Climate Change

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

Plenty here is a nice timeline

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-us-climate-change-was-nothing

[ozimoron]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That is correct. You do not have to provide any support for the claim "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

Three people have posted links attempting to support the claim, no one has provided an example. Now you claim you don't need to provide an example, because it's an "unrefutable" fact that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda. 

 

The claim was not that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda, but rather that: "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

This claim has gone unsubstantiated. If such propaganda is sent out continuously by the oil companies it should be easy to come up with something, but you can't. 

 

That you believe something is an "unrefutable" fact, does not make it so. 

 

I did not read them all the way through, but again, ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".

 

Nor can lawsuits against oil companies be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change". 

 

You claim there are examples in the links, but you refuse to show them. But again, this is something you are claiming happens continuously, why post links to stuff that's years old? 

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

1. I didn't make that claim but I do endorse it.

 

2. Only countries with major fossil fuel industries have significant numbers of denialists.

 

3. Here's a link from the Union of Concerned Scientists which iimplies that fossil fuel companies have not changed their tune.

 

https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/big-oils-denial-and-delay-is-endangering-our-future/

 

Stop flogging that horse, it's dead, Jim. You imply that fossil fuel companies have stopped with the propaganda, is that true?

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by ozimoron

[Yellowtail]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

1. I didn't make that claim but I do endorse it.

Exactly, you endorse the claim that "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change.", yet you are not able to provide an example that supports it. 

 

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

2. Only countries with major fossil fuel industries have significant numbers of denialists.

I can't if that's true or not without a clear definition of "denialist", but is sounds like a regurgitated "fact" someone made up.

 

If we define "denialists" as people that greatly and continuously benefit from the fossil fuel industry, the statement is false. 

 

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

3. Here's a link from the Union of Concerned Scientists which iimplies that fossil fuel companies have not changed their tune.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/big-oils-denial-and-delay-is-endangering-our-future/

The "Union of Concerned Scientists" appears to be a website that allows anyone to be a "Concerned Scientist" just by checking a box. 

 

In any event, even the mighty "Union of Concerned Scientists" was not able to provide an example of propaganda the oil industry continuously sends to undermine the danger of climate change.

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Stop flogging that horse, it's dead, Jim. You imply that fossil fuel companies have stopped with the propaganda, is that true?

My position is that you are endorsing a false claim, and a claim that if true, would be very easy to substantiate. 

 

I agree we're beating a dead horse, as you will never be able to provide an example that supports the false claim that "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change.". 

[kwilco]

23 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Hot in Thailand... Maybe it's the climate change.

This is an example of the abject ignorance that people display who don't understand the basics of MMCC

[kwilco]

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

That is correct. You do not have to provide any support for the claim "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

Three people have posted links attempting to support the claim, no one has provided an example. Now you claim you don't need to provide an example, because it's an "unrefutable" fact that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda. 

 

The claim was not that the fossil fuel companies have been engaging in promoting such propaganda, but rather that: "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

This claim has gone unsubstantiated. If such propaganda is sent out continuously by the oil companies it should be easy to come up with something, but you can't. 

 

That you believe something is an "unrefutable" fact, does not make it so. 

 

I did not read them all the way through, but again, ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".

 

Nor can lawsuits against oil companies be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change". 

 

You claim there are examples in the links, but you refuse to show them. But again, this is something you are claiming happens continuously, why post links to stuff that's years old? 

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

You are sealioning.

Do you not accept MMCC?

If so provide a reasoned argument...repeated passive aggressive requests for citations just shows you can't argue a point yourself 

[kwilco]

42 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, you endorse the claim that "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change.", yet you are not able to provide an example that supports it. 

 

I can't if that's true or not without a clear definition of "denialist", but is sounds like a regurgitated "fact" someone made up.

 

If we define "denialists" as people that greatly and continuously benefit from the fossil fuel industry, the statement is false. 

 

The "Union of Concerned Scientists" appears to be a website that allows anyone to be a "Concerned Scientist" just by checking a box. 

 

In any event, even the mighty "Union of Concerned Scientists" was not able to provide an example of propaganda the oil industry continuously sends to undermine the danger of climate change.

My position is that you are endorsing a false claim, and a claim that if true, would be very easy to substantiate. 

 

I agree we're beating a dead horse, as you will never be able to provide an example that supports the false claim that "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change.". 

Yellowtail.

There is plenty of evidence of oil companies trying to deny MMCC.

I'm surprised you are not familiar with it as you seem interested in the CC debate.

There have been plenty of academic and peer reviewed papers on this

 But if you need a summary... and I think you do..... read this article...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/oil-companies-climate-change-propaganda-b1930583.html%3famp

 

You really need to do your own proper research rather than sealioning others.

 

[KhunLA]

@kwilco

@Yellowtail

Agree and have seen a couple studies countering the MMGW/CC thing, and always seems to be funded by fossil fuel profiteers.

 

Have to admit, simply gives the MMGW/CC thingy a lot more credibility, as they continue to discredit it ????

 

Is, has and will the planet get warmer....

... yes, till the next ice age.  Now that is scary.

 

Is it MM ... maybe

Is it causing CC ... maybe

 

Do I care ... NO ... just trolling, I'm bored

I'd care if I thought I might live to be 2 or 300 yrs older.

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

Yellowtail.

There is plenty of evidence of oil companies trying to deny MMCC.

I'm surprised you are not familiar with it as you seem interested in the CC debate.

There have been plenty of academic and peer reviewed papers on this

 But if you need a summary... and I think you do..... read this article...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/oil-companies-climate-change-propaganda-b1930583.html%3famp

 

You really need to do your own proper research rather than sealioning others.

 

I'm not the one making the claim, yet I am supposed to do the research proving the claim is false? 

 

If I said that the Solar Industry continuously sends out propaganda material to cause hysteria about the danger of climate change, I believe I would have to provide examples. I don't believe that just posting links to others making the same claim would be sufficient, nor do I think claiming it's an indisputable fact proves anything. 

 

I read the artical you liked to, and it was ONLY people making the same claim, again, without providing examples. In the article, there were only two things that the author even claimed were examples and they were a few years old:

1. Unilever putting carbon labels on food. 

2. Claiming they denied misleading the public.

 

Again, if propaganda is being sent out continuously, it should be easy to provide a few examples. 

 

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, kwilco said:

You are sealioning.

Do you not accept MMCC?

If so provide a reasoned argument...repeated passive aggressive requests for citations just shows you can't argue a point yourself 

I had to google sealioning.  Apparently, it is "...a disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter."

 

All I am asking for are examples to support a false claim someone else made.

 

You would have to clearly define what you mean by MMCC before I can say whether or not I accept it, but again, I believe the planet is warming, and that human activity is impacting that change. 

 

I do not see how demonizing industries provide great benefits that we will continue to need for at least the foreseeable future, and likely much longer makes any sense. All it does is promote hysteria and make energy more expensive, which anyone should know disproportionally hurts the poor. 

 

I think that if we truly want to reduce our CO2 output, there are a lot better ways of doing it than most of the silliness I see. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Misab]

On 3/26/2023 at 5:37 PM, Yellowtail said:

So you do not have a single example of the propaganda material the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change? Not even one? 

 

 

If the oil industry is continuously sending out propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

 

Ads that oil companies run praising alternative energy projects they are involved with do not really qualify as "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" do they? If anything, they highlight the danger and show what they are doing to "help".

 

Lawsuits against oil companies can hardly be considered "propaganda to undermine the danger of climate-change" can they? 

 

Again, please provide a few examples of the propaganda the oil industry is continuously sending out to undermine the danger of climate-change, surely you should be able to come up with a few. 

 

Why should I waste my time on people working for the oil companies or associate companies

 

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I had to google sealioning.  Apparently, it is "...a disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter."

 

All I am asking for are examples to support a false claim someone else made.

 

You would have to clearly define what you mean by MMCC before I can say whether or not I accept it, but again, I believe the planet is warming, and that human activity is impacting that change. 

 

I do not see how demonizing industries provide great benefits that we will continue to need for at least the foreseeable future, and likely much longer makes any sense. All it does is promote hysteria and make energy more expensive, which anyone should know disproportionally hurts the poor. 

 

I think that if we truly want to reduce our CO2 output, there are a lot better ways of doing it than most of the silliness I see.

If you truly believed that you'd be able to provide a link showing the better ways than the climate scientists are recommending.

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm not the one making the claim, yet I am supposed to do the research proving the claim is false? 

 

If I said that the Solar Industry continuously sends out propaganda material to cause hysteria about the danger of climate change, I believe I would have to provide examples. I don't believe that just posting links to others making the same claim would be sufficient, nor do I think claiming it's an indisputable fact proves anything. 

 

I read the artical you liked to, and it was ONLY people making the same claim, again, without providing examples. In the article, there were only two things that the author even claimed were examples and they were a few years old:

1. Unilever putting carbon labels on food. 

2. Claiming they denied misleading the public.

 

Again, if propaganda is being sent out continuously, it should be easy to provide a few examples. 

 

THe article I posted is for links to other sources - I don't think you know how to do that.

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I had to google sealioning.  Apparently, it is "...a disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter."

 

All I am asking for are examples to support a false claim someone else made.

 

You would have to clearly define what you mean by MMCC before I can say whether or not I accept it, but again, I believe the planet is warming, and that human activity is impacting that change. 

 

I do not see how demonizing industries provide great benefits that we will continue to need for at least the foreseeable future, and likely much longer makes any sense. All it does is promote hysteria and make energy more expensive, which anyone should know disproportionally hurts the poor. 

 

I think that if we truly want to reduce our CO2 output, there are a lot better ways of doing it than most of the silliness I see. 

 

 

 

 

 

you responses are predictable and show an inability to construct an intelligent argument - QED

like most of your "refernces" or rather one quote wonders you really don't seem to understand sealioning although you do it all the time.

Sealioning – comes from the noise a sealion makes – it is similar to a small kid who finds he can get an adult’s attention by repeating the word “why?”

is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions,

 A Sea-Lion need never provide their own facts or logic, need never actually scrutinize the qualifications of their debate partner or the weight behind their claims. All a Sea-Lion need do is create this false framework of objective cordial discussion. It is a form of harassment by those with no real argument.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by kwilco

[markclover]

The climate change propaganda is just a way to shift the power away from the third world dictators and get everyone to drive electric cars. 

 

Africa was a desert long before humans.  Does that mean the dinosaurs did climate change as well?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, markclover said:

The climate change propaganda is just a way to shift the power away from the third world dictators and get everyone to drive electric cars. 

 

Africa was a desert long before humans.  Does that mean the dinosaurs did climate change as well?

No, but Martians obviously did.

[Misab]

21 hours ago, KhunLA said:

@kwilco

@Yellowtail

Agree and have seen a couple studies countering the MMGW/CC thing, and always seems to be funded by fossil fuel profiteers.

 

Have to admit, simply gives the MMGW/CC thingy a lot more credibility, as they continue to discredit it ????

 

Is, has and will the planet get warmer....

... yes, till the next ice age.  Now that is scary.

 

Is it MM ... maybe

Is it causing CC ... maybe

 

Do I care ... NO ... just trolling, I'm bored

I'd care if I thought I might live to be 2 or 300 yrs older.

Oh, you should care Reincarnation exist and you will be back in a very hot world ????

 

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I'm not the one making the claim, yet I am supposed to do the research proving the claim is false? 

 

If I said that the Solar Industry continuously sends out propaganda material to cause hysteria about the danger of climate change, I believe I would have to provide examples. I don't believe that just posting links to others making the same claim would be sufficient, nor do I think claiming it's an indisputable fact proves anything. 

 

I read the artical you liked to, and it was ONLY people making the same claim, again, without providing examples. In the article, there were only two things that the author even claimed were examples and they were a few years old:

1. Unilever putting carbon labels on food. 

2. Claiming they denied misleading the public.

 

Again, if propaganda is being sent out continuously, it should be easy to provide a few examples. 

 

Propaganda is being set out continuously. Only now it's a lot more subtle. The evidence for climate change caused by emissions became too overwhelming for oil companies to refute. So, now instead, they've refocused their efforts. One way is to shift the responsibility to consumers. Another is to shift emphasis to carbon capture, removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of not burning fossil fuels in the first place.

 

ExxonMobil wants you to feel responsible for climate change so it doesn’t have to

To understand why ExxonMobil has been so effective at shaping the US narrative about climate change in the US for some 40 years, look no further than the words of one of the company’s communications strategists, Mobil Vice President of Public Affairs Herbert Schmertz: ”Your objective is to wrap yourself in the good phrases while sticking your opponents with the bad ones,” he wrote in 1986.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, most of the company’s PR efforts focused on casting doubt on the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels was warming the planet. But by the mid-2000s, it was taking a more sophisticated, nuanced approach...

 

https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study

 

If you want to see some of this in action just go here

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change#:~:text=Reducing emissions in its operations,engaging on climate-related policy

or here

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change/understanding-the-exxonknew-controversy

 

Another way big oil propagandizes is putting its employees in academic or education settings.

Exxon in the classroom: how big oil money influences US universities

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/27/fossil-fuel-firms-us-universities-colonize-academia

 

 

[KhunLA]

51 minutes ago, Misab said:

Oh, you should care Reincarnation exist and you will be back in a very hot world ????

 

No prob ... come back as a fish, Great White works for me.   Where is your inland house, that will be beachfront soon, so I can cruise by.

 

I hear surfing is a great hobby .... ????

 

 

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

No prob ... come back as a fish, Great White works for me.   Where is your inland house, that will be beachfront soon, so I can cruise by.

 

I hear surfing is a great hobby .... ????

 

 

 

Great choice of fish. Due to global warming, great whites are extending their range northwards. Now if you had chosen to be the kind of fish that inhabits coral reefs...

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Great choice of fish. Due to global warming, great whites are extending their range northwards. Now if you had chosen to be the kind of fish that inhabits coral reefs...

I always plan for the future as ...

... no plan, is a plan to fail ????

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Propaganda is being set out continuously. Only now it's a lot more subtle. The evidence for climate change caused by emissions became too overwhelming for oil companies to refute. So, now instead, they've refocused their efforts. One way is to shift the responsibility to consumers. Another is to shift emphasis to carbon capture, removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of not burning fossil fuels in the first place.

So the people burning the fuel bear no responsibility, it is all the fault of the fuel provider? 

 

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

ExxonMobil wants you to feel responsible for climate change so it doesn’t have to

To understand why ExxonMobil has been so effective at shaping the US narrative about climate change in the US for some 40 years, look no further than the words of one of the company’s communications strategists, Mobil Vice President of Public Affairs Herbert Schmertz: ”Your objective is to wrap yourself in the good phrases while sticking your opponents with the bad ones,” he wrote in 1986.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, most of the company’s PR efforts focused on casting doubt on the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels was warming the planet. But by the mid-2000s, it was taking a more sophisticated, nuanced approach...

Are the mid 2000s not thirty years away? 

 

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

 

https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study

 

If you want to see some of this in action just go here

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change#:~:text=Reducing emissions in its operations,engaging on climate-related policy

or here

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change/understanding-the-exxonknew-controversy

 

Another way big oil propagandizes is putting its employees in academic or education settings.

Exxon in the classroom: how big oil money influences US universities

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/27/fossil-fuel-firms-us-universities-colonize-academia

 

 

What looks like a PR ad about being a responsible corporate citizen proves "The oil industry continuously sends out propaganda material to undermine the danger of climate change."

 

It is clear that oil money has take over the universities, just look the large percentage of peer reviewed publications that undermine the dangers of climate change. 

 

What is it you think the oil industries should do anyway? Without them countless people would starve and freeze to death. 

 

How many people moaning about the oil companies are sitting in air-conditioned spaces, refrigerate and cook their food and utilize vehicular transportation?  

[Yellowtail]

20 hours ago, ozimoron said:

If you truly believed that you'd be able to provide a link showing the better ways than the climate scientists are recommending.

What ways do "the climate scientists" recommend for reducing our carbon footprint? 

 

Why would "the climate scientists" be involved in these recommendations anyway? Clearly it is not their area of expertise. 

 

Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific. As such they are generated by politicians, not scientists. 

 

Making natural gas stoves illegal while continuing to build coal-fired generators makes little sense to me. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

What ways do "the climate scientists" recommend for reducing our carbon footprint? 

 

Why would "the climate scientists" be involved in these recommendations anyway? Clearly it is not their area of expertise. 

 

Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific. As such they are generated by politicians, not scientists. 

 

Making natural gas stoves illegal while continuing to build coal-fired generators makes little sense to me. 

Climate scientists know that's its CO2 that's the problem. They know what is causing the CO2, it's Fossil fuel burning, land clearing and cows mainly. As you said, they don't make policy and don;t try to. They merely point out what needs to be done.

[BritManToo]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What ways do "the climate scientists" recommend for reducing our carbon footprint? 

 

Why would "the climate scientists" be involved in these recommendations anyway? Clearly it is not their area of expertise. 

 

Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific. As such they are generated by politicians, not scientists. 

 

Making natural gas stoves illegal while continuing to build coal-fired generators makes little sense to me. 

We should install solar panels.

Oz and Thailand are sunny, no excuse not to!

Why wait for other people to sort the problem out.

Edited March 28, 2023 by BritManToo

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

We should install solar panels.

Oz and Thailand are sunny, no excuse not to!

Why wait for other people to sort the problem out.

The only people advocating waiting are right wingers wanting us to wait for the Chinese to reduce their emissions, despite the fact that Chinese per capita emissions are quite low.

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The only people advocating waiting are right wingers wanting us to wait for the Chinese to reduce their emissions, despite the fact that Chinese per capita emissions are quite low.

How many solar panels have you installed?

[ozimoron]

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

How many solar panels have you installed?

Irrelevant. Climate change will not be solved by governments doing nothing. Governments passing legislation to force and encourage changes to fossil fuel and land use are crucial. That is the elephant in the room. Individuals  installing solar panels won't cut it because most can't afford them. Help needs to be provided to poorer countries to assist hem in adopting new technologies such as solar panels.

 

Solar panels can only be installed by house owners in the main. Only the rich capitalist pig dogs who own the apartment blocks and their own houses can install solar panels. Mere mortals don't have that option do they?

Edited March 28, 2023 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

31 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What ways do "the climate scientists" recommend for reducing our carbon footprint? 

 

Why would "the climate scientists" be involved in these recommendations anyway? Clearly it is not their area of expertise. 

 

Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific. As such they are generated by politicians, not scientists. 

 

Making natural gas stoves illegal while continuing to build coal-fired generators makes little sense to me. 

"Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific."

 

The policy makers get their information from the scientists before drawing up polices so that when they are enacted they are fact based.

 

Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf

 

Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

Edited March 28, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[Yellowtail]

37 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

"Policys for reducing our carbon output are political, not scientific."

 

The policy makers get their information from the scientists before drawing up polices so that when they are enacted they are fact based.

 

Mitigation of Climate Change Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SPM.pdf

 

Summary for Policymakers

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

Is the IPCC not a political organization. In any event, this seems to be (as one would expect) just a report on the status and current projections related to climate change. 

 

From the report you linked to, it Looks like we've made a lot of progress so far: 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Is the IPCC not a political organization. In any event, this seems to be (as one would expect) just a report on the status and current projections related to climate change. 

 

From the report you linked to, it Looks like we've made a lot of progress so far: 

 

 

The IPCC reports are compiled by scientists in the main. But don't let that stop your deflection on policy makers receiving their facts from them