Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Profit margin is a poor indicator of actual profit. It is a measure of efficiency or return on investment by the company. Look at actual profits to evaluate a company. Oil companies year after year have the highest profits of any industry.

This in itself is not a problem and they have the priviledge (not the right) to make as much money as they want. What they are definitively not allowed to do is have a profit at the expense or in detriment of others or to continue making a profit if other less harmful energy sources are developed.

 

Too bad that the scientists who 'make up' evidence are on the AGW bandwagon. The E-mails and source code leaked by a whistleblower substantiate this regardless of your denials.

This is not a case where ipse dixit cuts it. The facts are on the side of the skeptics. Too bad.

 

We all know that the globe is cooling, as clearly demonstrated by the graph below:




No, wait, that doesn't show what I want. Ignore that, that's from the scientists at NASA, that's not the one we want to look at.

Well, it's been cooling for the last ten years, anyway. It's completely obvious to anybody who wasn't blinded by ideology. Just open you eyes and look at the data. Here's the list of the warmest years in the instrumental record, according to NASA:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Top10.warmest.doc

1 2005
2/3 1998/2007
4 2002
5/6 2003/2006
7/8 2001/2004
9 2008
10 1997

Oh, wait, that didn't work out so good -- ignore that too.

Anyway, we know there's no such thing as manmade global warming because no scientist has even ever tried to explain the post-WWII lack of warming. That proves it.

Oh, no wait, I guess a lot of climate scientists have directly addressed this issue, as here. (Answer: air pollution.)

Earth's Temperature Tracker : Feature Articles

Oh, fine, well, all that crap is from NASA, and we now know that NASA is part of the international conspiracy to conceal the truth about global warming. We KNOW this ... we have ROCK-SOLID PROOF ... because ... a lawyer who works for a conservative "think-tank" has, in the wake of the CRU email hack, announced that he's suing NASA.

An ideologically-driven lawyer, now that's an information source you can trust.

Ah, except that, based on what the guy actually says, a) he hasn't actually sued NASA yet, and b) he's not asking NASA to release the climate data. Nope, among other things, he's asking NASA to track Gaving Schmidt's time and certify that he never posted anything to realclimate.org while he was on the clock. Which is a laudable, high-minded, public spirited goal, exemplifying the core ethos of the denialist camp. But it's not a request for climate data.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : "Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA

Anyway, if he actually had sued NASA and if he actually had requested the climate data, now THAT would be the kind of solid, data-based proof I'm talking about. So I'm going to pretend that the lawsuit asked for release of "the data", whatever it is I mean by "the data".

Plus, somebody needs to attack realclimate because we already showed you how biased they are. Yeah, we showed you by tacking together excerpts from two different emails, as if that were an entire email. And by ignoring the THOUSANDS OF POSTINGS ON REALCLIMATE about those emails, in three separate threads, posted --- where --- on Realclimate itself, of course. The fact that the threads on reaclimate including many, many derogatory remarks, innuendo, and slams in no way proves that realclimate allows all rational veiwpoints to be posted. We know they're biased because they won't post some ... thing ... that we would have wanted them to post.

Anyway, you don't want to read what realclimate has to say, because they actually take the time to explain the context, and for the key emails, take the time to explain what the emails are about. Nope, that would require time and effort. The way I treat this is to quote a selected bit of an email then assert that it proves what I want it to prove. Realclimate is biased. Pay no attention to the thousands of derogatory comments that they answered in these three threads, or any of the background information that they provided.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/

Says so right there in the two emails that we spliced together.

Anyway, NASA won't release the data, so I want it. OK, they'll release their aggregates and such. But they don't release individual station data. Or, only to certain select individuals, such as those who are able to find and click on this link:

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Station Data

OK, so they'll release what they say are the individual station data. Except that's not good enough! We want to see the original handwritten station logs! They won't release those, so somethings up, we know it.

Shoot, they make us go all the way over to the to the NOAA website to the copies of the US weather station original handwritten logs.

Most Popular Products - Free Data

That's hardly fair. We want NASA to release the originals not NOAA. Just because NOAA calculates its own global temperature series independently of NASA, that's no reason for us to accept NOAA's copy of the US logs.

NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies







Ah, d*mn, the NOAA data look too much like the NASA data. Must be they're in on the conspiracy. So the NOAA data won't be any good anyway. Along with the satellite people, the Brits, the borehole studies, the studies of changes in the earth's flora and fauna, studies of glacial mass balance. They're all in this together.

OK, I've had my fun. There are lots of interesting things that one could have a useful conversation about on this topic. Like, is global warming unstoppable. (My answer: might be, but not based on the reasoning in the paper cited by the OP). But it clearly isn't going to happen here.

 

There is some seriously poor logic here, Alric. "Look at actual profits to evaluate a company." Evaluate it on what basis? Leftists ideology?

Oil companies provide a product for people who want it. If it is more efficient AND cost-efficient, consumers will continue to use it. What leftists always want to do, besides tell lies, is to COERCE, force reality into a box where it doesn't fit. We have seen the tragic results of this throughout history. THose ignorant of history and economics are repeating all the mistakes.

Wake up! Read The Road to Serfdom. Educate yourself.

 

Yes, and you delusionists make up a lot of garbage!

 

chogan2 absolutely nails "the other side".

 

It's funny how you guys only like to post hockey stick graphs. Never any that show anything *recent*.

 

I never made mention of "evil corporations" or "evil profit". To the contrary, I to understand that corporations exist for the 'benefit" of the stockholders. What I did ask, and suggest that because of the HUGE profits made by big oil/big coal/big utility etc, they had way more to gain by clouding the global warming debate than any collection of scientists/academics could ever hope to have.

While I may (or may not) have an opinion(s) on the corporate citizenship of certain corporations, I have not revealed it here. And in the interest of full disclosure, I do indeed own a few shares of XOM and CVX. There is considerable conversations about what is the right tactic when it comes to ethical investing, and I am not prepared to take that subject on now.

As for the comment about "a day". I guess certain folks have never been confronted with metaphor. "How was your day, Honey?"

As for the comment about "expecting quick responses" It seems like several folks have nothing better to do all day than to yell in each others ears.

As for Alric's assertion that "the middle between right and wrong" is spot on. Wrong is still wrong! As I have said over and over again, this isn't a poll, or a negotiation. This is serious shit that deserves rational thought, scientific conclusions, and solutions that actually solve the problems. If I hear one more time about how "we can't afford to solve global warming" I'm going to puke! All that says is that we don't care enough to do so, and so we are going to foist the solution (and the costs) off on future generations! (Sort of like how we have "funded" the "War on Terror"!

You don't think that big oil has benefited (in it's bottom line) from the Iraq war and the subsequent run up of oil prices? You don't think some of that profit came at tax payers expense? None of the teabagging wingnuts don't have a lot to say about that.

 

:rockon: Thanks for your post!
Now if we could get :focus:, i.e. "Is Global Warming Unstoppable?", that would be great.

 

Yes, let's discuss the unstoppable force of global warming. You know, the phenomenon that's been causing the temperature to decrease over the last 11-12 years. The same force that had 40 years of cooling in the 20th century, etc.

 

How not to measure temperature, part 92 – surrounded by science Watts Up With That?

American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline Watts Up With That?

Fascinating stuff. I've failed to see any AGWer here point out any errors in Anthony's work.

 

BS. We hear again and again how Exxon - over the course of 10 years, spent $23 million against AGW. Well a single individual - Phil Jones at Hadley CRU - spent $22 million on research during a similar period.

And then there are the billions - if not trillions - at stake between the environmental groups (like NRDC, Sierra Club, etc) that operate on multi-billion dollar annual budgets, government funding of AGW-related research that is in the billions, not to mention the billions or even trillions huge financial and energy giants stand to gain from the carbon trading racket.

And the corrupt frauds at Enron were early, heavy promoters of the AGW agenda because they saw an opportunity to rip off the public and line their own pockets:

Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to “reduce” global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out...
... Enron was making a lot of money trading with coal, but they had already calculated that the profits they would lose with coal would be more than compensated by the profits derived from its privileged position in other areas. With clever positioning and anticipation Enron had bought the world’s biggest wind power company, GE Wind, from General Electric. They now also owned the biggest solar power company in the world, in society with Amoco (now belonging to British Petroleum – BP). Enron then started to finance everything related to the global warming hype, including grants to scientists – but asking for results favorable to their interest – “proof” that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning.
​

And you don't think there are billions to be made in the carbon racket?

 

Tim,

I actually agree with you that carbon trading opens up a huge potential for fraud and abuse. I am not a fan, and I would prefer a simple, quantifiable carbon tax.

That said, I don't think the CUMULATIVE budgets of ALL the major environmental groups (Sierra Club/ NRDC etc) would total a $billion per annum, much less $ 4 billion per quarter!. I believe that the Sierra Club's annual budget (which would be near the largest I would guess) is ~$100 million. That is ~2.5 % of XOM's quarterly profit in 2008 of over $4 billion. That's quarterly profit!

I still contend that big oil/big coal/ big utility etc have orders of magnitude more to gain (and lose) by perpetuating global warming doubt.

As for Enron. Enron was never any thing but a scam corporation, in bed to some greater or lesser extent with GWB. It's rise and fall had nothing to do with producing and distributing energy, or real profits. Rather it existed to further enrich the top scammers. Ken Lay would do anything to pocket a few extra billions, no matter what it took. So to use Enron as an example of any kind of corporate action is just plain dumb.

Icarus

 

This is a laughable claim.

 

You know what else is laughable? Claiming that we are undergoing catastrophic global warming when we have had cooling for the last 11 years.

You know what else is laughable? Passing cap and trade legislation when there is no reason to believe that it's going to change anything.

You know what else is laughable? Claiming that we are undergoing catastrophic global warming when we are in all likelihood just experiencing another "medieval warming period."

Know what else is laughable? "Hiding the decline" ( explained ), hiding the MWP, hiding the LIA, etc.

 

Is it?

Global carbon trading market to grow over US$1 trillion in 5 years...

You can see here, in this video, a description of how all that money will slosh around and end up in the pockets of huge players in the whole scheme. It is the reason why these people - who have worked at EPA for years and understand intimately the "carbon market" - put together this video, despite the EPA's efforts to silence them.

And they are no AGW softies - they actually believe AGW is happening, but recognize Cap and Trade for the scam that it is. They note it will "result in billions of windfall profits for utilities".

 

This is a great story about the Copenhagen meeting.

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges - Telegraph

All of these people that are "so concerned" about CO2 emissions, the environment, etc, all needing their own private jets and private limos! The real gem of the story is if you read carefully it says there are high taxes on hybrid vehicles in Denmark. That's where we're all headed if all of this cap and trade crap gets passed.

To the AGWers: your ignorance and the ease with which you readily believe in whatever garbage is thrown your way has lead us down this road. If C&T gets passed, be ready to wave goodbye to your current lifestyle.

 

From my favorite blog (and my cathedra field) Pharyngula. Note that I am not making a claim about the science but a comment on the "debate".

Watson vs. Morano
Category: Environment
Posted on: December 6, 2009 11:14 PM, by PZ Myers

his is the debate on climate change: scientist with the evidence vs. shouting loonie with wild accusations of conspiracy. Listen to the very end when Watson sums up the other guy perfectly.

Watson vs. Morano : Pharyngula

 

No, It wasn't me. I was banned days before because I wrote "small-government douches".

I've been spending 90% of my time at theEEStory.com where the insults and names fly like crazy.

Coming back here, even a term of endearment like "douches" is out of line. No fun at all.

 

Alric, that's already been posted on WUWT ( here )

It definitely shows how bothered the AGWers at UEA/CRU are by this whole scandal that's been uncovered. He says "it's important for the science to be totally open" - wow, really? They deleted their original data and only have mann-ipulated copies of the data. I'm not sure which video you watched where there was a "scientist with evidence" - I just saw a meager person who had to resort to insults instead of having a debate. It's amazing how often that happens when you realize you're wrong, huh?

I noticed you had nothing to comment on regarding the article about the "hiding of the decline." I'd love to see all of these holes in AGW (the ones the size of the Grand Canyon) filled in...