The Fossil Fuel Industry Knew About Climate Change Since 1954 (theguardian.com) 266
The Guardian reports:
The fossil fuel industry funded some of the world's most foundational climate science as early as 1954, newly unearthed documents have shown, including the early research of Charles Keeling, famous for the so-called "Keeling curve" that has charted the upward march of the Earth's carbon dioxide levels. A coalition of oil and car manufacturing interests provided $13,814 (about $158,000 in today's money) in December 1954 to fund Keeling's earliest work in measuring CO2 levels across the western US, the documents reveal...
Experts say the documents show the fossil fuel industry had intimate involvement in the inception of modern climate science, along with its warnings of the severe harm climate change will wreak, only to then publicly deny this science for decades and fund ongoing efforts to delay action on the climate crisis. "They contain smoking gun proof that by at least 1954, the fossil fuel industry was on notice about the potential for its products to disrupt Earth's climate on a scale significant to human civilization," said Geoffrey Supran, an expert in historic climate disinformation at the University of Miami. "These findings are a startling confirmation that big oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years — for twice my lifetime — and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day. They make a mockery of the oil industry's denial of basic climate science decades later...."
The oil and gas industry was initially concerned with research related to smog and other direct air pollutants before branching out into related climate change impacts, according to Carroll Muffett, chief executive of the Center for International Environmental Law. "You just come back to the oil and gas industry again and again, they were omnipresent in this space," he said. "The industry was not just on notice but deeply aware of the potential climate implications of its products for going on 70 years." Muffett said the documents add further impetus to efforts in various jurisdictions to hold oil and gas firms legally liable for the damages caused by the climate crisis.
"These documents talk about CO2 emissions having planetary implications, meaning this industry understood extraordinarily early on that fossil fuel combustion was profound on a planetary scale," he said. "There is overwhelming evidence the oil and gas industry has been misleading the public and regulators around the climate risks of their product for 70 years."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader smooth wombat for sharing the article.
Experts say the documents show the fossil fuel industry had intimate involvement in the inception of modern climate science, along with its warnings of the severe harm climate change will wreak, only to then publicly deny this science for decades and fund ongoing efforts to delay action on the climate crisis. "They contain smoking gun proof that by at least 1954, the fossil fuel industry was on notice about the potential for its products to disrupt Earth's climate on a scale significant to human civilization," said Geoffrey Supran, an expert in historic climate disinformation at the University of Miami. "These findings are a startling confirmation that big oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years — for twice my lifetime — and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day. They make a mockery of the oil industry's denial of basic climate science decades later...."
The oil and gas industry was initially concerned with research related to smog and other direct air pollutants before branching out into related climate change impacts, according to Carroll Muffett, chief executive of the Center for International Environmental Law. "You just come back to the oil and gas industry again and again, they were omnipresent in this space," he said. "The industry was not just on notice but deeply aware of the potential climate implications of its products for going on 70 years." Muffett said the documents add further impetus to efforts in various jurisdictions to hold oil and gas firms legally liable for the damages caused by the climate crisis.
"These documents talk about CO2 emissions having planetary implications, meaning this industry understood extraordinarily early on that fossil fuel combustion was profound on a planetary scale," he said. "There is overwhelming evidence the oil and gas industry has been misleading the public and regulators around the climate risks of their product for 70 years."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader smooth wombat for sharing the article.
It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, the industry that's the main culprit for the problem had known it all along, again, the research was buried in the name of profit. Only that this time it's not just gonna be some of their users that die from it, and the effects are gonna be lasting long, long after we've finally decided to do something about the problem.
So we'll spend the next couple years fighting an uphill battle with lots of smear campaigns, billions of dollars poured into fake research to "prove" it ain't so and ads, sorry, articles in newspapers telling us about them, astroturfing on various online media to call the whole deal into question until, eventually, it cannot be denied anymore.
I'm really glad I only need this planet for another 30 years or so.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over again (Score:4, Interesting)
None. Consumers are not in a position to change policy or market behaviour. Billionaires and their lobby groups and advertising machines need to stop being allowed to pull the "it's consumers' fault for wanting what we're selling" line.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers have all the power, just turn off all the lights, stop going to work, and just go back to the Dark Ages.
Of course, we can't do that because it's absurd and impractical. And the same logic should apply to the power companies.
Re: It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over agai (Score:5, Insightful)
Addressing AGW will require large scale, coordinated, governmental and action at the civilization level. Anything smaller will be like throwing a bucket of water onto a 5 alarm fire.
Re: (Score:3)
Individual actions can account for ~40% of the needed CO2 emissions reduction. Saying it's like throwing a bucket of water onto a 5 alarm fire is just you (and others with the same argument) looking for excuses not to do anything at your individual level.
Re: (Score:3)
In theory, they do. In practice, not really, no.
You overestimate regular people's activism and severely underestimate consumer inertia. People generally go get/buy/use what's more advantageous right now, rather than consider the big picture. Subtle, far-removed factors are never taken into consideration.
Here's a simple example. Average Joe wants a product. He can hop in his car and go get it from the nearest Target, 30 minutes away, for $50, or he could order from Amazon and have it in two days for $45, or
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, they do. In practice, not really, no.
There's no scientific theory of market choice, so I think you really mean "hypothetically, they do."
And my response is when hypothetical pigs fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sociology has been around for centuries, mate.
Re: (Score:3)
Horseshit. The consumers have ALL the power to change market behavior. Don't like the emissions that come out of your car polluting the air? Then walk to work. Consumers have that choice, and have always had it (unless they literally can't walk...) It turns out, people don't WANT to walk to work, and so have CHOSEN to continue to pollute.
Meh - your hypothetical powerful consumers apparently have degrees in physics, and complete knowledge of the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere based upon the individual gaseous and often aerosol constituents.
Like it or not, many to most people just parrot what they are told, and also have a marked tendency towards complacency, desire for comfort and inertia.
Not many wish to return to the living conditions and population of the mid 1700's - which would solve this problem - a few thousa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The consumers have ALL the power to change market behavior.
You must be one of those people who doesn't believe marketing works.
In your world of perfectly rational people, why are marketers paid so much?
Re: It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Horseshit. The consumers have ALL the power to change market behavior. Don't like the emissions that come out of your car polluting the air? Then walk to work. Consumers have that choice, and have always had it (unless they literally can't walk...) It turns out, people don't WANT to walk to work, and so have CHOSEN to continue to pollute.
It is so, SO much more complex than your simplistic rant acknowledges. For one thing, North American "consumers" aren't responsible for the urban / suburban dichotomy which pretty much forces people to have cars, especially given that mass transit in suburbs is almost non-existent, and what little there is doesn't move fast enough frequently enough. Blame urban planners, including corrupt fuckwits like Robert Moses, for that state of affairs.
Then there's the propaganda that subtly and persuasively 'helps' people conform to corporate agendas, via mechanisms ranging from advertising through the products which are - and aren't - available on store shelves. Don't believe that's the case? Look no farther than your own comment that "consumers have that choice"; it could have been authored by a corporate PR department, or spoken from the witness stand at a tobacco industry hearing, yet you wrote it fluidly and reflexively and you defend it as your own. Remember, corporations don't want us thinking for ourselves - they only want us to believe that we're thinking for ourselves.
Then, of course, there's the HUGE portion of AGW that's caused by factory farming, forest and rainforest destruction, consumption of petroleum for plastics and other manufacturing, concrete manufacture, etc. Simply put, modern society as a whole is bad for the planet. People walking more isn't going to fix that; torches and pitchforks might.
We all could lead simpler, much more sustainable lifestyles. But it's nearly impossible to do that while simultaneously remaining members of a top-heavy society and culture; and being an outcast has serious consequences, ranging from mental health problems to outright death. So the solution is far, far more involved and far reaching than people choosing to walk more.
Hydrogen and Biofuels [Re: It's cigarettes and...] (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an argument you're too arrogant to accept because you know it's true. BEVs existed in the 20s. They were completely replaced by the gasoline and diesel powered vehicles because they work better.
Minor correction, battery electric vehicles were replaced by gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles because they worked better than the battery and motor technology of a hundred years ago.
Batteries and motors have both gotten a lot better.
A hydrogen ICE or a fuel cell offers the same benefits as a gasoline or diesel powered engine
This has been discussed to death on /. Quick summary, hydrogen has interesting advantages, but right now hydrogen storage is a real bitch, and until you solve hydrogen storage, it simply isn't practical at the vehicle level.
without the need to sit at a recharging point over and over making road trips take much longer.
Really, for humans with bladders and the requirement for food and occasional breaks, charging speed is not seriously a problem. Most people don't do the cannonball run.
Ethanol can do it as well in an ICE, many cars already support it and Brazil has proven it to be quite workable. I ran a truck strictly on ethanol for years in the US and it worked quite well as well. Though I had to refill slightly more often, I got a noticeable power boost and an exhaust that smelled like moonshine. Corn-based ethanol isn't a good solution as it can't be made to have a low carbon footprint, but there are a lot of plants that either show promise or can already achieve that feat, such as sugarcane and sugar beets. Biofuels can actually be a fuel that can, done properly, be net carbon negative.
Yes, an interesting approach, one that had a lot of work twenty or thirty years back that seems to have disappeared. You're right, corn is not the right source.
I wish there were advocates for methanol. Yes, it has problems, but it's an easier biofuel to make (not called "wood alcohol" for nothing.)
Suddenly you'll find yourself criticizing people because they don't drive cars with V12 engines.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This feels a lot like victim blaming.
Got cancer from a lifetime of tobacco smoking? That's your fault. Never mind that the tobacco industry advertised it, often outright lying about the health benefits, while simultaneously covering up the harm they knew full well it caused and fighting legislation to curtail its use.
Relative died of silicosis? That's their fault. Never mind that the mine owners assured everyone there was no danger despite knowing otherwise, and refused to provide safety equipment or take a
Re: (Score:2)
In a similar way, I have long held that we can do away with regulations such as EPA and OSHA just as soon as we do away with limited liability, and executives become personally liable for the actions of their companies.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And food. Without petrochemicals we would be starving.
I'm not a big fan of drowning in rising seas in a few decades and all that but better that than food riots tomorrow as billions starve.
Tech [Re:It's cigarettes and lung cancer all...] (Score:2, Insightful)
Main culprit? Go ahead and get rid of everything that you have that relies on fossil fuels to work. Modern civilization exists today because of fossil fuels, but too many people like you forget that as you use fossil fuels to get from point a to point b, to power your technology, and manufacture everything you use including the computer/iPhone/iWatch/etc. you're using to type right now.
Have you noticed that pretty much all of the proposals to deal with global warming suggest improving technology to reduce fossil fuel use, not abandoning technology? No?
And food. Without petrochemicals we would be starving. I'm not a big fan of drowning in rising seas in a few decades and all that but better that than food riots tomorrow as billions starve.
Rising sea level is indeed a consequence of global warming, but people forget to mention how very slow this is. The median prediction is about a meter of sea level rise a century from now [www.ipcc.ch], not "in a few decades."
So, you can relax a little on that one.
But we're also not about to delete all modern agriculture either. Petrochemical-produced fer
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if it's 50 years or a hundred if we're talking about global warming time scales, where no serious predictions say anything particularly auto-genociding will occur for at least a hundred years. However, there is a loud group of anti-petro folks running around right now arguing for ending all oil use right now who are having a significant and visible impact on economic and environmental policies around the world.
My mention of food was not because petro food use is large or small co2 but bec
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"arguing for ending all oil use right now"
No such thing. People are arguing for phasing out fossil fuels as fast as realistically possible, which actually would be pretty quick.
"If we had a reasonable replacement for oil across society which didn't leave us all starving or with a dramatically lesser lifestyle"
Which we do, and its called "electrification". A number of countries have moved quite far in that direction and they aren't starving or living in shacks.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes they are and no we don't.
Critical industries that can not be electrified anytime soon: shipping, flight, farming, military, plastics, medicine. That's just off the top of my head.
You're one of those unrealistic people I'm talking about who has no idea how our society is built or what is depends on to continue.
How is electricity going to replace the petro currently used in those fields? It can't.
Not all or nothing [Re:Tech [Re:It's cigarett...]] (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they are and no we don't. Critical industries that can not be electrified anytime soon: shipping, flight, farming, military, plastics, medicine. That's just off the top of my head. You're one of those unrealistic people I'm talking about who has no idea how our society is built or what is depends on to continue. How is electricity going to replace the petro currently used in those fields? It can't.
So, your argument here summarizes down to "if we can't solve every use of energy in every application with technology we have right now, it's not worth addressing any of the problem."
It's not all or nothing. We address now those parts of the problem that we can solve now, and continue developing technology so we can address later the parts of the problem that we can solve later.
You're by no means the only one: this all-or-nothing thinking is an argument you see all the time on /. If electric cars aren't the
Re: (Score:3)
That was indeed your argument.
A list of industries that in your amateur opinion can't be electrified soon had no relevance. OK, so what? If we can't eliminate oil in these industries, fine, these are not part of the realistic phasing out, which the post you were replying to had proposed.
Phasing out as fast as realistically possible. Not all or nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't matter if it's 50 years or a hundred if we're talking about global warming time scales, where no serious predictions say anything particularly auto-genociding will occur for at least a hundred years.
I think it does matter. Climate change is a real thing, and the current changes are caused by human actions, but it is not an "OMG we're all going to die now" thing, it's a long term problem. Too many people do the "OMG" thing, and it's not helpful. It leads to people saying, in essence, "X solution won't help because it will take years to put in place and we need to solve the problem NOW." And it also leads to other people saying "they were saying the ice caps would melt by the year 2000 and we were all go
Re: (Score:2)
I was adding on to the guy I was replying to who was replying to OP.
Please go back and look at the thread flow.
Re: (Score:2)
You are replying to strawman arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
the current changes are caused in part by human actions
FTFY. The earth's climate is not stable in the first place. It's on a 30,000 year cycle when we consider slow shifts in the orbit, the overall rotation of the tilt, etc. To get a statistically accurate sample set of the earth's climate (30), you need to look at 900,000 years of data. Even then, biology and continental drift has a significant effect, so even with that you don't have a great sample set.
Time [Re:Tech [Re:It's cigarettes and lung ca...]] (Score:2, Insightful)
the current changes are caused in part by human actions
FTFY. The earth's climate is not stable in the first place.
Good god, the Earth's climate is amazingly stable. "Unstable" means positive feedback, which goes to exponential changes, but the Earth's surface temperature has been between 10 and 35 C (above the freezing point of water and well below runaway greenhouse effect) for nearly four billion years.
It's on a 30,000 year cycle when we consider slow shifts in the orbit, the overall rotation of the tilt, etc.
Yes, Milankovitch variations. But they're more on a 100,000 year time scale, not really as short as 30,000.
To get a statistically accurate sample set of the earth's climate (30), you need to look at 900,000 years of data. Even then, biology and continental drift has a significant effect, so even with that you don't have a great sample set.
And of course that's exactly what paleoclimatologists do. Pretty much all of modern climate science stems origi
Re:Tech [Re:It's cigarettes and lung cancer all... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you noticed that pretty much all of the proposals to deal with global warming suggest improving technology to reduce fossil fuel use, not abandoning technology? No?
Reverting back to powering industry and transportation by wind, solar, and hydro isn't improving technology. We tried that before. I read some history books, that wasn't exactly a great time for human civilization.
Long ago we were using wind, water, biomass, and beasts of burden to power everything. Then people discovered coal, and that likely saved Europe from deforestation since they were cutting down so many trees for heat, lumber, and forging iron. Kerosene saved the whales. Gasoline saved us from using corn to make ethanol for automobiles. Nuclear fission and natural gas saved the petroleum. What's the plan now? Apparently going back to burning plants, wind, hydro, and likely beasts of burden.
How about we go back to nuclear fission than roll back the clock on centuries of the development of energy production? That would do plenty to save the trees, whales, and our own lives.
Re:Tech [Re:It's cigarettes and lung cancer all... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shame that renewable technology has not improved in the last 300 years. Wouldn't that make you look foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
He's making a strawman argument.
It doesn't actually make any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that right wingers stop taking well before they start thinking, and left wingers stop thinking well before they stop talking.
Somebody smart can reword that after I'm dead. Actually, someone probably already said it before I thought of it!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not extolling the virtues of solar panels.
Re: (Score:2)
> pretty much all of the proposals to deal with global warming suggest improving technology
All the rational ones, absolutely, but the most popular ones are only tax-based and giving that tax money to friends of politicians which is tantamount to lighting 98% of it on fire.
As always, we need excess wealth to create prosperity and investment which can be selfishly/efficiently coordinated into investment with a RoI , which means working products from sustainable companies.
I've dropped several grand lately o
Tax & tech [Re:Tech [Re:It's cigarettes and l. (Score:2)
> pretty much all of the proposals to deal with global warming suggest improving technology
All the rational ones, absolutely, but the most popular ones are only tax-based
Subsidies for research on energy technology and subsidies of energy tech is such a trivially small segment of taxes that really if you're seriously worried about taxes, this is not what you should spend your time on.
But it's a great rallying cry against almost anything you can think of. "It's our tax money! They want to raise our taxes!"
and giving that tax money to friends of politicians which is tantamount to lighting 98% of it on fire.
Citation needed. I'm not sure if any subsidies to solar or wind goes to friends of politicians.
Were you thinking of subsidies to oil companies and defense contractors, who d
Re: (Score:2)
Have you noticed that pretty much all of the proposals to deal with global warming suggest improving technology to reduce fossil fuel use, not abandoning technology? No?
Yes, improving technology is quite a preferable alternative to return to the 16th century. It's a daunting task though. Petrochemicals are in a sweet spot of energy density and so many other uses.
So yes there are alternatives, but oil is used for so many, because it is so versatile.
Rising sea level is indeed a consequence of global warming, but people forget to mention how very slow this is. The median prediction is about a meter of sea level rise a century from now [www.ipcc.ch], not "in a few decades."
So, you can relax a little on that one.
A little relaxation - but not much. A lot depends on where you live. Some places near the shorelines have elevations measured in a few centimeters.
But we're also not about to delete all modern agriculture either. Petrochemical-produced fertilizers account for maybe five percent [cam.ac.uk] of carbon dioxide; this is not one of the first things to deal with. If there are going to be food riots as billions starve, the more likely problem is crop failures due to climate change. This could happen much sooner than major sea level rise.
Somewhere in the past, I posted a scenario where a huge crop failure in the
Re: (Score:2)
And food. Without petrochemicals we would be starving.
I'm not a big fan of drowning in rising seas in a few decades and all that but better that than food riots tomorrow as billions starve.
Yes, people are correct that the world maintains its 8 Billion (and growing) people on the back of petreochemicals.
And if that doesn't cause a pucker string moment of existential dread as to what is going to happen in the not too distant future, nothing will.
Altogether too many people believe that because Malthus was wrong once, his insight will always be wrong. Because that's a calculation that ends up with several infinities of both provisioning population, and resources to sustain life.
Re:It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over again (Score:4, Interesting)
It is widely acknowledged that we must use modern technology to get us out of the fix we put ourselves into. Stitching up a strawman that relatively few people believe (i.e., we must go back to the sticks) is just another Fox mumbling point.
Re:It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Don't you think that if we had this kind of information 70 years ago, we may have made some different choices as a society before half of the crap you talk about even existed? Don't you think that the pace of adoption of renewable generation sources may have been a little more rapid if we saw the danger 70 years ago and had another 70 years to do something about it?
So you're saying that we should just give a pass to an industry that knew they were damaging the ecosystem far worse than the "direct" pollution using their product makes, and then fought tooth-and-nail against every single measure ever taken to reduce fossil fuel use, reduce that pollution, or increase fuel efficiency.
It's one thing to produce a product that is known to have harmful effects. It's quite another to deny the harmful effects, hide the harmful effects, and then fight every single regulation meant to reduce or eliminate those harmful effects all the while knowing what effect you are having, and what that means to the existence of human life.
Re: (Score:2)
> Don't you think that if we had this kind of information 70 years ago, we may have made some different choices
No, humans aren't built like that.
Nixon made a deal to create the EPA *and* build 1000 nuclear reactors to obviate the need for crackdown regulation.
Then they forced him to resign, while the most popular President in history, on minor pretexts (less than most in that job have done) and immediately scuttled the reactor plan.
Nobody complained. They want cheap food and heat without investment and
Re: (Score:2)
If he actually made a deal then we would have more reactors but he made a speech, maybe he advocated for it but order that created the EPA had no nuclear provision in it and obviously there was no deal made with Congress so either he didn't care all that much or there wasn't the political will to do it. Using weasel words like "they" doesn't make the case any stronger. Was there a House or Senate bill for those 1000 reactors?
Also who is "they" besides all of Congress, even Republicans eventually had to tu
Re: (Score:2)
>Right. Don't you think that if we had this kind of information 70 years ago, we may have made some different choices as a society before half of the crap you talk about even existed?
In the early 19th century, scientists were investigating CO2 as a greenhouse gas whose low levels might have been a cause of past ice ages.
Around 1900, Svante Arrhenius had already done the math to show that increased emissions from industrial activity could bring global warming.
By 1938, G.S. Callendar had discovered it was
Re: (Score:2)
We've known all along, nobody cared.
No, "We" have not known it. Most of the population didn't know, nor were they supposed to care.
That falls squarely on legislators' shoulders, the main problem is the issue being global.
If the whole of USA and the EU would stop all fossil fuel usage tomorrow, they won't achieve anything, because there's 7 more billion people out there, in countries that don't give a shit.
Re: It's cigarettes and lung cancer all over again (Score:2)
It is not an all or nothing proposition. If the data about the effects of fossil fuel use were known by the general public we might have made choices to reduce their use.
Imagine how different the world would be today if an effort was made in the 50'sor 60's to improve automobile efficiency. OPEC might not have been in such a strong position. The western governments and corporations that had to bend to the will of middle eastern powers. The 70's oil crisis would not have been so severe if it even happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the money and effort that has gone into fossil fuels. Finding them, extracting them, going to war to protect them, all the costly damage they have done.
Throw a fraction of that at battery development in the 60s. A moonshot for battery tech and renewable energy.
We would be in a much better position than we are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, it's going to be expen
Re: (Score:2)
We're all responsible. Unless your a indigenous person living in the jungles of New Guinea, India or the Amazon at a neolithic level of technology, you have contributed to.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The ones who are responsible are the ones using the fossil fuels.
The real issue here is that the climate change wackos thing it will be *ever so slightly* easier to blame the people to pull the fuels out of the ground, rather than the people (which is literally everyone everyone in the modern world) who actually USE the fuels and, you know, ACTUALLY POLLUTE.
Good luck telling people they can't drive their kids to school any more in their Hummer; they have to use a horse. Yes, good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
The ones who are responsible are the ones using the fossil fuels.
Sure, let's blame the consumers who were given no practical alternatives, and not the billionaire petro-CEOs who spent decades and hundreds of millions pushing lies to keep it that way. They fully understood that this would cause massive future costs and suffering, but who the fuck cares so long as shareholders are pacified and they get that bonus for their new yacht.
they have to use a horse
Good lord.
Hell the public would have known in 1958 (Score:2)
Bell Telephone made a film in 1958 called The Unchained Goddess and probably played on NBC back in the day in which they mention the looming threat of man made global warming/climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I don't buy it (Score:5, Insightful)
Next you'll be telling me scientists knew tobacco causes cancer since the 1940s but the discovery was kept secret because $$$?
Re: (Score:2)
Your doctor disagrees with your sceintist!
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/... [wpmucdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wow, I never knew!
Thank you for that. I'm off to buy a pack of smokes. Why I quit, I'll never know...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. I tried to find a counter-example where son and dad are doing something in the yard while mom and daughter are playing, but no luck.
So here's Ronald sending out Chesterfields to his friends instead: https://imgur.com/9U54c6C [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Current XKCD is relevant (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to post that, am leaving satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's relevant.
Shall we also remember what conclusion Hogbom drew IN THAT VERY PAPER?
As a result of those calculations: "We would then have some right to indulge in the pleasant belief that our descendants, albeit after many generations, might live under a milder sky and in less barren surroundings than is our lot at present."
He certainly didn't curl up in a fetal position under his bed, weeping at the imminent end of civilization.
Climate skeptics (Score:2, Insightful)
The Fossil Fuel Industry Knew About Climate Change Since 1954.
What is genuinely funny about climate scepticism is that people will refuse to believe this, even when confronted by evidence, but will not hesitate to enthusiastically get behind the idea that 5G masts are beaming nano bots into their bodies to turn them into a communist at the behest of the CCP and the grey aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not spread disinformation and FaKe NeWS!
The 5G is indeed beaming, but not NanOBots.
It is Beaming Instructions to Them.
AND!
The NanOBots ENTER your precious BODILY FLUIDS by means of the CoMpuLsoRy vaccine.
See? It all makes sense!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine why anyone would distrust authority these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Blind distrust of authority is just as brain-destroying as blind trust in it
They are both ways to malign views that you don't share without actually addressing anything
Re:Climate skeptics (Score:5, Insightful)
It stems from a lack of trust of in authority.
No. It stems from gullibility and stupidity due to lack of education.
This "lack of trust" is a deliberate operation come up with by Republicans to herd the gullible and stupid. To prove the point, if you "don't trust authority", why are you trusting someone in a position of authority to tell you not to trust authoriites?
And then there are those working with Republicans to fleece the gullible and stupid [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It stems from a lack of trust of in authority.
No. It stems from gullibility and stupidity due to lack of education.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I will agree with OP's point that blind trust in authority is something to be avoided. But taken to the level illustrated by the pic you posted is a whole different ball of crazy. (If we're dipping our toe in the crazy pool, I could be convinced that the whole T-Swift/Kelce thing reeks of being "cooked up". But its not for the reason our "friends" over at Fox think it is, it's just another stunt by the NFL to drive up Super Bowl viewership.)
Re: (Score:2)
(If we're dipping our toe in the crazy pool, I could be convinced that the whole T-Swift/Kelce thing reeks of being "cooked up". But its not for the reason our "friends" over at Fox think it is, it's just another stunt by the NFL to drive up Super Bowl viewership.
And why would you believe that it is "cooked up"? Is the NFL taking advantage of free publicity? Absolutely yes. But to think they somehow rigged it that two famous single people started dating each other is just conspiracy nonsense. I think one NFL analyst Colin Cowherd did his analysis of her broadcast time. The maximum amount of time an NFL broadcast has shown Taylor in a 3+ hour broadcast: 32 seconds. I think I have seen that stupid Aflac duck for more time during a game.
Re: (Score:3)
I think one NFL analyst Colin Cowherd did his analysis of her broadcast time. The maximum amount of time an NFL broadcast has shown Taylor in a 3+ hour broadcast: 32 seconds.
The issue is she's a blonde, blue-eyed, Christian, country (somewhat) singer who wants the younger generations to vote. Republicans don't want more people to vote [youtube.com] because when more people vote, Republicans lose. That's the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I find interesting, in a sort of car crash way, is that suddenly the Denial Crowd has discovered their inner scientist who has no scientific training in any of the relevant field but suspects themselves of being environmental geniuses able to discern it must be a hoax because they themselves refuse to believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find interesting, in a sort of car crash way, is that suddenly the Denial Crowd has discovered their inner scientist who has no scientific training in any of the relevant field but suspects themselves of being environmental geniuses able to discern it must be a hoax because they themselves refuse to believe it.
Not only is it a hoax, this is all being done by the government [cnn.com].
Wellness influencer @truth_crunchy_mama told her 37,000 followers to “stop blaming things on nature that were actually caused by the government.” They’re “going to keep setting wildfires until we all submit to their climate change agenda,” she said in another post.
And another
A natural parenting influencer, whose Instagram page is filled with soft-focus pictures of herself against pretty pastel backgrounds, inferred to her 76,000-strong community that Hawaii’s wildfires were started by “directed energy weapons” — systems which use energy such as laser beams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> people will refuse to believe this, even when confronted by evidence
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Climate skeptics (Score:4, Interesting)
One could always, oh I dunno, actually read the research.
Re: (Score:2)
Rain follows the plow (Score:2)
In the late 19th century, transcontinental railroads promoted the idea of deliberate climate change in order to get farmers to move further west and generate more railroad traffic.
As you go west in the United States, somewhere between the 98th and 100th meridian it becomes to dry to grow crops without irrigation. In aerial photography you see this as modern farms being circles rather than rectangles due to the irrigation frames which rotate around a central point. The idea that the railroads promoted what t
unbalanced (Score:2)
Killed the EV (Score:2)
Human Life Spans (Score:3)
I also understand the the Earth's climate has changed several times over 4.5 billion years, and has even changed during recorded Human history, even before the Industrial Revolution. One day the Earth's climate may even chance to be uninhabitable for humans.
Now, imagine someone who understood the above and also has zero empathy for their fellow humans or caring about the future human race, they could safely ignore any Oil-Industry data that said their work was causing issues to accelerate, because it's not going to affect them personally. One day, golden parachute to a private yacht and spend their last days in a hot tub, drink off expensive champagne.
The above describes a lot of people-in-power who knew about it then, and people-in-power today who knows about it now.
And guess what? They're all gonna do the same press conferences and even throw money publicly into "green initiatives", but they are still waiting for their Gold Parachute time an actually don't give a fuck about you or me, or their own grand children.
I'll care when... (Score:2)
....the 1%ers who are driving this discussion start walking the talk, ie when the Obamas aren't buying multimillion-dollar oceanfront estates and when the environmental summit meetings are held entirely online instead of flying 1000 private jets to some junket-destination and booking out the high end whores for 2 months.
Not one moment before.
To wit: https://unfccc.int/cop28 [unfccc.int]
"The COP28 UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, was the biggest of its kind. Some 85,000 participants, inclu
Re:Guess your dad should have invented fusion then (Score:5, Insightful)
What a dumb suggestion, i.e., I don't like what you say so you must do what I say. The responsible position is to support green technologies and promote STEM fields that we can leverage to get ourselves out of the consequences. If you think you are paying for changes to our energy production now, you wait until it get really warm, then you'll be begging for changes lest your re-fried beans become totally re-fried.
Re:Guess your dad should have invented fusion then (Score:5, Informative)
What a dumb suggestion, i.e., I don't like what you say so you must do what I say.
Um, yeah, look in a mirror.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's a great solution - if you have a problem with society, stop participating!
This is the logic of a 4 year old - "if I don't like how you play I'm taking my toy and going home!"
How about the idea that these people knew the dangers 70 years ago and still fought every single regulation ever meant to reduce fossil fuel use, reduce pollution from fossil fuel use, increase fuel efficiency, or any alternative means of generating energy or powering transportation. And if they would have been honest abou
Re: (Score:2)
We’re moving on to clean energy and such hysterics just slow our progress down.
Explain how this is "hysterics":
“The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization,” Epstein, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology (or Caltech), wrote to the group in November 1954.
Or this:
Previous investigations of public and private records have found that major oil companies spent decades conducting their own research into the consequences of burning their product, often to an uncannily accurate degree – a study last year found that Exxon scientists made “breathtakingly” accurate predictions of global heating in the 1970s and 1980s.
If studies from fifty years ago were "breathtakingly" accurate to what we are experiencing now, that's not "hysterics". That's called predictability. As they watched things progress, their own studies were borne out meaning they have known for some time what was/is going to happen and instead of making even a token change, have gone down the path of the tobacco industry [tenor.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The terminology change was to be more accurate to the specific trend, which is not always warming, but also more wild swings in climate and weather. The overall trend toward higher temperatures still exists in that context.
But as usual, you right wing conspiratards, just like woketards, are easily fooled by nice sounding words if the thing you're hearing confirms your existing bias.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to your line:
Love the recent switch from "global warming" to "climate change" as well, makes it much easier to spread alarmism without getting pinned down on any specific predictions.
The terminology change was not a conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
I am German. Every summer had two weeks during which I would eagerly go to work because the office was air conditioned but my home was not. We don't "need" air conditioning in the sense that it improves quality of life but is too pricey for most households (for what it provides).
In any case I think we agree on the point that air conditioners work and in 100 years the Greeks will be able to afford running them for a week or two if they aren't living on Mars or in the Metaverse by then.
Re: (Score:2)
What stupid country are you from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oil and gas are the *only* way we have of storing and releasing large amounts of energy quickly, efficiently, and reliably
Not really. They are only the easiest way to release large amounts of energy quickly and reliably. You can't store energy quickly with oil and gas, which is one of the problem with it: there is a finite supply of it, and we are burning it (a lot) faster than is sustainable.
Nuclear is also a way to release large amounts of energy quickly, efficiently and reliably, and without the negative externality of CO2 emissions. But it also comes from a finite source. Solar/wind are also a way to release small amounts
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You should try reading any bit of history before popping off
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/01/29/debunking-the-claim-they-changed-global-warming-to-climate-change-because-its-cooling/ [washingtonpost.com]
California's lawsuit says oil giants downplayed climate change. Here's what to know [npr.org]
In the 135-page California complaint, the state claims that oil and gas executives knew at least since the 1960s that greenhouse gasses produced by fossil fuels would warm the planet and change the climate. Accor
Where the phrase "climate change" came from (Score:2)
The problem of making a convincing argument is made doubly hard because you use euphemisms, hyperbole, and alarmist language. For example, what the heck is climate "change"? No one seriously disputes that the climate "changes", that's absurd,
Your argument doesn't make sense. You are both saying "nobody disputes that the climate changes" and also using the phrase climate change is "hyperbole alarmist language." Can't be both undisputed, and also hyperbole.
so you can't be using the word literally.
Why do you think we aren't using the word literally?
The term "climate change" was introduced in the 1979 National Academy of Science report "Carbon Dioxide and Climate [nationalacademies.org]". This article: https://gpm.nasa.gov/education... [nasa.gov] discusses the difference in meaning between "global warming" and "climate cha
Re:yea- (Score:4, Informative)
From a paper published in the American Meteorological Society Journal (there's lots more):
"An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting "global cooling" and an "imminent ice age", an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests."
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml [ametsoc.org]
Anything else I can help you with?