Doubts about climate change?

Here’s what got that seed of doubt sown. 30 years ago A bold plan was hatched Americas oil industry execs and a top PR guru. An $850,000 a day contract was at stake meaning it was in the oil industry’s best interests to create seeds of doubt about climate change.
A bit like the NRA telling supporters that guns don’t kill people.

Obviously the plan worked because climate changed doubters are everywhere today. Sadly actual climate change is wacking us in the face every hour of every day.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

The global warming / climate change we're seeing in the last 100 or so years is MUCH different from anything measured in the glacial & sea sediment records covering the last 700,000 years. CO2 is rising 100x faster, and temps 10x faster.

"How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?" [b]https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php[/b] "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

How is today's CO2 increase different? [b]https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide[/b] "The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago."

Fact is, anthropogenic global warming is accepted by a YUGE segment of the scientific community. Would you accept the consensus opinion of the American Physical Society AND the American Chemical Society? How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and at least 15 other national organizations of publishing scientists? See [b]https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/[/b]

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@ElwoodBlues So you know that science is replication right? If you come up with a theory you have to be able to produce the same results over and over again. Sadly your theory can't even predict the past.

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 And you can cite publications to back that claim? No, of course not, [b]LOL!!![/b]

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@ElwoodBlues again with you 'studies"? Son let me explain it to you in real simple terms. Eons ago the CO2 levels were close to 6000 PPM. Now they are around 400 PPM. If the earth didn't burn up at 6000 PPM why would we be so stupid as to assume it will burn up at 400 PPM?

ElwoodBlues · M

@hippyjoe1955 says [quote] again with you 'studies"?[/quote] So you're anti- studying too?? Good to know!!

Let me explain it to you again. "Earth burning up" is a silly straw man cited by right-wing nut cases. The real concern is sea level rise. Sea level rise. Got it? Good!

We have, in very round numbers, something like $100 trillion invested in buildings & infrastructure near sea level. If we let the seas rise to much or too rapidly, we risk flooding a big chunk of that investment. For me, protecting sea level investment worldwide is the main reason to limit CO2. So it comes down to a cost benefit analysis.

I'm gonna post my piece on climate change and cost benefit analysis at the top level so it won't scroll away. Please continue the conversation there.