Not particularly but I do think that some of the most widely quoted research is shonky in terms of methodology and the way the findings are interpreted and presented to the wider world. There have been times when ideas such as eugenics, thalidomide, determinism and even CFC's were considered viable ideas. Go figure.

I've also worked with enough scientists over the years to know that they approach their work with a largely narrow focus and, in todays economic climate, a desire to keep their funders happy. I was always taught that scientific research should seek to prove a theorem by trying to disprove it can take place in reality and I see very little effort to apply this sound and well tested technique on the subject of climate change. Interesting that you stick in links to IPPC and the Met Office. Strange how very few of the climate models they have put forward have predicted the climate over the last decade and that they all have very similar basic assumptions. No body seems willing to move away from the herd and try new research or modelling techniques as they simply won't get the funding or the fair hearing they would need to be accepted into the mainstream.

Sorry Dave but I strongly suspect we'll all look back on this particular period in history in a decade or so and wonder what the hell governments around the world were thinking of.

I realise that you think I have answered my own question.

To rephrase my question – why wouldn't you want to compare anthropogenically caused co2 emissions with those from other sources? To put it into context – 100% of **** all is still **** all, but 1% of 100 **** loads is a **** load.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Not my views but I thought a link to the 'other' side of the argument would be of interest. Of course you may not want to agree what this says as it is counter to the accepted view but that is what is wrong in my opinion with the climate change debate; everything is too one sided with very few people entering into a proper, rational debate about it.

this isn't a subject that's open to debate.

'debate' is something you do when you're deciding whether to give women the vote.

but you can't debate evidence.

temperature records show that the earth is warming rapidly, tree ring data shows that the earth is warming rapidly, ice core data shows that the earth is warming rapidly, isotope analysis of snail shells shows that the earth is warming rapidly.

THE NORTH POLE HAS NEARLY MELTED.

if you still want to try and have a debate over this, bring some evidence to the table…?

clearly, i need to start drinking…

And that is why the tree hugging hippies dont get anywhere with their agenda – they refuse to follow good scientific process and debate.

I think debate is entirely what is needed, especially when the climate change argument is being used to introduce economic and industrial policies and legislation that have massive impacts on the standard of living we have, the product choices available to us and the way in which we lead our lives. My main concern is that the green movement views some areas of science as bad and, because of the willingness of mainstream politicians to be seen as understanding towards the more militant groups within our society, policies are being made without the full range of opinions being heard.

Give it ten years or so and our main concerns as a nation will be energy generation as none of our nuclear or coal fired power plants are being upgraded or replaced and viable solutions (such as nuclear fusion) are not being properly supported right now when they need to be. Apparently rubbish lightbulbs and wind turbines will save us (they are afterall a guaranteed vote winder for Davind Cameron) but somehow I doubt it.

Ice cores and tree rings are all good evidence but they are hardly the smoking gun that proves that we are screwing up the planet on their own. And besides, even if we are there is nothing what so ever we can do to stop it.

I'm off for a beer and maybe search autotrader for something with a V8 engine before such things are outlawed…

TZF, you said

But 6yrs ago, the scientific consensus said that we only had 8yrs worth of oil left.

Can you tell us all where this was reported. It must have been reported widely after all, if it was "the scientific consensus"

The problem is that when you say something as stupid as this it does tend to give the impression that you are not taking this seriously.

Big Dave, you said:

there isn't much if any that can actually be replicated and verified

This is more psychobabble. You are using scientific sounding terms "replicated", "verified" etc that just aren't appropriate. Climate change hasn't been discovered as the result of a lab experiment, it is an observable phenomenon. The CO2/temperature/sea level measurements for the last X number of years don't need to be replicated or verified – they just ARE. Then it is a question of interpretation.

And it's the IPCC BTW.

You also said:

No body seems willing to move away from the herd and try new research or modelling techniques as they simply won't get the funding or the fair hearing they would need to be accepted into the mainstream.

I think I see an opening for you. With all your experience it should be a doddle.

Though I really am surprised, now that you've pointed it out, that NO body has ever thought of trying any new modelling techniques. I guess they just haven't bothered to buy themselves a copy of New Modelling Techniques for Dummies.

epicyclo

Has anyone got a chart of the output of the sun for the last 200 years?
Has anyone got the figures for the output of volcanic action for the last 200 years?
Has anyone got the figures for CO2 released by bush fires (Australia will do) compared to that country's industrial output?

Yes, I expect somebody has, but not me.

However, I expect the reason why you don't hear much about any of these is that they don't have any impact on the argument over anthropogenic climate change.

As has already been pointed out – the earth is curretly thought to be in a natural cooling cycle (probably several factors, but see El Nina effect for example). This actually masks some of the warming that is taking place due to CO2 induced climate change at the moment, but climate change is still going on, and when (maybe not for another 10 years) the full, unmitigated effects come into play again, there are likely to be some extremely destructive weather events – maybe heatwaves, but also maybe more floods and hurricanes.

As you suggest, there are many many factors that influence the climate. If a huge volcano were to blow then maybe that would do more damage than CO2. But the point is that volcanos are out of our control, and CO2 isn't.

Big Dave, you said:

and viable solutions (such as nuclear fusion) are not being properly supported

You used the wrong word again.

viable – adjective

…

5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.

Nuclear fusion is in no way "viable"

Maybe "speculative" would be more appropriate?

can we replace the phrase "don't feed the trolls" with "don't feed the enviro-zealots"?

I wouldn't call TZF an enviro-zealot

The only thing I want to see is a balanced debate, rather than the one-sided nonsense that we have at present. The climate is way too important to play politics over.

LOL, quick response! sorry to those who take these things seriously I just like chucking random buns into a fight both ways to see who bites.

In all honesty I'm too cynical about both sides of the argument and I'm a selfish f**ker who works on the principle that the earth would be much better of without the species homo sapiens because we are useless consuming locusts that bring no benefit to any ecosystem. So if we wipe ourselves out, so what? Give it a few million years and new species will have evolved anyway.

maybe heatwaves

thank ***k for that, these last few summers have been appalling