Fossil Fuel Industry Knew Of Climate Danger As Early As 1954

[Frank Robert]

Smoking Gun Proof

Newly uncovered documents reveal that the fossil fuel industry was aware of the potential climate implications of its products as early as 1954. The documents, found in the Caltech archives, the US National Archives, and newspapers from the 1950s, indicate that the industry understood the significant impact of fossil fuel combustion on Earth's climate. This early awareness contradicts the industry's public denial of basic climate science for decades and its ongoing efforts to fund research and delay action on the climate crisis1. The documents also show that the industry was involved in funding early climate science research, indicating a deep awareness of the potential consequences of its activities. They (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.

What Is The Significance Of The Fossil Fuel Industry's Knowledge Of Climate Change

The significance of the fossil fuel industry's knowledge of climate change lies in its early awareness of the potential consequences of its products on the environment. Newly uncovered documents reveal that the industry was informed of the potentially dire consequences of its business as early as 1954, indicating an intimate involvement in the inception of modern climate science. This early awareness contradicts the industry's public denial of basic climate science for decades and its ongoing efforts to fund research and delay action on the climate crisis1. The industry's knowledge of climate change, coupled with its subsequent denial and suppression of climate research, has had devastating effects, making it a central issue in discussions about accountability and the urgent need for action on the climate crisis.

How Have Consumers Responded To The Fossil Fuel Industry's Knowledge Of Climate Change

Consumers have responded to the fossil fuel industry's knowledge of climate change with growing concern and calls for accountability. Unearthed documents reveal that the industry was aware of the potential consequences of its products on the environment as early as the 1950s, yet it engaged in efforts to suppress climate science and promote climate denial1. This revelation has led to increased scrutiny of the industry's actions and has fueled public demand for urgent measures to address the climate crisis. Consumers, along with environmental organizations and experts, have emphasized the need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and transition to alternative energy sources to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The industry's long-standing knowledge of climate change and its efforts to downplay its role in fueling the crisis have prompted consumers to advocate for holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their contributions to climate change.

California has filed a lawsuit against several major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, as well as the American Petroleum Institute. The state is seeking to hold these companies accountable for the damage caused by climate change and is demanding that they help fund recovery efforts related to climate-related damages. The lawsuit alleges that the companies misled the public for decades about climate change and the dangers of fossil fuels. California is seeking nuisance abatement, creation of an abatement fund, injunctive relief, and penalties. The lawsuit is a significant and high-profile legal action that aims to address the alleged deception and the costs associated with climate-related damages

How Has The Fossil Fuel Industry Reacted to the Law Suits

The fossil fuel industry's stance on the California lawsuit is that addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach, and they fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future. The industry has emphasized the importance of holding them accountable and securing access to justice for people and communities suffering from fossil-fueled extreme weather. The American Petroleum Institute, an industry group also named in the lawsuit, has called California's decision to take the oil companies to court a "watershed" and stated that the state is taking decisive action to make the polluters pay.

 

[Josheb]

The fossil fuel industry's stance on the California lawsuit is that addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach, and they fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future.

That one sentence is the most important statement in the op because it shows the lack of thought occurring in the entire topic. If "climate danger" is a real thing then no one society can or will affect sufficient change, especially not one smaller than India or China (or Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, and other large-population nations or societies still growing as industrial nations). Were the US to stop ALL its contributions to "climate danger" India would near-instantly compensate, overcome, and add to whatever bad effects were reduced. China already eclipses the US overall by a factor of two! The two combined "societies" of China and India will more than double whatever the one US "society" might undo. Both their economies are growing, both their production of "climate damage, consumption of fossil fuels, and industrialization will eventually eclipse the US. Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, UAE, Kuwait, Trinidad and Tobago, and four other countries already exceed the US in per capita CO2 emissions. Currently, not a single country in the world is carbon neutral.

Climate dangerists are lying.

The play around disingenuously with language to fear-monger. It is a secular version of religious apocalypticism .

It is a shell game.

 

[Frank Robert]

That one sentence is the most important statement in the op because it shows the lack of thought occurring in the entire topic. If "climate danger" is a real thing then no one society can or will affect sufficient change, especially not one smaller than India or China (or Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, and other large-population nations or societies still growing as industrial nations).

Its real but in order to have an affect we need to include everyone, unfortunately, there are too many who have been persuaded by the fossil fuel industry depiction and disinformation.

Were the US to stop ALL its contributions to "climate danger" India would near-instantly compensate, overcome, and add to whatever bad effects were reduced. China already eclipses the US overall by a factor of two! The two combined "societies" of China and India will more than double whatever the one US "society" might undo. Both their economies are growing, both their production of "climate damage, consumption of fossil fuels, and industrialization will eventually eclipse the US. Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia, UAE, Kuwait, Trinidad and Tobago, and four other countries already exceed the US in per capita CO2 emissions. Currently, not a single country in the world is carbon neutral.

Correct agai

Climate dangerists are lying.

I can highlight the findings of scientific research and reports that demonstrate the link between climate change and various hazards, such as heat waves, floods, and extreme weather events. For instance, a report by McKinsey emphasizes the increase in frequency and severity of acute hazards due to rising temperatures, as well as the significant physical impacts of climate change in various regions but it would be a waste of time.
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabiliti...se-physical-hazards-and-socioeconomic-impacts

The play around disingenuously with language to fear-monger. It is a secular version of religious apocalypticism .

Framing climate change as fear-mongering undermines the seriousness of the issue and detracts from the our responsibility to protect our planet and future generations. Instead, we should focus on constructive dialogue and solutions-based approaches that prioritize sustainability, innovation, and resilience.

It is a shell game.

I understandable that discussions about climate change can evoke strong emotions, but characterizing efforts to address this global challenge as a shell game overlooks the scientific consensus and the urgent need for action. The overwhelming evidence from climate scientists worldwide shows that human activities are significantly contributing to rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and other environmental changes with far-reaching consequences.

 

[Josheb]

Its real...

I am not persuaded.

I am an outdoorsman. I have hiked, climbed, sawm, canoed, rafted, and fished terrain in a variety of locales in the northern hemisphere and I have seen radical changes in various places due to both naturally occurring events and man-made events. I've seen forests destroyed by fire come back in a matter of years. I've seen rivers dry to a trickle and then return years later to flood their banks. I've seen rivers polluted to render the wildlife dead or poisoned and inedible and I have seen the exact same waters restored in a matter of years. I am also old enough to remember when the population explosion harbingers assured us we'd all be living on three square feet of land by 2000. Literally.

Given the opportunity for nature to take a century or ten, I have no reason to believe nature can't handle the current conditions and every reason to assume the "experts" haven't a clue what they're doing because they've been looking at a literal snapshot in creation with temporally man-made models based on fear.

Climate danger is self-incriminating.

Even the word "climate" is a term with which the dangerists play fast and loose. A "climate" is fixed. There are only a handful of different climates (tropical, desert, temperate, polar, etc.). The dangerists have redefined the term and they constantly do that. Global warming folks are the same folks that spoke of global cooling and a pending ice age. Hot? Cold? Depends on which day you tune into which "news" cast, so they change the term to "climate" and redefine that word. Which shell is the truth under?



Do you ever read/listen to any critics of climate danger? If the book hasn't already been read, pick up a copy of Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy". He's an old school environmentalist and the book is probably 40 years old, but he's also an equal opportunity critic and he pulls the curtain back on a lot of the movement's hypocrisy and shortcomings and foreshadows the current debate.

 

[Josheb]

I can highlight the findings of scientific research...

Science I like. Politicization of science I abhor. Science changes every 100-150 years. We used to think disease was caused by little frogs living inside us. We used to think the atom was the smallest particle in the universe, time was fixed, the fastest anything could ever possibly go was 299,792,458 metres per second, and there were only four dimensions. This conversation we're having no will read like two four-year olds a century from now.

And, Frank, that website is not research. It's propaganda. I'm published. I know research. Climate is not my field of study or practice, but I can read a research article and I'd prefer to do that than someone's biased manipulation of the data and study's own conclusions.

I understandable that discussions about climate change can evoke strong emotions...

Red herring. The analogy has nothing to do with emotional provocation.

Framing climate change as fear-mongering undermines the seriousness of the issue...

Says the guy who title this discussion "climate danger" instead of climate change. ROTFLMBO! YOU undermined any seriousness by calling it "danger"! Log, not speck, Frank.

..and detracts from the our responsibility to protect our planet and future generations.

Finite creatures living on a planet are not in control of anything. You are, again, undermining your own argument with trite propaganda. It's not very scientific of you.

Instead, we should focus on constructive dialogue...

We're 5 posts into this conversation and I have yet to read a single constructive word. You are undermining your own case with cliches and stereotypical propaganda, loaded words, and fearmongering. The word "danger" is fearful by definition! Pay attention! Pay attention because your sources have you using phrases like "climate danger." You're not going to persuade anyone that way except those already prone to that position.


Start over. Use objective language and provide objectively verifiable facts. Keep it simple because I'm not going to engage this conversation for long unless it turns more interesting than it is currently.

 

[Josheb]

Correct again

LOL! Then the fuel industries notion of societal change is hogwash, and you've, again, undermined your own op. The correct facts I posted are completely irreconcilable with the notion of societal change. If the problem is as bad as they say the global change is necessary and only global change will have any effect and that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. It is propaganda.

I do not trust propagandists.

You should not do so, either.

Especially if you are a scientist or want to rely on relevant science.

 

[CrowCross]

From the article....remember this is back in the

Keeling would go on to establish the continuous measurement of global CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This “Keeling curve” has tracked the steady increase of the atmospheric carbon that drives the climate crisis and has been hailed as one of the most important scientific works of modern times.

So, from one antiquated data collection station in the middle of the Pacific Ocean Keeling was able to determine the increasing cause of CO2 was man made?

Here's the "keeling curve".....According to the Old Earth interpretations...we're right on track.

 

[Josheb]

From the article....remember this is back in the

Keeling would go on to establish the continuous measurement of global CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. This “Keeling curve” has tracked the steady increase of the atmospheric carbon that drives the climate crisis and has been hailed as one of the most important scientific works of modern times.

So, from one antiquated data collection station in the middle of the Pacific Ocean Keeling was able to determine the increasing cause of CO2 was man made?

Here's the "keeling curve".....According to the Old Earth interpretations...we're right on track.

I'm familiar with the Keeling Curve and appreciate the contribution.

That CO2 levels fluctuate and have over the last century have increased overall is not in dispute. What is in dispute is "stance" "addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach." That is pure hogwash. It is hogwash because of the things I stated in my op reply: The US could go down to zero CO2 emissions and maintain that level for the next century and it would do little to nothing to change the man-made contribution of CO2 because other nations are going to eclipse the US and are likely to do so exponentially. No one is going to hold back the Indians or the Chinese and the latter for sure has a different ethic than the US. They'd be happy to use the US as a dumping ground - environmental consequences be damned.

We humans are doomed.

Unless... we do not yet have sufficient data by which to reach sound conclusions. Take this paragraph, for example.

"On May 9, 2013, the daily mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere measured at Mauna Loa surpassed 400 parts per million (ppmv). Estimates of CO2 during previous geologic eras suggest that CO2 has not reached this level since the mid-Pliocene, 2 to 4 million years ago. This level of carbon dioxide, causing climate change, suggests a continued worsening in natural and ecological disasters, which increasingly threatens human and animal habitats on Earth, if greenhouse gas emissions are not significantly reduced."​

That is from the Wiki article on the Keeling Curve. I know Wikki is not authoritative but that's immaterial to my point: None of that is scientific! However, wrote that portion of the Wiki article was dressing up the speculation. They do not actually know. Does that lack of knowledge mean the entire matter should be dismissed? No, of course not. Does it mean a political agenda should be assigned to the research? No, definitely not. Should the reverse be so - should the scientific research be used to influence social and politic policy. Yes, wherever appropriate.

 

[Josheb]

@Frank Robert, @CrowCross,

Many, many years ago I had an experience where I debated a researcher named June Goodfield over the influence of money and politics in scientific research. Goodfield is/was a zoologist by trade (she's still alive), but she wasn't keen on zoology and turned to studying how science is done. She considered scientific research the last pure human endeavor and she was pretty vocal about it. She considered the social sciences poor examples of true science. "Kingdom builders" she called them, even though one of her books, "The Quest for the Killers" documented the invaluable contribution of social scientists necessary in curing the disease, Kuru. Without them the disease might never have been cured. She ragged on her peers and students in the social sciences often. I disagreed immensely with her but made little headway for a long time. She was married to a philosopher of science and her work as a historian of science led her to meet some of the most renown scientists in the world. She name-dropped often and although that may not have been intended as pride and condescension it sure seemed that way. I engaged her in this debate over whether or not research was "pure," and I interviewed her friends and acquaintances. I spoke with Dyson Freeman and other friends of hers. I read everything by Robert Oppenheimer I could get my hands on (she dropped his name often). I used her sources to disprove her position because every single one of the scientists I spoke with acknowledge politics influenced science chronically and they did so without reservation. Given that evidence, we social scientists would call Goodfield's position "delusional" . After debating the matter with her I provided her with a copy of my meta-analysis, including my interviews and the references from the many acquaintances of hers. She wrote me back saying, "You write so much less pompously than you speak in person." Of course, I wasn't pompous at all; she simply had difficulty with real life face-to-face discussion on the matter but when she looked at the evidence objectively provided on a sheet of paper (actually a couple of dozen sheets ), she could see. She could then recognize the data and information objectively.

So what Josh? That story sounds very self-aggrandizing. It reads like Dr. Goodfield was right and you are pompous .

That's because the story is a manipulation on my part to set you up for my following request .

I'm blunt, not arrogant. I'm not in the field of climate studies and I readily concede my lack of knowledge in the field. I do know how science is done - how it should be done, how it is actually done, and how it is sometimes not done and the lack presented as science. I assume anyone involved in scientific research knows that too. I will gladly examine the actual research when presented and consider it as objectively as I can - scientifically. Keeling versus a California court case? Do I need to explain that?

Here's what I would like the two of you to do (and anyone else coming to the party after this). Take the time and make the effort to listen to the news every day this week. If you have an affinity (or tolerance) for public radio (like NPR) definitely tune in to them because they do what I am going to not A LOT. As you listen to the news casts and commentaries listen for the words and phrases, "maybe," "may be," "could be," "might," "implies," "suggests," "possibly," "probably," and all the many other words that fall into the category of speculation.

Just try it for a week. Give it a month if you can.

You'll be amazed how little what is presented to us as "news" has anything to do with fact. If you manage to tune in to a show discussing the latest scientific studies or technology, you'll find that topic is not immune from speculation. Science as the scientists do it is not pure. It may have been at one time but the influence of money and politics have adulterated the endeavor. Within the lab the research process can be as objective as humanly possible but what most of us read/hear at the public end is not science.


COVID


After a week of listening for speculations come back and re-read the op. Scroll down to the bottom of the mckinseydotcom page and read it again. Compare that to the ucsd page.


The stance "addressing climate change requires a collaborative, society-wide approach" is hogwash, not science. Politics (and law) is a whore riding the workhorse of science and it likes to turn everything it touches into harlots like itself. The news industry is its chief acolyte.

 

[CrowCross]

We humans are doomed.

According to the book of Revelations humans are pretty much doomed anyway. What is mentioned there overwhelms any form of "climate change".

Of course salvation through Jesus Christ assures us the Christ followers...believers...will not be doomed. Gone in the rapture then back in 7 years. I can't wait.

I came across this article on climate engineering today. The short YouTube video shows us one of the things that is happening then and now.

The climate alarmist even want to do this....

"A team of climate scientists want to launch enormous umbrellas into space to reduce the Earth’s exposure to the sun and fight climate change".....continue to article.

 

[Frank Robert]

I am not persuaded.

Sounds like you been persuaded by the fossil fuel industries.

I am an outdoorsman. I have hiked, climbed, sawm, canoed, rafted, and fished terrain in a variety of locales in the northern hemisphere and I have seen radical changes in various places due to both naturally occurring events and man-made events. I've seen forests destroyed by fire come back in a matter of years. I've seen rivers dry to a trickle and then return years later to flood their banks. I've seen rivers polluted to render the wildlife dead or poisoned and inedible and I have seen the exact same waters restored in a matter of years. I am also old enough to remember when the population explosion harbingers assured us we'd all be living on three square feet of land by 2000. Literally.

Were the areas rehabilitated naturally? If so can you supply any scientific studies as evidence?

Given the opportunity for nature to take a century or ten, I have no reason to believe nature can't handle the current conditions and every reason to assume the "experts" haven't a clue what they're doing because they've been looking at a literal snapshot in creation with temporally man-made models based on fear.

Can you supply any scientific research or studies as evidence that the 97%+ climate scientists have no clue?

Climate danger is self-incriminating.

Even the word "climate" is a term with which the dangerists play fast and loose. A "climate" is fixed. There are only a handful of different climates (tropical, desert, temperate, polar, etc.). The dangerists have redefined the term and they constantly do that. Global warming folks are the same folks that spoke of global cooling and a pending ice age. Hot? Cold? Depends on which day you tune into which "news" cast, so they change the term to "climate" and redefine that word. Which shell is the truth under?

You are entitled to your opinion. I don't think any knowledgeable person believes that there are not problems within the science of global warming. The point of the OP is how the fossil fuel industry spread deceit and disinformation since 1950s. If you have any evidence that contradicts that they have not you are welcome to present it.

That the fossil fuel industry has spread disinformation since the 1950s, is evidenced by various documents and studies. Here are some key findings:

• University of Miami Research: Documents revealed that the fossil fuel industry was aware of the profound climate risks as early as the 1950s, yet subsequently engaged in public denial of this science and funded efforts to delay action on climate change
  Source
• Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): The UCS uncovered industry communications, scientific papers, and oral histories demonstrating that the petroleum industry was conducting climate research in the 1950s, but chose to fund a coordinated campaign to spread disinformation about climate change
  Source...
• House Oversight Committee Investigation: Documents submitted to Congress as part of an investigation into climate disinformation revealed that the fossil fuel industry has been persistently engaged in strategies to downplay climate impacts, overstate the industry's commitments, and preserve power and subsidies
  Source...

Do you ever read/listen to any critics of climate danger? If the book hasn't already been read, pick up a copy of Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy". He's an old school environmentalist and the book is probably 40 years old, but he's also an equal opportunity critic and he pulls the curtain back on a lot of the movement's hypocrisy and shortcomings and foreshadows the current debate.

Thanks for recurrence. I ordered the book. I don't expect it will be earth shattering but it does appear to have some good debating points. My guess is that its weak points will be insufficient references and it will be dated.

"Entropy: A New World View" by Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard has been both praised and criticized. Some reviewers have lauded it for its thought-provoking nature and its ability to challenge existing worldviews. For instance, Hazel Henderson, author of "Creating Alternative Futures," described it as "earthshaking in its implications" and a "major re-conceptualization" that would shape the public debate of the 1980s. However, there are also criticisms of the book. Some readers have found it to be dated and lacking in sufficient references, with one reviewer stating that it "reads like the thought stream of [the author]." Additionally, a review in the Academy of Management Review discusses the book's use of metaphorical criticism.​

 

[Frank Robert]

LOL! Then the fuel industries notion of societal change is hogwash, and you've, again, undermined your own op. The correct facts I posted are completely irreconcilable with the notion of societal change. If the problem is as bad as they say the global change is necessary and only global change will have any effect and that is NOT going to happen anytime soon. It is propaganda

Understanding that change is necessary is not the same as believing it will be accomplished. What I beleive is it won't be done. We are already breaching the 1.5C tipping point.

I do not trust propagandists.

Then you should not trust the fossil fuel industries deceit and disinformation. They are using the same playbook as the tobacco industry used for smoking. I am sure you are aware of the results of that.

You should not do so, either.

I trust that the 97+ climate scientists are closer to the truth than the fossil fuel industries who are laughing all the way to the bank.

Especially if you are a scientist or want to rely on relevant science.

If you have relevant science that substantiates your climate denial than I encourage you to present it. Saying something exists is not enough to make up for the utter lack of research and scientific papers, if they existed, that could provide credibility for your claims.

I recently did a search for "science publications that deny global warming"

The search did not return relevant scientific publications that deny global warming. It's important to note that the overwhelming majority of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change​

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/​

The scientific consensus on climate change is supported by a vast body of evidence and research, and it is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and the assessments of major scientific organizations when evaluating the issue of global warming.

​

 

[Josheb]

Understanding that change is necessary is not the same as believing it will be accomplished.

I completely agree.

What I believe is it won't be done.

I tend to agree.

We are already breaching the 1.5C tipping point.

I am not persuaded of the event, or the catastrophic speculations associated with it.

Then you should not trust the fossil fuel industries deceit and disinformation. They are using the same playbook as the tobacco industry used for smoking. I am sure you are aware of the results of that.

LOL! I don't I do not trust any of them - not the energy industry, the California courts, or the reporting of both. All three have frequently demonstrated their ability to lie, their chronic lack of integrity, and their profit motive at the expense of fact and truth.

I trust that the 97+ climate scientists are closer to the truth than the fossil fuel industries who are laughing all the way to the bank.

"Closer to the truth" is not the truth.

If you have relevant science that substantiates your climate denial than I encourage you to present it.

I did not deny climate. Get your own head out of your own sand and stop putting words in my posts I did not write. Go back and re-read what I wrote and re-read it as any times as it takes to CORRECTLY understand it.

Saying something exists is not enough...........

Non sequitur

• Do not conflate not being persuaded with denial.
• Do not conflate distrust of institutions for denial of facts.
• Do not conflate the fallacy and the inefficacy of the op's "collaborative, society-wide approach," with acceptance or denial of scientific evidence.
• Do not conflate speculation with fact, truth, reason, or science.
• Do not put words in my posts I did not write.

.

Sounds like you been persuaded by the fossil fuel industries.

[EDIT]

You are making the conversation about me. You are making the posts about the posters when you know one of the most fundamental rules of internet discussion is keep the posts about the posts and NOT the posters. That makes you the problem, not me. It undermines your own argument. Post 6 was an effort to help you think about how you prove the op. I assume you do not want to undermine your own op.


Salvage your own op. Stick to the topic. Look first and foremost to your own position and how you articulate it. Phrases like "climate danger" are loaded, and in the context of the more generic "climate change" it is loaded with apocalyptic meaning that is the antithesis of science and cogent discourse. And I do not care if you do not like me pointing that out. Go back and re-read my posts. Then re-read your responses and note not one of the salient points I made was addressed. Quoting a second or third hand review of "Entropy," does nothing in regard to you learning and understanding the relevant content. Those on his side praised the book and those not on his side criticized it. That entire section of Post 11 did not add one efficacious word to this discussion and if it were deleted the thread would be improved!


So if you do not want me to match you, then get back on topic and keep all the comments about me out of your posts.

Bad form.


I do NOT trust the fuel industry. More importantly, that line about the fuel industry's "response" is not a quote by any spokesman for the fuel industry. At a minimum, it is a third-hand anecdotal report (and the op does not report that report as such). The op is nothing more than your summary of Oliver Milman's summary and we have no idea where Milman got his information, how he got his information or how objective he was reviewing it - especially since he's writing for a self-acknowledgedleft-of-center source, the Guardian. I could trust the fuel industry but not the Guardian OR vice versa and still post my op reply. I could trust both the fuel industry and the Guardian and not trust this op.

It was bad form to make this about me.

Start over and d the discussion correctly.

 

[Josheb]

According to the book of Revelations humans are pretty much doomed anyway.

My regrets. That was a joke. I've gone back and stuck an emoji in there.

My point was related to something I'd posted earlier about "climate danger" being a secular form of apocalypse. "We humans are doomed" had nothing to do with Revelation, my particular eschatology, or Revelation.

What is mentioned there overwhelms any form of "climate change". Of course salvation through Jesus Christ assures us the Christ followers...believers...will not be doomed. Gone in the rapture then back in 7 years. I can't wait. I came across this article on climate engineering today. The short YouTube video shows us one of the things that is happening then and now. The climate alarmist even want to do this.... "A team of climate scientists want to launch enormous umbrellas into space to reduce the Earth’s exposure to the sun and fight climate change".....continue to article.

Do you intend to bend this discussion to Revelation and eschatology as the measure of "climate danger" (or the Guardian article from whence this op was taken)?

 

[Frank Robert]

I completely agree.

I tend to agree.

I am not persuaded of the event, or the catastrophic speculations associated with it.

I agree, no one should be persuaded. We need to do their own due diligence. The tons of disinformation that is out there makes it difficult. still, sticking with the science provides multiple avenues to learn more especially with peer review which you won't get from the fossil fuel industry.

LOL! I don't I do not trust any of them - not the energy industry, the California courts, or the reporting of both. All three have frequently demonstrated their ability to lie, their chronic lack of integrity, and their profit motive at the expense of fact and truth.

I don't blame you. But again there are multiple resources on the internet. An example of one I use for politics is Naked Capitalism. It is not just what the contributors write. It is also the multiple links to top news sites and the commentary with people from multiple nations.

"Closer to the truth" is not the truth.

How do you get to the "truth" and how do you know when you reached it. For me, it's a bit like I treat science. "Science is not absolute truth, but rather the most reliable evidence available at a given time." I would treat your previous comment "trust" in much the same way.

I did not deny climate. Get your own head out of your own sand and stop putting words in my posts I did not write. Go back and re-read what I wrote and re-read it as any times as it takes to CORRECTLY understand it.

"I apologize for misunderstanding your comment and for hastily jumping to a conclusion without merit."

Non sequitur

• Do not conflate not being persuaded with denial.
• Do not conflate distrust of institutions for denial of facts.
• Do not conflate the fallacy and the inefficacy of the op's "collaborative, society-wide approach," with acceptance or denial of scientific evidence.
• Do not conflate speculation with fact, truth, reason, or science.
• Do not put words in my posts I did not write.

Good advice.

[Edit]

I'm sorry to hear that but I don't think your are too far off the mark.

You are making the conversation about me. You are making the posts about the posters when you know one of the most fundamental rules of internet discussion is keep the posts about the posts and NOT the posters. That makes you the problem, not me. It undermines your own argument. Post 6 was an effort to help you think about how you prove the op. I assume you do not want to undermine your own op.


Salvage your own op. Stick to the topic. Look first and foremost to your own position and how you articulate it. Phrases like "climate danger" are loaded, and in the context of the more generic "climate change" it is loaded with apocalyptic meaning that is the antithesis of science and cogent discourse. And I do not care if you do not like me pointing that out. Go back and re-read my posts. Then re-read your responses and note not one of the salient points I made was addressed. Quoting a second or third hand review of "Entropy," does nothing in regard to you learning and understanding the relevant content. Those on his side praised the book and those not on his side criticized it. That entire section of Post 11 did not add one efficacious word to this discussion and if it were deleted the thread would be improved!


So if you do not want me to match you, then get back on topic and keep all the comments about me out of your posts.

Bad form.
Seriously, thank you for the feedback.

I do NOT trust the fuel industry. More importantly, that line about the fuel industry's "response" is not a quote by any spokesman for the fuel industry. At a minimum, it is a third-hand anecdotal report (and the op does not report that report as such). The op is nothing more than your summary of Oliver Milman's summary and we have no idea where Milman got his information, how he got his information or how objective he was reviewing it - especially since he's writing for a self-acknowledgedleft-of-center source, the Guardian. I could trust the fuel industry but not the Guardian OR vice versa and still post my op reply. I could trust both the fuel industry and the Guardian and not trust this op.

It was bad form to make this about me.

Start over and d the discussion correctly.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[CrowCross]

Do you intend to bend this discussion to Revelation and eschatology as the measure of "climate danger" (or the Guardian article from whence this op was taken)?

I was bringing up the claim that man is destroying his "climate".....how Revelation speaks of a time (shortly) where "climate change" will mean nothing in comparison....and some of the ways man wants to fix "climate change".
For instance they claim CO2 is a problem with the heating up of the earth. So, they want to construct a huge umbrella in space to block the sun...yeah, that'll work. The funny part is the umbrella never addresses their so-called CO2 problem.

Post 7 did address the Guardian article.....and was ignored.

 

[CrowCross]

I agree, no one should be persuaded. We need to do their own due diligence. The tons of disinformation that is out there makes it difficult. still, sticking with the science provides multiple avenues to learn more especially with peer review which you won't get from the fossil fuel industry.

Is the tons of disinformation one sided?

 

[Josheb]

Do you intend to bend this discussion to Revelation and eschatology as the measure of "climate danger" (or the Guardian article from whence this op was taken)?

I was bringing up the claim that man is destroying his "climate".....how Revelation speaks of a time (shortly) where "climate change" will mean nothing in comparison....and some of the ways man wants to fix "climate change".
For instance they claim CO2 is a problem with the heating up of the earth. So, they want to construct a huge umbrella in space to block the sun...yeah, that'll work. The funny part is the umbrella never addresses their so-called CO2 problem.

That is not an answer to the question asked.

I did not ask why you brought it up. I asked whether or not it was your intent to bend the discussion of this op to Revelation and eschatology. It's a simple yes or no question and my knowing your answer informs me how to reply.

Post 7 did address the Guardian article.....and was ignored.

I think you should re-read the posts. Post 7 did not "address" the Guardian article, especially not in any way addressing its likely biases. And I did reply to Post 7. I am familiar with Keeling's research, already knew about the Keeling curve before the op was posted, and you were personally thanked for the information. So do not tell me the post was ignored.


Now I would like to bring to the attention of both of you that it is you guys mucking up the conversation. I'd like you both to ask yourselves why it is YOU cannot have a cogent conversation with someone who does NOT deny "climate change" and as a scientist is not persuaded by 1) the specific fallacy cited in the op of "a collaborative, society-wide approach," 2) the media presentation that is anything but objective, 3) the politicization of the research, and 4) the unscientific apocalyptic claims made even by scientists (and the resulting tenor).

I am going to give you the exact same opportunity I gave @Frank Robert...



Make it right.

1) Answer the question asked: Do you intend to bend this discussion to Revelation and eschatology as the measure of "climate danger" (or the Guardian article from whence this op was taken)?

2) Acknowledge my acknowledgement of the Keeling curve and my appreciation for you including it in the discussion.

Frank messed up.

"I apologize for misunderstanding your comment and for hastily jumping to a conclusion without merit."

Frank has some integrity in my book.


But....

"Closer to the truth" is not the truth.

How do you get to the "truth" and how do you know when you reached it.

Moving the goal post away from the fact "closer" is not truth to how I personally obtain truth (when I have already answered the question) is still a problem.




The only ones who are going to participate with you two are those who share your biases. I bring a different set of biases to the conversation but one of them is NOT denial of what we call "climate change."

 

[Josheb]

.

How do you get to the "truth" and how do you know when you reached it.

One thing I do not do is rely on the Guardian.

There is a certain sense in which the question is misguided because science is not specifically concerned with truth. Science speaks to fact, not truth. Data, information, conclusions, and the distribution of all three is something much different.

For me, it's a bit like I treat science. "Science is not absolute truth, but rather the most reliable evidence available at a given time." I would treat your previous comment "trust" in much the same way.

Great! Good for you. However, that does nothing to address the fallacious nature of "closer to the truth."



Am I the first person to bring these matters up to either of you? Frank, the Guardian article is NOT science. It is NOT reliable evidence (of anything other than the Guardian's ability to be dishonest). The McKinsey cite is, comparatively, better, but it's not in the same category as the reliable evidence Crow posted. It's your op and Crow and I have informed the topic of "climate change" exponentially better than you! I want you to have this conversation.

 

[CrowCross]

I did not ask why you brought it up. I asked whether or not it was your intent to bend the discussion of this op to Revelation and eschatology. It's a simple yes or no question and my knowing your answer informs me how to reply.

That depends upon which way the thread goes....and if it still interest me.