The Philosophy of ExxonMobil

[quote]lucasa wrote:
olderguy wrote:

If you are interested in coverups,
Google Jim Hansen and Phil Cooney

You’re not filling me in on anything new here. Maybe you should look into the way the IPCC conducts its daily business. Both sides are playing very fast and loose with the data.

Leave politics aside and see the Al Gore movie.

I have, they should’ve gotten someone better to play the part of Al Gore. And you should get your science from research papers, not Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentations.
[/quote]

If you read any of those items, you would have seen that there are plenty of other scientists that work for government agency, or places that get government funding, that are afraid to speak up because they are aware there is a price to pay. Phil Cooney editing Hansen’s reports on global warming and leaving the government to go work for EXXON doesn’t raise a red flag? Come on.

You say both sides might be playing fast and loose with the data but that isn’t changing the fact the the polar ice caps are melting, 25 square mile chunks are breaking off the ice shelf, and co2 levels are off the charts, among other things. How about the extinction of the polar bears? Who needs them.

The heads of the tobacco companies swore before congress that nicotine wasn’t addictive. Sorry if I don’t believe much from big business.

You obviously are looking at what’s going on with the planet through a different pair of glasses than I am. I don’t need to read to many research papers.

You’re right, what does Al Gore know? Christ, if he would have gotten elected, this country would really be in a mess. God bless the Bush/Cheney ticket.

Good luck controlling the Sun’s magnetic field. Folks, perhaps humans are a near non-factor in climate change.

I get sick and tired of hearing how humans should be doing this and that, when the variables of the issue haven’t even been completely identified.
How can anyone here claim that humans contribute a significant factor to global warming when the issue obviously isn’t completely understood. This research just came out late 2006.

I wonder how many other natural, non-human, factors are not yet understood. In the end, do we even contribute, in any significant way, to global warming?

http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

"Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate

Experimental evidence shows that cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere.

An essential role for remote stars in everyday weather on Earth has been revealed by an experiment at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. It is already well-established that when cosmic rays, which are high-speed atomic particles originating in exploded stars far away in the Milky Way, penetrate the Earth?s atmosphere, they produce substantial amounts of ions and release free electrons. Now, results from the Danish experiment show that the released electrons play a significan role in promoting the formation of building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei, on which water vapor condenses to make clouds. Hence, a causal mechanism by which cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds in Earth?s atmosphere has been experimentally identified for the first time.

The Danish team officially announced their discovery on Wednesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, published by the Royal Society, (the UK?s national academy of science).
The experiment

The experiment called SKY (Danish for ?cloud?) took place in a large reaction chamber which contained a mixture of gases at realistic concentrations to imitate the chemistry of the lower atmosphere. Ultraviolet lamps mimicked the action of the Sun?s rays. During experimental runs, instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.
The data revealed that electrons released by cosmic rays act as catalysts, which significantly accelerating the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei. A vast numbers of such microscopic droplets appeared, floating in the air in the reaction chamber.
?We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,? says team leader Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research within the Danish National Space Center. ?This is a completely new result within climate science.?
A missing link in climate theory

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth?s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.
It is known that low-altitude clouds have an overall cooling effect on the Earth?s surface. Hence, variations in cloud cover caused by cosmic rays can change the surface temperature. The existence of such a cosmic connection to the Earth?s climate might thus help to explain past and present variations in the Earth?s climate.
Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun?s magnetic field (which shields Earth from cosmic rays) more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. Until now, however, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.
?Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,? comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ?Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research."

[quote]JD430 wrote:
I for one am concerned about a global warming trend. Severe climate change has caused many bad things to happen in earth’s history.

However, the thing I am not so sure about is if the change is being caused by mankind. That is a VERY important difference.

[/quote]
If it isn’t man made warming–which I am loath to believe otherwise–then why worry because there is nothing we can do about it any way. There have always been cycles of warming and cooling and subsequent climate change–that’s the way of living in such a dynamic sphere.

The extent to which man has contributed to and sped up this warming process is what has me concerned. It doesn’t seem logical to me that humans haven’t contributed at least a little since the dawn of industrialization. Just the fact that the population of the planet has increased more than slightly in the last 100 years would indicate more thermal output–but then when combined with the dramatic increase in manufacturing and burning of carbon fuel sources I am almost positive that humans are responsible.

There are also other factors that humans are contributing to that may be interfering with the carbon cycle, which helps to filter atmospheric carbon and thus keeps global tempuratures regulated, such as deforestation and over fishing.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Good luck controlling the Sun’s magnetic field. Folks, perhaps humans are a non-factor in controlling our climate change.

http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

"Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate

Experimental evidence shows that cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere.
[/quote]

You mean energy from stars might affect the weather of our planet?! Wow, how profound.

Cosmic rays…ha!

“Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field (which shields Earth from cosmic rays) more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century.”

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Good luck controlling the Sun’s magnetic field. Folks, perhaps humans are a non-factor in controlling our climate change.

http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

"Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate

Experimental evidence shows that cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere.

You mean energy from stars might affect the weather of our planet?! Wow, how profound.

Cosmic rays…ha!
[/quote]

It’s more accurate to say global climate change.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Good luck controlling the Sun’s magnetic field. Folks, perhaps humans are a non-factor in controlling our climate change.

http://spacecenter.dk/publications/press-releases/getting-closer-to-the-cosmic-connection-to-climate

"Getting closer to the cosmic connection to climate

Experimental evidence shows that cosmic rays from exploding stars can help to make clouds in the atmosphere.

You mean energy from stars might affect the weather of our planet?! Wow, how profound.

Cosmic rays…ha!

It’s more accurate to say global climate change. [/quote]

Yeah, my money’s still on the Sun.

Global Warming on Mars?

A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend.

After decades of thinking that the ice caps on Mars were mostly carbon dioxide (dry ice), planetary geologists are starting to think that those caps may be mostly fresh water ice instead.

http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

More than 25,000 people died in England and Wales last winter as a direct result of cold weather and the illnesses that accompany it, official figures disclosed yesterday.

According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be

colder than 2005
colder than 2004
colder than 2003
colder than 2002
? and, most obviously, ?
colder than 1998,
despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade

http://terminusest.info/archives/21

I wonder if I can get Exxon Mobil to sponsor me.

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
The Earth is undergoing global warming and humans do contribute to that.[/quote]

Agreed. But:

A) Is the global warming trend abnormal, or part of the normal Earth cycle of warming up and cooling down?

B) How much “contributing” are we doing? Is it all man? Is it 50%… 5%?

C) Can we slow it down, or even reverse it? In other words, should we invest in reducing man-made emissions, or are we better off, in the long run, by getting prepared for warmer climate, higher sea levels and desertification? You need to answer B before this one.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. [/quote]

Well those two Mars Rovers are powered by Hummer engines, aren’t they?

No wonder Mars is warming up.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be

colder than 2005
colder than 2004
colder than 2003
colder than 2002
? and, most obviously, ?
colder than 1998,
despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade

http://terminusest.info/archives/21

I wonder if I can get Exxon Mobil to sponsor me.[/quote]

Nah, they’d be wasting their money. You’re just reposting someone else’s spin.

How about this? 2006 was

hotter than 2001
hotter than 2000
hotter than 1999
hotter than 1997
hotter than 1996
hotter than 1995
hotter than 1994
hotter than 1993
hotter than 1992
hotter than 1991
hotter than 1990
hotter than 1989
hotter than 1988
hotter than 1987
hotter than 1986
hotter than 1985
hotter than 1984
hotter than 1983
hotter than 1982
hotter than 1981
hotter than 1980
hotter than 1979
hotter than 1978
hotter than 1977
hotter than 1976
hotter than 1975
hotter than 1974
hotter than 1973
hotter than 1972
hotter than 1971
hotter than 1970
hotter than 1969
hotter than 1968
hotter than 1967
hotter than 1966
hotter than 1965
hotter than 1964
hotter than 1963
hotter than 1962
hotter than 1961
hotter than 1960
hotter than 1959
hotter than 1958
hotter than 1957
hotter than 1956
hotter than 1955
hotter than 1954
hotter than 1953
hotter than 1952
hotter than 1951
hotter than 1950
hotter than 1949
hotter than 1948
hotter than 1947
hotter than 1946
hotter than 1945
hotter than 1944
hotter than 1943
hotter than 1942
hotter than 1941
hotter than 1940
hotter than 1939
hotter than 1938
hotter than 1937
hotter than 1936
hotter than 1935
hotter than 1934
hotter than 1933
hotter than 1932
hotter than 1931
hotter than 1930
hotter than 1929
hotter than 1928
hotter than 1927
hotter than 1926
hotter than 1925
hotter than 1924
hotter than 1923
hotter than 1922
hotter than 1921
hotter than 1920
hotter than 1919
hotter than 1918
hotter than 1917
hotter than 1916
hotter than 1915
hotter than 1914
hotter than 1913
hotter than 1912
hotter than 1911
hotter than 1910
hotter than 1909
hotter than 1908
hotter than 1907
hotter than 1906
hotter than 1905
hotter than 1904
hotter than 1903
hotter than 1902
hotter than 1901
hotter than 1900
hotter than 1899
hotter than 1898
hotter than 1897
hotter than 1896
hotter than 1895
hotter than 1894
hotter than 1893
hotter than 1892
hotter than 1891
hotter than 1890
hotter than 1889
hotter than 1888
hotter than 1887
hotter than 1886
hotter than 1885
hotter than 1884
hotter than 1883
hotter than 1882
hotter than 1881
hotter than 1880
hotter than 1879
hotter than 1878
hotter than 1877
hotter than 1876
hotter than 1875
hotter than 1874
hotter than 1873
hotter than 1872
hotter than 1871
hotter than 1870
hotter than 1869
hotter than 1868
hotter than 1867
hotter than 1866
hotter than 1865
hotter than 1864
hotter than 1863
hotter than 1862
hotter than 1861
hotter than 1860
hotter than 1859
hotter than 1858
hotter than 1857
hotter than 1856
hotter than 1855
hotter than 1854
hotter than 1853
hotter than 1852
hotter than 1851
hotter than 1850

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
More than 25,000 people died in England and Wales last winter as a direct result of cold weather and the illnesses that accompany it, official figures disclosed yesterday.

Cold weather's 25,000 deaths toll is scandal, say charities | Health | The Guardian [/quote]

A. It’s called global warming for a reason
B. You’re referencing cold weather in WINTER?
C. Did you even read the article?

“The Office for National Statistics said there were 25,700 “excess winter deaths” between December and March. Thanks to THE MILDER WINTER and low levels of flu infection, this was 19% less than a year before.”

D. Oceanographers have predicted colder temperatures in Europe due to global warming’s affect on ocean currents that normally carry warm water to the region.

E. (edit) I just realized you were probably being sarcastic to make a point about uncertainty. Oh well.

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be

colder than 2005
colder than 2004
colder than 2003
colder than 2002
? and, most obviously, ?
colder than 1998,
despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade

http://terminusest.info/archives/21

I wonder if I can get Exxon Mobil to sponsor me.

Nah, they’d be wasting their money. You’re just reposting someone else’s spin.

How about this? 2006 was

hotter than 2001
hotter than 2000
hotter than 1999
hotter than 1997
hotter than 1996
hotter than 1995
hotter than 1994
hotter than 1993
hotter than 1992
hotter than 1991
hotter than 1990
hotter than 1989
hotter than 1988
hotter than 1987
hotter than 1986
hotter than 1985
hotter than 1984
hotter than 1983
hotter than 1982
hotter than 1981
hotter than 1980
hotter than 1979
hotter than 1978
hotter than 1977
hotter than 1976
hotter than 1975
hotter than 1974
hotter than 1973
hotter than 1972
hotter than 1971
hotter than 1970
hotter than 1969
hotter than 1968
hotter than 1967
hotter than 1966
hotter than 1965
hotter than 1964
hotter than 1963
hotter than 1962
hotter than 1961
hotter than 1960
hotter than 1959
hotter than 1958
hotter than 1957
hotter than 1956
hotter than 1955
hotter than 1954
hotter than 1953
hotter than 1952
hotter than 1951
hotter than 1950
hotter than 1949
hotter than 1948
hotter than 1947
hotter than 1946
hotter than 1945
hotter than 1944
hotter than 1943
hotter than 1942
hotter than 1941
hotter than 1940
hotter than 1939
hotter than 1938
hotter than 1937
hotter than 1936
hotter than 1935
hotter than 1934
hotter than 1933
hotter than 1932
hotter than 1931
hotter than 1930
hotter than 1929
hotter than 1928
hotter than 1927
hotter than 1926
hotter than 1925
hotter than 1924
hotter than 1923
hotter than 1922
hotter than 1921
hotter than 1920
hotter than 1919
hotter than 1918
hotter than 1917
hotter than 1916
hotter than 1915
hotter than 1914
hotter than 1913
hotter than 1912
hotter than 1911
hotter than 1910
hotter than 1909
hotter than 1908
hotter than 1907
hotter than 1906
hotter than 1905
hotter than 1904
hotter than 1903
hotter than 1902
hotter than 1901
hotter than 1900
hotter than 1899
hotter than 1898
hotter than 1897
hotter than 1896
hotter than 1895
hotter than 1894
hotter than 1893
hotter than 1892
hotter than 1891
hotter than 1890
hotter than 1889
hotter than 1888
hotter than 1887
hotter than 1886
hotter than 1885
hotter than 1884
hotter than 1883
hotter than 1882
hotter than 1881
hotter than 1880
hotter than 1879
hotter than 1878
hotter than 1877
hotter than 1876
hotter than 1875
hotter than 1874
hotter than 1873
hotter than 1872
hotter than 1871
hotter than 1870
hotter than 1869
hotter than 1868
hotter than 1867
hotter than 1866
hotter than 1865
hotter than 1864
hotter than 1863
hotter than 1862
hotter than 1861
hotter than 1860
hotter than 1859
hotter than 1858
hotter than 1857
hotter than 1856
hotter than 1855
hotter than 1854
hotter than 1853
hotter than 1852
hotter than 1851
hotter than 1850
[/quote]
That’s good.

I know we haven’t had snow in NYC this year which has broken a 115 yr record. Not to mention it being 72 degrees on Sat. which is a record.

Who knows? If we’re wrong and it is man made GW, we will never do anything until about it. Beach front property anyone?

[quote]olderguy wrote:

If you read any of those items, you would have seen that there are plenty of other scientists that work for government agency, or places that get government funding, that are afraid to speak up because they are aware there is a price to pay.[/quote]

And there are plenty that speak up for the IPCC precisely because they are being paid and disparage contrary research with the taboo of ‘funding bias’ whether it is real or not.

Actually, my understanding was Phil Cooney didn’t edit “Hansen’s” report. He edited Rick Piltz’s version of Hansen’s report. And nobody at the IPCC and in the popular media does anything any differently. Since you can’t apparently read anything outside this forum, here:

“We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented… It’s peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists’ report.” - Keith Shine, Lead Author IPCC’s AR2

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” - Chris Landsea

Additionally, the popular media sources changing "possibly"s to "likely"s is too numerous to list and apparently no one can talk about the oceans rising .3mm over the past 3yrs. without someone injecting an ‘if water were suddenly unable to crystallize’ scenarios.

And as I’ll keep saying until I’m blue in the face. AR4 from the IPCC is expected to correct man’s contribution to GW by -25%. If you assume linear regressions (which is the only effects the IPCC will address) that means the Kyoto Protocol is 25% less effective than it was believed to be based on AR3.

So? There are over sixty animals just on the mammalian endangered species list. Animals like snow leopards, tigers, elephants, gorillas, otters, and wolverines. For some reason, polar bears jumping onto that list makes them more important than the rest of the animals. But a good example, the image that often gets painted about how ‘suddenly’ they’re resorting to cannibalism to survive global warming is a joke. It’s this top-to-bottom B.S. that makes the pill so hard to swallow.

BTW- After AR4, everyone in the world will suddenly be 25% less responsible for killing polar bears. Understand the B.S. now?

1.) I didn’t say both sides might be playing fast and loose with the data, I said they are. See how easy it is to change someone’s opinion?

2.) Ice caps breaking off never killed anyone (directly), what does kill people are heat waves. And as of yet, they are UNPREDICTABLE and the most effective measure to take against one is to own air conditioning. CO2 levels aren’t in excess of anything in the history of Homo sapiens, and certainly not Homo erectus and they were far less prepared to deal with anything like this. If you want to get scared about mankinds’ existence, read up on the Toba Catastrophe Theory (A volcanic eruption that nearly killed mankind and started an Ice Age, theoretically).

So, you’re honestly going to tell me that:

A.) Tobacco Companies ‘perjured’ themselves before congress therefore Oil Companies must be lying also? (That’s a big leap.)

B.) And because the Oil Companies must be lying, all the scientists who produce data and receive any portion of their funding from an Oil Company or any of it’s subsidiaries or associates must also be lying? (After all is it lying if you’re right?)

C.) And because of all the above lying, GW can and must be fixed ala the Kyoto Protocol or else the Earth is headed for catastrophe? (If we can’t do anything about it, then what difference does it make if they’re lying?)

Also, Tobacco companies lied and it’s still legal to buy/consume cigarettes does that give you any faith in Big Government?

I suspected this already but, it’s good to know that you accept claims without data.

[quote]pookie wrote:

Can we slow it down, or even reverse it? In other words, should we invest in reducing man-made emissions, or are we better off, in the long run, by getting prepared for warmer climate, higher sea levels and desertification?[/quote]

Is there anything indicating increased desertification or are you just ‘being prepared’? My understanding that there would be more heat, more water, more precipitation, longer growing seasons…

[quote]olderguy wrote:

I know we haven’t had snow in NYC this year which has broken a 115 yr record. Not to mention it being 72 degrees on Sat. which is a record.[/quote]

So the last time it didn’t snow in NYC was two decades before the invention of the internal combustion engine? And I assume this is more of your “evidence”?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend.

Well those two Mars Rovers are powered by Hummer engines, aren’t they?

No wonder Mars is warming up.
[/quote]

Heh, nice.

[quote]lucasa wrote:

  1. Invalid information is a quaint idea and should be easily provable as such.

  2. Which is worse? Distributing ‘invalid information’ or ascribing a ‘funding bias’ to any opposing viewpoints.
    [/quote]
    Have you already forgotten what the cigarette industry did, or are you just too young to remember that?

It has nothing to do with anyone sanctifying themselves, but with whether or not people are actually interested in the welfare of others in their actions.

Making cash isn’t the only thing of importance in this world.