Name the oil companies that have invested in Al Gore's GIM Hedge Fund for carbon trading. Oil companies are playing every possible angle. Knowing that more regulation, fuel additives, and carbon trading are imminent they are positioning themselves to profit from all of it. As well as getting new tax credits for making refineries more "green". Can you name the industry that gets over 50% of the "green" tax credits in the U.S each year? Why it is traditional energy companies.
How to Become a Conservative in Four Embarrassing Steps
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
Name the oil companies that have invested in Al Gore's GIM Hedge Fund for carbon trading. Oil companies are playing every possible angle. Knowing that more regulation, fuel additives, and carbon trading are imminent they are positioning themselves to profit from all of it. As well as getting new tax credits for making refineries more "green". Can you name the industry that gets over 50% of the "green" tax credits in the U.S each year? Why it is traditional energy companies.
Energy companies do not want regulations put in place that limit their ability to extract energy (oil wells, gas fracking, etc.) or to transport energy (pipelines, trains, etc.). The environmentalists have been using AGW & CO2 as reasons to stop energy companies from their regular activities, which is why energy companies have sought to cast doubt on the AGW claims by funding research etc.
However on the other side of the coin, energy companies are fully supportive of getting green tax credits for refinery updates, smoke stack filters, disposal enhancements, etc. The energy companies fully support carbon tax credits - they will acquire them in bulk for cheap and sell them for higher prices if a required carbon credit market is ever implemented. The energy companies fully support corn-based ethanol addition - it is a great padding to their profit margins plus giving them tax credits. In support of all of this energy companies have funded research supporting energy tax credits, carbon markets, and ethanol addition which fully latched on to supporting AGW as an argument in their support.
The energy companies are playing both sides of the street.
Then why is my education level higher than yours?
One survey among many........ only the US........weathermen are not climatologists.
Among the world's most published climatologists the consensus is closer to 100%.
A good way to see that is by looking authors that deny AGW.
Only one — ONE — of the 9,137 authors of peer-reviewed climate change articles rejected anthropogenic global warming. Geochemist James Powell did the research on publications from November 2012 and December 2013. (But if a year-long sample isn’t good enough for you, Powell previously examined 21 years of peer-reviewed literature and found that only 24 out of 13,950 articles — or two-tenths of a percent — came out and rejected human-caused climate change.)
The lone dissident, S. V. Avakyan, wrote in Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, “The contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.” But Coby Beck smacks this idea down in his “How to talk to a climate skeptic” series.
"Only one — ONE — of the 9,137 authors of peer-reviewed climate change articles rejected anthropogenic global warming."
This is a meaningless statistic. Noting that only one out of 9,137 authors, which represent far fewer articles, rejected AGW outright, should not be interpreted as 9,136 authors having accepted AGW as real and significant. We don't, from what you have stated, have any idea what the other 9,136 authors concluded.
Yeah, like I said. The consensus is closer to 100% than 95%.
The 2 % that disagree work for the fossil fuel industry or did not understand the question or are right wing nuts.
For more on just how the conservatives embarrass themselves..
The entrenched battle between reality and bullshit hit a fever pitch earlier this year when White House science advisor John Holdren testified before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. The questions from several Republican members were almost too off the wall to be believed, inspiring one of 2014's best Jon Stewart flipouts. Among the inquisitors was Indiana climate skeptic Larry Bucshon, who suggested that scientists might be in the tank for global warming as a kind of get-rich-slow scam:
Bucshon: Is it true that this rule has no effect on the global temperature change?
Holdren: Can I take that? I'd like to respond to that.
Bucshon: There's public comments out there that that question has been asked and answered saying no.
Holdren: You should look at the scientific literature rather than the public comments…
Bucshon: Of all the climatologists whose career depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles? Yes, I could read that, but I don’t believe it.
As Stewart pointed out, Bucshon's top three campaign contributors are Murray Energy and Koch Enterprises and Peabody Energy. You can't make this stuff up and, sadly, we don't have to.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...t-wingers-said-in-2014-20141230#ixzz3UEWB7lOT
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Attachments
Sadly, it seems you may be correct. It is a terrible error of course that could cost us billions of unnecessary expense for no gain.. If the science isn't there the right thing to do is to admit it and not do anything until the science is there.. But it is much worse than that. The science in this case is telling us we are wrong. Anthropomorphic CO2 is having a, so far, undetectable affect on temperature. (I trust the satellite data as being self-consistent, but still subject to systematic error.. I have no faith in temperature data obtained by direct measurement prior to the mid 1990s. There were simply not enough reliable monitoring stations, leaving millions of square miles of the Earths surface unmonitored. Naturally the proxy temperature readings (tree rings,etc.) are subject to large systematic error -- very large, ridiculously large!
"Anthropomorphic CO2 is having a, so far, undetectable affect on temperature."
piehole
.png)
piehole
I see futurecurrents is back to posting his global warming fiction. It must be another day of the week that ends in "y".