Accelerating melt of ice sheets now 'unmistakable'

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

In any event, would those millions compare to the billions spent by the green industry to play global warming up? 

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

[candide]

10 minutes ago, Purdey said:

It's funny you should ask if anything supports my claim, but yes. There is quite a lot of evidence. I don't suppose you have read this lot. I don't suppose you will be bothered to read the sources. 

https://www.statista.com/chart/17467/annual-expenditure-on-climate-lobbying-by-oil-and-gas-companies/

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/07/energy/big-oil-green-claims-report-climate-intl/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/?sh=321c56df7c4f

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report

https://theconversation.com/big-oils-trade-group-allies-outspent-clean-energy-groups-by-a-whopping-27x-with-billions-in-ads-and-lobbying-to-keep-fossil-fuels-flowing-198286

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/oil-companies-blocking-climate-change-policy-measures.php

https://www.carbonbrief.org/oil-majors-not-walking-the-talk-on-climate-action-study-confirms/

Plus don't forget that what you call "the green industry" is tiny in comparison. 

Money well spent by the big oil swamp!

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/republican-energy-bill-passes-us-house-sends-senate-2023-03-30/

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-republicans-target-esg-investments-latest-culture-war-salvo-2023-02-28/

 

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Of course not.

 

Then do it as the rules require and you were just asked.

I believe that yellowtail will return to post a link to a valid and credble source to establish his claim that big green has spent billions on playing up global warming. I also believe that Jesus will return any day now.

[ozimoron]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I believe that yellowtail will return to post a link to a valid and credble source to establish his claim that big green has spent billions on playing up global warming. I also believe that Jesus will return any day now.

No rational person believes that the marxist left wing greenies ante up billions to fund fake science so that politicians round the world can exert population control because that's the secret ambition of all left wing politicians. If one accepts that as true then the only remaining motive is to troll which is the precise reason that posters are required by the rules to support claims of fact, in order to preserve civility and order. Debating on this board is a waste of time unless such rules are enforced.

[nauseus]

45 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Oil And Gas Giants Spend Millions Lobbying To Block Climate Change Policies [Infographic]

Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy. This has caused problems for governments seeking to implement policies in the wake of the Paris Agreement which are vital in meeting climate change targets. Companies are generally reluctant to disclose such lobbying expenditure and late last week, a report from InfluenceMap used a methodology focusing on the best available records along with intensive research of corporate messaging to gauge their level of influence on initiatives to halt climate change. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/?sh=12379be7c4fb

 

How the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02582-8

 

As you'll not this graph terminates in 2015. So if you add on the $200 million per year for subsequent years that's almost 5 billion dollars.

The graph title says 'promotional spending' - it does not say spending to control the climate change conversation. After 2015, oil prices and revenues dropped like stones, so your 200 million/year after that is just plain guesswork.

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The graph title says 'promotional spending' - it does not say spending to control the climate change conversation. After 2015, oil prices and revenues dropped like stones, so your 200 million/year after that is just plain guesswork.

"From the same article: Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of environmental sociology at Brown University who co-authored the research tallying oil spending on ads, said the findings are just the tip of the iceberg. Brulle has previously found that more than $2bn was spent lobbying Congress on climate legislation between 2000 and 2016"

 

As for "your 200 million.year...is just plain guesswork.". It's not mine. It comes from another piece of research that I linked to.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

"From the same article: Robert Brulle, a visiting professor of environmental sociology at Brown University who co-authored the research tallying oil spending on ads, said the findings are just the tip of the iceberg. Brulle has previously found that more than $2bn was spent lobbying Congress on climate legislation between 2000 and 2016"

 

As for "your 200 million.year...is just plain guesswork.". It's not mine. It comes from another piece of research that I linked to.

Lobbying is lobbying. Ads are ads.

 

Your link, your post, your 200M.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

The graph title says 'promotional spending' - it does not say spending to control the climate change conversation. After 2015, oil prices and revenues dropped like stones, so your 200 million/year after that is just plain guesswork.

Their research is behind a pay wall. But I found this article from Brown University featuring an interview with the lead author:

 

“All corporations rely on advertising to burnish their brands and minimize damage to their reputation,” Brulle said. “But this analysis, combined with previous research, demonstrates that ad campaigns in the oil and gas sector are specifically intended to influence how the public and lawmakers think about the climate crisis and whether they act to address it. It shows that the rise and fall of spending levels is directly related to whether or not climate legislation is being considered.”

https://www.brown.edu/news/2019-12-17/advertising

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

The graph title says 'promotional spending' - it does not say spending to control the climate change conversation. After 2015, oil prices and revenues dropped like stones, so your 200 million/year after that is just plain guesswork.

Here's a quote from a more extensive article about the research

"Consider the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, when BP’s oil rig exploded, filling the Gulf of Mexico with nearly 5 billion gallons of oil. Unsurprisingly, the news coverage was not exactly favorable. BP’s spending on promotions ads jumped from just $10,000 the year before the spill to a whopping $168 million in 2010, adjusted for inflation."

https://grist.org/energy/big-oil-spent-3-6-billion-on-climate-ads-and-its-working/

 

[onthedarkside]

Virus conspiracy and off topic post removed

[richard_smith237]

23 hours ago, placeholder said:

I took your advice

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

No... you didn't take my advice...   You have found a different plot which fits your agenda and posted it. 

 

Here... Atmospheric CO2 plotted against Agricultural output (two separate plots overlaid - plots taken from someone elses work).

 

 

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

No... you didn't take my advice...   You have found a different plot which fits your agenda and posted it. 

 

Here... Atmospheric CO2 plotted against Agricultural output (two separate plots overlaid - plots taken from someone elses work).

 

 

 

Different from what?. If you've got evidence, why didn't you post it in the first place?  Of course, part of posting evidence is including a link. Without context, a graph like the one you posted doesn't amount to much in the way of evidence.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

No... you didn't take my advice...   You have found a different plot which fits your agenda and posted it. 

 

Here... Atmospheric CO2 plotted against Agricultural output (two separate plots overlaid - plots taken from someone elses work).

 

 

 

Anyway, as it stands now, all this graph shows is a correlation between increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the level of worldwide agricultural output. It doesn't address in any way the percentages that different activities contribute.

If you go to the ourworldindata.org website, the same place you found the graph above, and look for how much the entire worldwide food industry contributes in the way of greenhouse gas emissions, the total comes to 26%, But that's not limited to agriculture, but includes all the post farm processing as well.

 

Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions

When it comes to tackling climate change, the focus tends to be on ‘clean energy’ solutions – the deployment of renewable or nuclear energy; improvements in energy efficiency; or transition to low-carbon transport. Indeed, energy, whether in the form of electricity, heat, transport or industrial processes, account for the majority – 76% – of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1
But the global food system, which encompasses production, and post-farm process such as processing, and distribution is also a key contributor to emissions. And it’s a problem for which we don’t yet have viable technological solutions.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

 

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Different from what?. If you've got evidence, why didn't you post it in the first place?  Of course, part of posting evidence is including a link. Without context, a graph like the one you posted doesn't amount to much in the way of evidence.

The source is presented...

1) Scripps institution of Cceanography

2) Our World in Data. 

 

Both legitimate sources of information. But I don't have the source data other than to show someone else's work who overlay the two graphs that highlight that there is a direct and unmistakable correlation between increasing agriculture and increasing atmospheric CO2. 

 

I'm simply presenting a very specific piece of information which is often overlooked / deliberately ignored in the 'argument against oil'...   Our 'consumption' is also a major facet. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Anyway, as it stands now, all this graph shows is a correlation between increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the level of worldwide agricultural output. It doesn't address in any way the percentages that different activities contribute.

If you go to the ourworldindata.org website, the same place you found the graph above, and look for how much the entire worldwide food industry contributes in the way of greenhouse gas emissions, the total comes to 26%, But that's not limited to agriculture, but includes all the post farm processing as well.

 

Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions

When it comes to tackling climate change, the focus tends to be on ‘clean energy’ solutions – the deployment of renewable or nuclear energy; improvements in energy efficiency; or transition to low-carbon transport. Indeed, energy, whether in the form of electricity, heat, transport or industrial processes, account for the majority – 76% – of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1
But the global food system, which encompasses production, and post-farm process such as processing, and distribution is also a key contributor to emissions. And it’s a problem for which we don’t yet have viable technological solutions.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions

 

There....   as above....  We obviously need food as much as we need energy.

 

The argument has become distorted to the point of 'Oil Bad' nothing is is a concern - We need to understand the who range of issues impacting our environment from our own individual behavior to the personal consumption of resources.

 

Theoretically we could get rid of oil completely if we are meeting energy demand alone. 

The world could be powered by a single solar farm in the Saraha.... But the practicalities of that enter the reams of impossibility with regards to distribution and sourcing of the resources to transport that energy globaly....   And then, how do you transport products and food. 

 

IMO - Oil is here to stay, we need to keep working on making in more efficient and and finding better ways of consuming the atmospheric CO2...  .... Anyone discussed deforestation in this thread yet ?

 

Plants consumption of CO2 is a major factor... If we can ensure our Agricultural operations are 'CO2' negative, thats a start. 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There....   as above....  We obviously need food as much as we need energy.

 

The argument has become distorted to the point of 'Oil Bad' nothing is is a concern - We need to understand the who range of issues impacting our environment from our own individual behavior to the personal consumption of resources.

 

Theoretically we could get rid of oil completely if we are meeting energy demand alone. 

The world could be powered by a single solar farm in the Saraha.... But the practicalities of that enter the reams of impossibility with regards to distribution and sourcing of the resources to transport that energy globaly....   And then, how do you transport products and food. 

 

IMO - Oil is here to stay, we need to keep working on making in more efficient and and finding better ways of consuming the atmospheric CO2...  .... Anyone discussed deforestation in this thread yet ?

 

Plants consumption of CO2 is a major factor... If we can ensure our Agricultural operations are 'CO2' negative, thats a start. 

 

 

 

Nobody ever argued for getting rid of fossil fuels completely. The argument is that we need to stop burning fossil fuels for transport and the production of energy. There are plenty of other uses for oil which will continue.

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The source is presented...

1) Scripps institution of Cceanography

2) Our World in Data. 

 

Both legitimate sources of information. But I don't have the source data other than to show someone else's work who overlay the two graphs that highlight that there is a direct and unmistakable correlation between increasing agriculture and increasing atmospheric CO2. 

 

I'm simply presenting a very specific piece of information which is often overlooked / deliberately ignored in the 'argument against oil'...   Our 'consumption' is also a major facet. 

 

 

Since that correlation shows nothing about the percentages involved, it's not useful at all in establish how much greenhouse gas agriculture generates. And who is ignoring it? There's plenty of news out there about how agriculture contributes to greenhouse emissions, particularly in the case of beef cattle and animal husbandry generally. As for "Our 'consumption' is also a major facet." what does that mean? "Our consumption" pretty much accounts for all of the increase in greenhouse gases one way or another.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Since that correlation shows nothing about the percentages involved, it's not useful at all in establish how much greenhouse gas agriculture generates. And who is ignoring it? There's plenty of news out there about how agriculture contributes to greenhouse emissions, particularly in the case of beef cattle and animal husbandry generally. As for "Our 'consumption' is also a major facet." what does that mean? "Our consumption" pretty much accounts for all of the increase in greenhouse gases one way or another.

The correlation shows a clear correlation - thats it... Raw data is also out there if you want to search for it - I don't. 

I agree with you regarding 'our consumption'...   I think the common argument is that Oil is the Enemy...  But, it is actually the convenience 'we demand' which is the enemy IMO. 

 

There is also the additional point that as population has increased, as has atmospheric CO2... theres the link to consumption, more of us consuming more - not just energy, but food, and consuming more energy in the production and preservation of food. 

 

More than oil as a direct source of contribution to atmospheric CO2, it is us 'ourselves' and our habits which contribute so much to Atmospheric CO2.

 

Using resources of high-place value to ship across the world to make materials to ship across to another continent etc..   these 'habits' are far worse than driving our car to work every day...   

 

The 'targeting' priorities are wrong IMO - Its not Oil that is the issue so much as the business which use extremely energy inefficient process to meet our demand for cheaper tech. 

 

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There....   as above....  We obviously need food as much as we need energy.

 

The argument has become distorted to the point of 'Oil Bad' nothing is is a concern - We need to understand the who range of issues impacting our environment from our own individual behavior to the personal consumption of resources.

 

Theoretically we could get rid of oil completely if we are meeting energy demand alone. 

The world could be powered by a single solar farm in the Saraha.... But the practicalities of that enter the reams of impossibility with regards to distribution and sourcing of the resources to transport that energy globaly....   And then, how do you transport products and food. 

 

IMO - Oil is here to stay, we need to keep working on making in more efficient and and finding better ways of consuming the atmospheric CO2...  .... Anyone discussed deforestation in this thread yet ?

 

Plants consumption of CO2 is a major factor... If we can ensure our Agricultural operations are 'CO2' negative, thats a start. 

 

 

 

Are you claiming that renewable power can only be generated in the Sahara and has to be transported elsewhere? 

 

[Atlantis]

No, he clearly isn't.

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, Atlantis said:

No, he clearly isn't.

It may be clear to you, but can you explain why Richard Smith237  even raised the issue of transporting energy from the Sahara? Is there something special about the Sahara that negates the viability of locally produced renewable energy? And actually, via huge solar energy projects based on the edge of the Sahara, Morocco is already sending power to Spain. And there are plans to send a lot more.

[Yellowtail]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

It may be clear to you, but can you explain why Richard Smith237  even raised the issue of transporting energy from the Sahara? Is there something special about the Sahara that negates the viability of locally produced renewable energy? And actually, via huge solar energy projects based on the edge of the Sahara, Morocco is already sending power to Spain. And there are plans to send a lot more.

Yes, ideally we can cover the Earth with solar panels, and develop the grid such that solar energy can be harvested 24 hours a day. Panels at noon in California can provide power in China at midnight. 

[placeholder]

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, ideally we can cover the Earth with solar panels, and develop the grid such that solar energy can be harvested 24 hours a day. Panels at noon in California can provide power in China at midnight. 

If only there were ways to store power created by solar and wind.

[Eleftheros]

On 4/21/2023 at 1:13 AM, ozimoron said:

I'm not sure how fighting climate change does anything except cost money.

Quite right.  Fighting climate change does nothing except cost money.

 

And the people who pay that price are the poor, through higher electricity/energy prices, more expensive food, and restrictive regulations on energy consumption.