Fossil Fuel Industry Knew Of Climate Danger As Early As 1954

[Frank Robert]

Again, it matters not to me in the slightest what you may or may not believe.

You don't need to express the obvious.

I'm not here to convince you because you aren't open to new or proper ideas anyway.

You are 100% correct. I am not open to conspiracy theories or scientific claims that lack evidence.

It's a complete waste of time and effort.

Then, why are you wasting your time?

Just know that what you think is true, isn't.

You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You don't need to express the obvious.

You are 100% correct. I am not open to conspiracy theories or scientific claims that lack evidence.

Then, why are you wasting your time?

You are entitled to your opinion.

Ah yes, the good old ad hominem "conspiracy theory". If you are proven wrong, just throw that one out there and then you feel all good and fuzzy inside. Good for you. Learning new words and doing what liberals do best.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You don't need to express the obvious.

You are 100% correct. I am not open to conspiracy theories or scientific claims that lack evidence.

Then, why are you wasting your time?

You are entitled to your opinion.

Actually, there is one thing I would be interested in. The "hockey stick" chart has been proven to be a fraud. All the emails that were released by the "scientists" who were at the heart of that proves that. I'd like to know how you can still consider that chart as accurate and valid scientifically. That should have been the arrow through the heart of this whole fraud.

 

[Frank Robert]

Actually, there is one thing I would be interested in. The "hockey stick" chart has been proven to be a fraud.

The hockey stick chart has not been proven to be a fraud.

All the emails that were released by the "scientists" who were at the heart of that proves that.

Don't believe everything your told especially if the storytellers are climate deniers.
The claim that the "hockey stick" chart was proven to be a fraud is not supported by the majority of scientific assessments. The controversy surrounding the "hockey stick" chart stemmed from the release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in 2009, an event known as "Climategate." While some commentators alleged that the hacked emails showed evidence of data manipulation and suppression of dissenting scientific papers, the majority of researchers and scientific assessments support the validity of the "hockey stick" chart and have found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

I'd like to know how you can still consider that chart as accurate and valid scientifically.

'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change (Fact Check)​

That should have been the arrow through the heart of this whole fraud.

Except for the fact there there wasn't a fraud. The arrow should be pointed at the heart of the unprincipled climate deniers who seized on a few phrases in messages from Mann and others, to claim that the science behind the famous “hockey stick” graph was fraudulent.

The only fraud came from climate deniers.

The graph, co-created by Mann, shows that while global average temperatures have been rising for the past 500 to 2,000 years, the rate of heating has sharply accelerated since the start of the industrial revolution in the West, and particularly during the 20th century. The science behind the hockey stick graph has been continuously upheld as accurate, and is among key findings that prove burning oil, coal, and methane gas is the primary driver of the climate crisis.​

​

Mann and other scientists have steadily pointed out that climate deniers took the emails out of context — a point Mann emphasized on the stand, explaining that phrases Steyn and Simberg had interpreted as admissions of misconduct were colloquialisms used by professional scientists.​

​

The claim that the "hockey stick" chart was proven to be a fraud is not supported by the majority of scientific assessments. The controversy surrounding the "hockey stick" chart stemmed from the release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in 2009, an event known as "Climategate." While some commentators alleged that the hacked emails showed evidence of data manipulation and suppression of dissenting scientific papers, the majority of researchers and scientific assessments support the validity of the "hockey stick" chart and have found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Additionally, in 2021, Reuters stated that the "hockey stick" graph is not false evidence of man-made climate change. The "hockey stick" graph, which depicts a sharp increase in global temperatures in recent decades, remains a widely accepted representation of human interference in the climate system.​

​

The claim that the "hockey stick" chart has been proven to be a fraud is not substantiated by the preponderance of evidence and scientific opinion.​

​

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

The hockey stick chart has not been proven to be a fraud.

Don't believe everything your told especially if the storytellers are climate deniers.
The claim that the "hockey stick" chart was proven to be a fraud is not supported by the majority of scientific assessments. The controversy surrounding the "hockey stick" chart stemmed from the release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in 2009, an event known as "Climategate." While some commentators alleged that the hacked emails showed evidence of data manipulation and suppression of dissenting scientific papers, the majority of researchers and scientific assessments support the validity of the "hockey stick" chart and have found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

'Hockey Stick' graph of rising global temperatures is accurate depiction of climate change (Fact Check)​

Except for the fact there there wasn't a fraud. The arrow should be pointed at the heart of the unprincipled climate deniers who seized on a few phrases in messages from Mann and others, to claim that the science behind the famous “hockey stick” graph was fraudulent.

The only fraud came from climate deniers.

The graph, co-created by Mann, shows that while global average temperatures have been rising for the past 500 to 2,000 years, the rate of heating has sharply accelerated since the start of the industrial revolution in the West, and particularly during the 20th century. The science behind the hockey stick graph has been continuously upheld as accurate, and is among key findings that prove burning oil, coal, and methane gas is the primary driver of the climate crisis.​

​

Mann and other scientists have steadily pointed out that climate deniers took the emails out of context — a point Mann emphasized on the stand, explaining that phrases Steyn and Simberg had interpreted as admissions of misconduct were colloquialisms used by professional scientists.​

​

The claim that the "hockey stick" chart was proven to be a fraud is not supported by the majority of scientific assessments. The controversy surrounding the "hockey stick" chart stemmed from the release of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in 2009, an event known as "Climategate." While some commentators alleged that the hacked emails showed evidence of data manipulation and suppression of dissenting scientific papers, the majority of researchers and scientific assessments support the validity of the "hockey stick" chart and have found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Additionally, in 2021, Reuters stated that the "hockey stick" graph is not false evidence of man-made climate change. The "hockey stick" graph, which depicts a sharp increase in global temperatures in recent decades, remains a widely accepted representation of human interference in the climate system.​

​

The claim that the "hockey stick" chart has been proven to be a fraud is not substantiated by the preponderance of evidence and scientific opinion.​

View attachment 735

​

Seriously. I read the emails. Did you? It is very obvious it was all a fraud and the entire "global warming" industry is a scam. Now I know are not discussing things in good faith.

All so typical with the people making up facts and distorting reality and bullying people with fear tactics.

 

[Frank Robert]

Seriously. I read the emails. Did you? It is very obvious it was all a fraud and the entire "global warming" industry is a scam. Now I know are not discussing things in good faith.

You are entitled to your opinion. If you have evidence that global warming is a scam, then present it. Otherwise you will come across as just another unreliable climate denier.

All so typical with the people making up facts and distorting reality and bullying people with fear tactics.

You are entitled to believe that that facts are made up but if you want to convince anyone who have a scientific knowledge of the facts., that your opinions are valid, you will need to produce actual science through legitimate journal articles and research. Science relies on evidence not opinions. One place that you can look for scientific evidence is google.scholar or phys.org. A positive fact about science is that additional or new evidence is always welcome.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You are entitled to your opinion. If you have evidence that global warming is a scam, then present it. Otherwise you will come across as just another unreliable climate denier.

You are entitled to believe that that facts are made up but if you want to convince anyone who have a scientific knowledge of the facts., that your opinions are valid, you will need to produce actual science through legitimate journal articles and research. Science relies on evidence not opinions. One place that you can look for scientific evidence is google.scholar or phys.org. A positive fact about science is that additional or new evidence is always welcome.

It's not an opinion. It is fact. That you continue to make things up out of thin air and make believe it is real, shows you are delusional.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1756268949904269404

Fantastic!

 

[Frank Robert]

It's not an opinion.

You can convince others it is a fact, if you present scientific research and evidence that it is a fact.

It is fact. That you continue to make things up out of thin air and make believe it is real, shows you are delusional.

When you accuse someone of making things up you should be specific of what and where those alleged made up things are and be able to demonstrate that they are made up.

Most of the time I present where the scientific sources explaining the evidence for human climate warming. Twitter, youtube and wide awake media are not scientific sources.

 

[Frank Robert]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1756268949904269404

Fantastic!

The statement "CO2 is a gas that currently represents 0.041% of the whole atmosphere. Despite this small [percentage], for decades now, campaigns are ran to make people believe that man-made CO2 is the cause of climate change" is misleading because it suggests that the small concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not significant enough to impact climate change. However, the scientific consensus is that even though CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, it plays a disproportionately large role in Earth's climate system due to its ability to trap heat. The percentage of CO2 may be small, but its impact on the greenhouse effect is substantial. Carbon dioxide accounts for 79% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and most of the world's scientists agree that greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from human activities are the primary driver of climate change
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/21/is-only-004-of-the-atmosphere-but-a-viral-video-ig/
Comparing the small percentage of CO2 to its effect on climate change is akin to comparing a small amount of poison to its potential to cause harm to a person, as noted by Aiguo Dai, an atmospheric and environmental sciences professor
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/21/is-only-004-of-the-atmosphere-but-a-viral-video-ig/
Therefore, the campaigns to address man-made CO2 emissions are based on its scientifically established role in contributing to global warming and climate change, not on the misconception of its atmospheric concentration.

Source: CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, but a viral video ignores that it’s a major climate threat

Additional sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b0dact

https://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/editorials/article/Global-warming-attributed-to-CO2-emissions-a-hoax-6916658.php

Carbon dioxide: the good and the bad, the right and the wrong - Climate and environment at Imperial blog

Professor Colin Prentice, AXA Chair in Biosphere and Climate Impacts “Carbon Dioxide: The Good News” - This is the title of a recent Global Warming Policy Foundation report (Goklany, 2015) that focuses on the benefits of CO2 for people. In a hard-hitting foreword, eminent physicist Freeman Dyson...

granthaminstitute.com

What is wrong in the statement ?“We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide”?

What is wrong in the statement ?“We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide”?

byjus.com

The statement "The solutions proposed to fight climate change are higher taxes and more state control, as well as less rights and options for the people... Obviously, the declared objective is to change our behaviour, while fighting climate change is just a pretext to do it" is not accurate. The solutions proposed to fight climate change are diverse and include transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy, improving energy efficiency, investing in renewable energy, reducing deforestation, and making changes in individual behavior such as reducing carbon pollution, transforming transport, and advocating for political action.

While some proposals may involve policy measures like carbon pricing, the overall objective is to mitigate the impact of climate change and transition to a sustainable low-carbon future. The claim that fighting climate change is a pretext to impose higher taxes, more state control, and fewer rights and options for people is not supported by the widely recognized solutions to climate change.

Sources:
1
2
3
Wide Awake Media is rated as a Right Biased Conspiracy-Pseudoscience site, according to Media Bias/Fact Check. It is known for promoting pseudoscience, lacking credible sourcing, and making unproven or false claims. The site has failed fact checks, including false claims about a Greenpeace co-founder denying human impact on climate change and incorrect reports about Hamas backers. Its reputation is characterized by low credibility, and it is criticized for its focus on conspiracy theories and pseudoscience topics, such as the World Economic Forum's 'Great Reset' agenda. The ownership and funding details of Wide Awake Media are not transparent, and it generates revenue through advertising, donations, and selling conspiracy-related merchandise
1

 

[Frank Robert]

Seriously. I read the emails. Did you? It is very obvious it was all a fraud and the entire "global warming" industry is a scam. Now I know are not discussing things in good faith.

All so typical with the people making up facts and distorting reality and bullying people with fear tactics.

Who were the emails from? What was the evidence that convinced you? Were any of the emails from scientists who are actively involved in climate research? One needs to use simple common sense when you reading about the climate. There are vested interests on both sides. Unfortunately the denier side does little if any actual science research and NEVER presents any valid scientific evidence.

The "hockey stick" analogy in climate science refers to a graph that shows the Earth's temperature record over the past millennium. The graph resembles a hockey stick, with the "handle" representing a long period of relatively stable temperatures followed by a sharp increase, or "blade," in the last century, coinciding with the industrial revolution and a significant rise in greenhouse gas emissions. This pattern indicates an unprecedented rate of global warming in recent decades.The original hockey stick graph, published by Michael Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1999 (MBH99), has been subject to intense scrutiny and debate but has been broadly validated by subsequent research. It has become a powerful symbol of human-induced climate change due to its clear, visual representation of the rapid rise in global temperatures. Despite criticism and attempts to discredit the graph by climate change skeptics, further studies and reconstructions have consistently supported the hockey stick's depiction of a dramatic increase in global temperatures, especially in the context of the last two millennia.
1
2
3
.The controversy around the hockey stick graph has not only been about the science itself but also about its implications for policy and the public's perception of climate change. It has faced attacks from fossil fuel interests and some political groups because it visually communicates the impact of human activity on the planet's climate in a straightforward and understandable manner. Despite these challenges, the hockey stick remains an important piece of evidence in the scientific consensus on climate change.
4

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Who were the emails from? What was the evidence that convinced you? Were any of the emails from scientists who are actively involved in climate research? One needs to use simple common sense when you reading about the climate. There are vested interests on both sides. Unfortunately the denier side does little if any actual science research and NEVER presents any valid scientific evidence.

The "hockey stick" analogy in climate science refers to a graph that shows the Earth's temperature record over the past millennium. The graph resembles a hockey stick, with the "handle" representing a long period of relatively stable temperatures followed by a sharp increase, or "blade," in the last century, coinciding with the industrial revolution and a significant rise in greenhouse gas emissions. This pattern indicates an unprecedented rate of global warming in recent decades.The original hockey stick graph, published by Michael Mann, Bradley, and Hughes in 1999 (MBH99), has been subject to intense scrutiny and debate but has been broadly validated by subsequent research. It has become a powerful symbol of human-induced climate change due to its clear, visual representation of the rapid rise in global temperatures. Despite criticism and attempts to discredit the graph by climate change skeptics, further studies and reconstructions have consistently supported the hockey stick's depiction of a dramatic increase in global temperatures, especially in the context of the last two millennia.
1
2
3
.The controversy around the hockey stick graph has not only been about the science itself but also about its implications for policy and the public's perception of climate change. It has faced attacks from fossil fuel interests and some political groups because it visually communicates the impact of human activity on the planet's climate in a straightforward and understandable manner. Despite these challenges, the hockey stick remains an important piece of evidence in the scientific consensus on climate change.
4

I LOL every time you try to put your false spin on all the facts. It's great to see how you squirm you way out of undeniable facts. Keep it up. It's hilarious to read.

 

[Frank Robert]

I LOL every time you try to put your false spin on all the facts. It's great to see how you squirm you way out of undeniable facts. Keep it up. It's hilarious to read.

Please specify what you personally believe are the "undeniable facts" and the sources of such claims along with the scientific qualifications of the email authors. You needn't worry, I won't be holding my breath.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Please specify what you personally believe are the "undeniable facts" and the sources of such claims along with the scientific qualifications of the email authors. You needn't worry, I won't be holding my breath.

LOL. Do the same. I know you can't.

 

[Frank Robert]

LOL. Do the same. I know you can't.

It' would be pretty dumb of you to think someone can respond to YOUR specific complaints without knowing what they are but I don't know for sure that you are so dumb and you like being an annoyance.

Bye.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

It' would be pretty dumb of you to think someone can respond to YOUR specific complaints without knowing what they are but I don't know for sure that you are so dumb and you like being an annoyance.

Bye.

Keep it up. You've made a complete fool of yourself. It didn't take much to point it out.

 

[EarlyActs]

Abiogenesis

https://twitter.com/x/status/1763851111381786869

 

[EarlyActs]

Good question:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1763717975838777616

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Abiogenesis

https://twitter.com/x/status/1763851111381786869

Yes, some of us have been studying this phenomenon for decades already.

 

[EarlyActs]

Why would Biden need to take checks?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1764676325569147265