New report on climate change released today

[DBT]

A flippant response that misses the point that climate science seeks to understand how and to what extent human activity is effecting climate change.

If at all, around perhaps 0.3% at most. Nothing to get one's knickers in a knot about. Climate always has and always will change despite what mere mortals do. A species [any] either adapts or it becomes extinct.

How did you come up with that percentage?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A flippant response that misses the point that climate science seeks to understand how and to what extent human activity is effecting climate change.

If at all, around perhaps 0.3% at most. Nothing to get one's knickers in a knot about. Climate always has and always will change despite what mere mortals do. A species [any] either adapts or it becomes extinct.

<Shoots angelo>

Nothing to get one's knickers in a knot about. Death always has and always will happen despite what mere mortals do.

 

[angelo]

A flippant response that misses the point that climate science seeks to understand how and to what extent human activity is effecting climate change.

If at all, around perhaps 0.3% at most. Nothing to get one's knickers in a knot about. Climate always has and always will change despite what mere mortals do. A species [any] either adapts or it becomes extinct.

<Shoots angelo>

Nothing to get one's knickers in a knot about. Death always has and always will happen despite what mere mortals do.

How dare you destroy my future by shooting me!

 

[lpetrich]

'So they knew': Ocasio-Cortez questions Exxon scientist on climate crisis denial – video | Business | The Guardian

House Democrats on Wednesday laid out evidence that the oil behemoth ExxonMobil had known since the 1970s about the potential for a climate crisis and intentionally sowed doubt about it. One of those testifying was Martin Hoffert, a scientist consultant for Exxon Research and Engineering in the 1980s. Responding to the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Hoffert testified that in 1982, Exxon scientists predicted how carbon dioxide levels would rise and heat the planet as humans burned more fossil fuels

Something she mentions in her GND-promotion video "A Message from the Future".
Exxon sowed doubt about climate crisis, House Democrats hear in testimony | Business | The Guardian

House Democrats on Wednesday laid out four decades of evidence that oil behemoth Exxon knew since the 1970s that the burning of fossil fuels was heating the planet and intentionally sowed doubt about the climate crisis.

...
“What they did was wrong. They spread doubt about the dangers of climate change,” testified Martin Hoffert, who was a scientist consultant for Exxon Research and Engineering in the 1980s. “The effect of this disinformation was to delay action internally and externally … As a result, in my opinion, homes and livelihoods will likely be destroyed and lives lost.”

AOC noted that those predictions were

“startlingly accurate”.

“In 1982, seven years before I was even born, Exxon accurately predicted that by this year, 2019, the Earth would hit a carbon dioxide concentration of 415 parts per million and a temperature increase of 1C. Dr Hoffert, is that correct?”

“We were excellent scientists,” Hoffert said to laughter from the audience.

“Yes you were, yes you were,” Ocasio-Cortez responded. “So they knew.”

 

[lpetrich]

ExxonMobil faces trial over allegations of misleading investors on climate crisis | Business | The Guardian

The New York case is different in nature as it essentially revolves around investor fraud. From 2010, Exxon told the public it had assigned a price to carbon to account for how government regulation would affect its business. However, it privately used a much lower figure, allowing it to make carbon-heavy investments such as in the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, that would appear much less profitable otherwise.

The lawsuit, now led by the New York attorney general, Leticia James, alleges Exxon ran a “longstanding fraudulent scheme”.

“Exxon in effect erected a Potemkin village to create the illusion that it had fully considered the risks of future climate change regulation and had factored those risks into its business operations,” the lawsuit states.

“As a result of Exxon’s fraud, the company was exposed to far greater risk from climate change regulations than investors were led to believe.”

They not only knew, they tried to cover it up.

Trying to hide the ugly fact that the only way that oil companies can have a sustainable future is by getting into synthetic fuels: power-to-gas and power-to-liquid synfuels.

 

[angelo]

This just about says it all............................https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981551978613959&set=p.1981551978613959&type=3&theater

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This just about says it all............................https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981551978613959&set=p.1981551978613959&type=3&theater

Thank you. If that says it all then it's clear you have no case as she's not a credible source.

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

 

[George S]

I didn't follow the link. Did you, Loren? Or did you pre-judge based on who said it?
I, myself, don't care who says a true thing. Or a false thing. But discount based on source?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn't follow the link. Did you, Loren? Or did you pre-judge based on who said it?
I, myself, don't care who says a true thing. Or a false thing. But discount based on source?

I followed it, it's a comparison of how much media attention is given to two people. The one that's being ignored is a climate denier--I showed some of her problems. Since my link has a name in it it should be obvious it's a rebuttal.

 

[angelo]

This just about says it all............................https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981551978613959&set=p.1981551978613959&type=3&theater

Thank you. If that says it all then it's clear you have no case as she's not a credible source.

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

To alarmists all criticism is unreliable. This article is dated somewhat, but still holds up, for anyone who cares about fair reporting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#1a62116a27ba

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dings 'predominantly white' areas for hurricanes that killed minorities - Washington Times

“[T]he people that are producing climate change, the folks that are responsible for the largest amount of emissions, or communities, or corporations, they tend to be predominantly white, correct?” she asked at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties.

The National Wildlife Federation’s Mustafa Ali replied that “yes, and every study backs that up I know no one is intentionally trying to kill people and hurt people.”

“My own grandfather died in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria,” said Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, referring to the 2017 Puerto Rico storm that ultimately left about 3,000 dead. “We can’t act as though the inertia and history of colonization doesn’t play a role in this.”

She also made that point in her speech in Copenhagen, that the most vulnerable people are those who have contributed the least to the problem.

Republicans objected that such things as banning fracking would be very bad for poor people, because of making energy more expensive.

Subcommittee Chairman Jamie Raskin argued that “Exxon knew decades ago that climate change was real and would have devastating consequences if left corrected,” but instead “publicly denied the reality of climate change” by engaging in an “extensive and sinister campaign of climate denial.”

“The people have been denied the power knowledge gives, which means they have been governed by Big Oil,” said Mr. Raskin, Maryland Democrat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This just about says it all............................https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981551978613959&set=p.1981551978613959&type=3&theater

Thank you. If that says it all then it's clear you have no case as she's not a credible source.

https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

To alarmists all criticism is unreliable. This article is dated somewhat, but still holds up, for anyone who cares about fair reporting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#1a62116a27ba

I just gave you a link listing things about her position that don't hold up, how can you say it holds up?

 

[angelo]

To alarmists all criticism is unreliable. This article is dated somewhat, but still holds up, for anyone who cares about fair reporting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#1a62116a27ba

I just gave you a link listing things about her position that don't hold up, how can you say it holds up?

Perhaps she knows much more about Earth science than many alarmists. Here is her profile. If you care to read it, you will soon realise she's no dummy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03...obal-warming-says-climatologist-judith-curry/

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To alarmists all criticism is unreliable. This article is dated somewhat, but still holds up, for anyone who cares about fair reporting.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#1a62116a27ba

I just gave you a link listing things about her position that don't hold up, how can you say it holds up?

Perhaps she knows much more about Earth science than many alarmists. Here is her profile. If you care to read it, you will soon realise she's no dummy.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03...obal-warming-says-climatologist-judith-curry/

irrelevant. I presented a bunch of things she got wrong. Credentials don't magically make wrong right.

 

[lpetrich]

Here is a scan of a document on climate change circulated among Exxon's employees in 1982: 1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

Figure 3, Page 7, PDF page 14 of 46 is the graph that AOC showed off in that recent hearing. It's very close to what actually happened since its "publication" some 37 years ago -- older than AOC herself, as she noted.

All you climate-change deniers, what do *you* think is going on here?

 

[angelo]

View attachment 24557

In answer to your so-called 97% consensus and it's origin.

https://mises.org/wire/bogus-consensus-argument-climate-change

 

[lpetrich]

ExxonMobil faces trial over allegations of misleading investors on climate crisis | Business | The Guardian

New York lawsuit alleges company was ‘exposed to far greater risk from climate change than investors were led to believe’

ExxonMobil is to face trial in New York City on Tuesday, accused of misleading investors over the business risks caused by regulations aimed at addressing the climate crisis.

The oil and gas giant has been taken to court by New York’s attorney general for allegedly covering up the costs it will incur from government rules designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This represents just the second time a climate case has gone to trial in the US.

Exxon has long been a target for environmentalists, not only for being a major contributor to the climate crisis but also over revelations that it knew for decades that burning oil and gas would dangerously heat up the planet, only to obfuscate and even deny this to the public.

There are several other lawsuits in the works against fossil-fuel companies. It will be hard for them to portray themselves as innocent victims of persecution, given what their managements and strategists have known since the early 1980's, if not the early 1970's.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 24557

In answer to your so-called 97% consensus and it's origin.

https://mises.org/wire/bogus-consensus-argument-climate-change

That is not a rebuttal.

 

[lpetrich]

Tal Kopan on Twitter: "Nearly 200,000 people in California have had to evacuate their homes because of dangerous, growing wildfires.
That includes @SenKamalaHarris: https://t.co/WhdAgKwpUu" / Twitter
noting
Kamala Harris’ home evacuated in Los Angeles wildfire - SFChronicle.com
Checking at her campaign site gives us Combat the Climate Crisis | Kamala Harris For The People - a lot of recognition of what is to be done, if nothing else.

Trump’s Wrong Turn on Clean Cars: The Effects of Fuel Efficiency Rollbacks on the Climate, Car Companies and California | House Committee on Oversight and Reform links to a 3-hour video of the hearing.

Purpose:

• The hearing will examine the health and environmental impacts of the proposal to freeze Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas emissions standards at 2020 levels, rolling back the Obama Administration’s guidelines that would increase standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.
• The Subcommittee will probe the fossil fuel industry’s influence over the regulatory decision-making process at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) under President Trump and will also address the consequences of revoking California’s legal right to set more stringent tailpipe emissions standards.

Background:

• A clean cars rollback would have negative health, environmental, and economic impacts. For example, in October 2018, dozens of public health organizations sent a letter to the EPA and NHTSA, stating that the Administration’s proposed rollback would result in “an overall increase in particulate pollution and sulfur dioxide emissions.”
• Although the Trump administration has claimed its proposed rule would lead to fewer traffic fatalities, experts like Dr. Antonio Bento, who will testify at the hearing, have analyzed the regulatory record behind these statements and found the Administration relied on “cherry-picked” data to reach these conclusions.
• The Trump Administration’s announced revocation of California’s waiver was seen by many, including California officials, to be another example of President Trump using the EPA to retaliate against political adversaries. Governor Newsom remarked that the President’s decision to revoke the waiver was “reckless and politically motivated.”

Among the witnesses called in the hearing is California's former governor Jerry Brown.