“Hi H.R.

Rush Limbaugh’s last contract was for 400 million dollars, for 8 years. That’s fifty million dollars per year.”

How much of that $400 million was paid by Exxon Mobil? You’re a little short of pertinent facts. We were discussing Exxon Mobil paying $26 million to Rush et al. Break down that $400 million will ya or are you telling me that Exxon Mobil pays Rush $50 million per year? Heck skip that. All I ever asked for was a breakdown of the $26 million: who, what, when, where, how much?

“That’s what Al Gore’s “hockey stick” graph is all about.”

Um… Mann’s methodology produces a hockey stick with random noise as input (see Climate Audit for a thorough discussion of of Mann’s methodology). Mann’s hockey stick is about a couple of years of wasted time and money, not climate change.

“One time that the climate may have changed almost as fast as today, was during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, which killed something like 95 percent of all marine species, and something like 80 percent of terrestrial species. It was the most severe mass extinction in history, and was the only known mass extinction of insects. It was probably due to a methane catastrophe, certainly the isotope signature of a massive Carbon 13 negative shift, almost certainly caused by the release of trillions of tons of isotopically light methane, is there in the sediment. The oceans apparently turned anoxic, there was large production of hydrogen sulfide by the oceans, and it took the earth’s climate roughly 100,000 years to recover.”

I agree wholeheartedly that there has and will be mass extinctions such as the Permian-Triassic mass extinction. But where was humankind’s fingerprint in that pie, or in the other mass extinctions for that matter? I’m still having a hard time understanding where the catastrophe is going to come from wrt CO2 if CO2 is increasing but temperatures (or more importantly, ocean heat content as measured by the Argo bouys) is essentially flat.

So where are the feedbacks that cause runaway global warming? It’s never happened before when CO2 levels were much, much higher than current times. Where were the feedbacks then? Why will they work “this time” but they didn’t work in the past?

Milankovitch cycles coupled with the positions of the continental land masses get my vote for controlling influence wrt global climate change. Glacials and interglacials are just weather until the continents move about into a position for real global climate change. That is, if an asteroid doesn’t get us first.

Rush Limbaugh’s last contract was for 400 million dollars, for 8 years. That’s fifty million dollars per year.

Limbaugh claims himself to be a “friend to corporate America”.

Oh really?

Who knew?

I’ve been Googling Clear Channel, which is Limbaugh’s employer, and looking for connections to oil. So far, no luck, though. Clear channel is currently controlled by a group of private equity firms. I’ll keep digging, and let you know what I find out, though.

The climate in the past has changed very slowly, compared to today’s “geologically instantaneous” changes. And the changes are accelerating.

That’s what Al Gore’s “hockey stick” graph is all about.

One time that the climate may have changed almost as fast as today, was during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, which killed something like 95 percent of all marine species, and something like 80 percent of terrestrial species. It was the most severe mass extinction in history, and was the only known mass extinction of insects. It was probably due to a methane catastrophe, certainly the isotope signature of a massive Carbon 13 negative shift, almost certainly caused by the release of trillions of tons of isotopically light methane, is there in the sediment. The oceans apparently turned anoxic, there was large production of hydrogen sulfide by the oceans, and it took the earth’s climate roughly 100,000 years to recover.

One way to think about it is that climate change has been so slow in the past that any systematic change was unlikely to be observed in any single human lifetime.

Any systematic change within a single human lifetime likely means that the system is out of control. And what we are seeing right now is perceptible (massive) change in the polar caps, for example, within a few years. Also, the vast majority of the changes we are seeing are in a single direction – warming.

I know that the observational evidence for AGW, which is massive, is ignored or ridiculed on this blog. But it is certainly there. Hundreds or thousands of observations and scientific studies, from many different fields of science, point to warming, as detailed in the latest IPCC report, and other even more alarming findings since then.

Concerning rates of climate change, the Permain- Triassic mass extinction doesn’t seem like a very good role model, does it?

It wouldn’t surprise me that $26 million wouldn’t cover Rush’s golf expenses for a year. Where did the rest of the money go?

“[...] they seek to convince people that giving up their really most basic human right – the right to a stable climate – is in their self interest. [...]”

Ahhhh… Now we come to the crux of your misunderstanding. Since when has the climate ever been stable? The earth’s climate has always been changing one way or another without the help of mankind, thank you very much.

Talking about “the right to a stable climate” is nonsense. Be sure to yell that out to the next glacier that plows through Indianapolis, as one surely will. Earth’s climate has never been stable. I’ve got a couple of million years of history on my side of the argument. What do you have; unproven climate models? I’ll stick with geological evidence on the climate change topic.

To solve the invented methane crisis, Leland says, “it seems to me that ExxonMobil should be fined something like 1.5 trillion dollars per year for the damage that they are inflicting on the world’s biosphere.” Of course any such fine would be simply passed on to the consumer in the form of much higher prices, hitting the poorest really hard; Leland likes that, being an elitist. And Al Gore would agree with him.

Also, not so. I’m much more of a populist, than an elitist. For elitists, look among the financial elite, and I’m one of the po’ folk.

Yeah, we saw some of that financial efficiency of huge oil companies, during the Bush Administration, during which they colluded to drive the price of oil up by excessive futures speculation, and made huge profits from four dollar per gallon gasoline.

If we nationalized the oil companies, the price of gasoline would go down. If we convert most of our transportation fleet to become plug in hybrids and use electricity, the demand for gasoline will become more flexible, and the price of gasoline will go down.

That’s really what ExxonMobil’s disinformation campaign is all about. Through paid spokespeople like Rush Limbaugh, they seek to convince people that giving up their really most basic human right – the right to a stable climate – is in their self interest.

Considering the huge value of the free goods and services we currently receive from the biosphere, an unstable climate cannot possibly be in the self-interest of the great majority of the people.

The non-wacko scientific community doesn’t publish about a methane catastrophe because it’s so improbable. If people started sending manuscripts around to be peer reviewed, arm-waving about the danger of the [pretty much non-existent] methane ices supposedly littering the sea floor, the laughter from normal scientists would make them slink away.

Wrong.

There are plenty of peer reviewed scientific papers on the clathrate gun hypothesis, several of which I have referenced on this thread, and increasingly serious scientists like Chris Field are taking them seriously. Also the C13 isotope signatures left by past methane catastrophes are real, and are so massive that they are difficult or impossible to explain any other way.

What can I say about someone so in love with a conclusion that they are able to ignore the fact of the existence of trillions of tons of methane hydrates?

The Council on Foreign Relations Scott Borgerson himself takes the “climate bomb” scenarios seriously.

….The polar icecap in the central Arctic Ocean thinned by half between 2001 and 2007. Other signs — such as warmer deep-water ocean currents, greater albedo feedback loops, and massive ice shelves breaking free — point to further melting. Scientists are increasingly concerned that the thawing permafrost will disgorge millions of tons of methane, unleashing what some refer to as a “climate bomb,” a runaway warming cycle that could dramatically raise the planet’s temperature…..

Scott Borgerson just looks upon the melting of the Arctic as a business opportunity.

Regarding hypocracy, is that really what this debate is about? The hypocracy of individuals?

I thought it was about whether the climate was destabilizing.

Yes, I use fossil fuels.

No I don’t like it.

Yes, I minimize their use, and am looking for alternatives.

But is this debate really about me, or any other individual, and not about the climate?

The non-wacko scientific community doesn’t publish about a methane catastrophe because it’s so improbable. If people started sending manuscripts around to be peer reviewed, arm-waving about the danger of the [pretty much non-existent] methane ices supposedly littering the sea floor, the laughter from normal scientists would make them slink away.

Leland says “if we ignite a methane catastrophe, could be infinite- it could destroy everything.” But at the same time, our favorite hypocrite admits to having carbon spewing children, and he admits to driving a carbon spewing automobile [and most likely more than one], and he admits to using carbon spewing heat for his carbon spewing home. I would ask Leland how he can be so hypocritical, but his cognitive dissonance provides him with logic-free cover. The answer, of course, is for Leland to immediately stop his use of fossil fuels. But like Al Gore, Leland only preaches at everyone else to stop their use of fossil fuels, while Leland enjoys the benefits of his extravagant petroleum burning.

To solve the invented methane crisis, Leland says, “it seems to me that ExxonMobil should be fined something like 1.5 trillion dollars per year for the damage that they are inflicting on the world’s biosphere.” Of course any such fine would be simply passed on to the consumer in the form of much higher prices, hitting the poorest really hard; Leland likes that, being an elitist. And Al Gore would agree with him.

Nobody likes a hypocrite. Leland’s only honest course of action requires that he must give up the use of any and all fossil fuel-based energy. Whining that Exxon should be fined, while still using their products, is a clear cop out. When Leland gives up the benefits of petroleum, he will be on the road to credibility. Until then, Leland is a monumental hypocrite, serene in his cognitive dissonance.

The Council on Foreign Relations has been dominated by the Rockefeller family for decades. This is of course the same Rockefeller family is descended from John D. Rockefeller, founder of the Standard Oil oil monopoly that once controlled something like 90% of all the refinery capacity in the U.S. The Rockefeller family still retains enough control over ExxonMobil to oust the ex-CEO of ExxonMobil Lee Raymond, and send him back to Texas with his 450 million dollar golden parachute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil

The Chairman Emeritus of the CFR, for example, is David Rockefeller.

Scott Borgerson, a visiting fellow at the CFR, (meaning he’s a member of the CFR think tank and is on the payroll) has been touting the value of Arctic resources lately, in a series of articles in the CFR’s journal Foreign Affairs, and testimony before Congress.

His message?

The Arctic is melting, it doesn’t really matter why. It’s just melting, is all, with “stunning speed”, so that the Arctic might be ice free in the summer by 2013.

This opens up business opportunities in the Arctic including access to many trillions of dollars worth of oil and natural gas, constituting something like 22% of all the remaining undiscovered hydrocarbons on the planet.

And we better hurry, before the Russians get it.

In testimony before the House foreign relations committee, Borgerson wistfully noted that the Russians have some really nice ice breakers, and what the U.S. really needs is a really nice fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers ourselves, at a couple of billion dollars per ship, built with public money, of course. We need these icebreakers presumably to break the ice for following oil tankers, especially during the fall, winter and spring. These oil tankers would presumably be harvesting oil from oil wells drilled in the ice free Arctic summers, under what is currently polar icecap.

Notice the different messages here, for different groups.

For the poor people duped by their network of climate skeptics, the message is that global warming is not occurring, at all.

For investors, and people that read the CFR;s output, the message is “Go North, Young Man!”. There’s money to be made in the Arctic, when the ice melts.

For a list of Borgerson’s articles, and links to his testimony before Congress, go here:

http://www.cfr.org/bios/13363/

Here’s a sample:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64905/scott-g-borgerson/the-great-game-moves-north

The Great Game Moves North

The Arctic is the fastest-warming region on earth and continues to melt at a breathtaking rate. Last summer, for the first time in history, the polar icecap retreated far enough to open sea routes north of Eurasia as well as North America, and it is expected to be completely ice-free during the summer months in 2013….

….he polar icecap in the central Arctic Ocean thinned by half between 2001 and 2007. Other signs — such as warmer deep-water ocean currents, greater albedo feedback loops, and massive ice shelves breaking free — point to further melting. Scientists are increasingly concerned that the thawing permafrost will disgorge millions of tons of methane, unleashing what some refer to as a “climate bomb,” a runaway warming cycle that could dramatically raise the planet’s temperature…..

….Last July, the U.S. Geological Survey released the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the region’s oil and gas potential, and the numbers are staggering. Based on a resource appraisal of technically recoverable hydrocarbons, the Arctic contains about 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and about 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas. Together this represents 22 percent of all untapped but technically recoverable hydrocarbons. More than 80 percent of these resources lie offshore.

“The results are staggering”, indeed.

ExxonMobil appears to want the Arctic to melt, so that they can drill for oil under our current polar icecap, IMO.

And they are knowingly willing to risk igniting a methane catastrophe, to get that oil and natural gas.

I’m sorry, I forgot about voting for either Rex Tillerson or David Rockefeller for Emperor of the World.

Oh, I don’t give ‘em Hell, I just tell the truth, and they think it’s Hell.

The cost of global warming, if we ignite a methane catastrophe, could be infinite- it could destroy everything.

Here is a reference to a paper that estimates value of goods and services provided to humanity by the biosphere:

http://www.uvm.edu/giee/publications/Nature_Paper.pdf

For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16–54 trillion per year, with an average of US$33trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.

So, speaking roughly and approximately, it seems to me that ExxonMobil should be fined something like 1.5 trillion dollars per year for the damage that they are inflicting on the world’s biosphere, since if a methane catastrophe is ignited, we are talking about an almost complete loss of those goods and services that the biosphere has given us in the past for free. Since a methane catastrophe, once ignited, woud be hard or impossible to stop, it seems legitimate to hold those companies that knowingly profited from igniting it legally liable for all of the damages caused by their actions.

Since their gross sales are about 350 billion per year, or so, it looks to me like their continued operation is a losing proposition.

If fighting global warming, cleaning up the mess that the fossil fuel companies have made, becomes too expensive for the public to finance, I think we should just go after the hugely rich stockholders of the fossil fuel companies such as the Rockefeller family, and hold them legally liable for the damage that they have knowingly done to the earth’s biosphere. Since their own scientists have been telling them for a couple of decades now that the link between global warming and fossil fuel use is incontrovertible, and they have been knowingly lying about it, I’d say the public has a very good case for complete nationalization of all oil companies and all profits those oil companies have ever made.

And thats “May I ask you..”

..you should wonder what the ultimate source of those talking points was. There are apparently paid climate skeptics, and ExxonMobil has been widely reported to have spent at least 26 million dollars in the last decade supporting a network of such skeptics.

Leland Palmer the funding of sceptics pales in comparison with the funding received by proponents of Man-Made Global Warming Fear mongering.

And there are many sceptic scientists who have received no funding whatsoever from ExxonMobile like Dr Christy or Dr Bob Carter.

Prof Bob Carter “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,”

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249598,00.html

In addition to this is the funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate alarmism.

Former Vice President Al Gore’s claimed on August 7, 2007 that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into sceptical organizations.

Gore launched a $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/26/global-warming-ads-al-gore-coming-soon

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, “Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government [to conduct research in] support of manmade global warming,”

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081307B

Follow the money. “Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf

The message – keep people alarmed – thats where the money is.

My I ask you why you believe in AGW? Have you examined the science and the predictions? What are your scientific credentials?

Here’s some good info on it, from Greenpeace-

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets

Then allow me to change my comment from “interesting choice” to “interesting coincidence.”

Actually, I misspoke.

There is no coincidence.

It’s just my name.

I used to hate it, because I thought it made me sound old, when I was a kid. One day I blew up, and told my mom that I hated the name, and she explained it was my uncle’s name, who was my father’s favorite younger brother, that he took care of when they were kids. Since then, I haven’t really minded the name, since inflicting that name on the children seems to be a family tradition.

Leland, by the way, means something like “in the lea of the land” meaning something like downwind? Dunno.

A palmer though, was a holy man, in England, who had journeyed to the holy land, and gotten a palm tree tattooed on his back, as a sign of his devotion. He could then beg in the streets, and people would give him money because he was so holy. Of course, there are rumors that some people just stayed home and got the tattoo, instead of actually going all the way to the Middle East. :)

Anyway, enough chitchat.

Greed in the service of destroying the planet is no virtue, in my opinion.

People can make a profit in other ways, other than in spinning what I believe is a true threat to the continued existence of humanity and even possibly life itself on this planet.

Regarding ExxonMobil, much of the money they made during the Bush years was off oil as a commodity, traded an average of something like 30 times before it ever got to the consumer.

At the same time that they were doing this, they were spending at least 26 million dollars of these inflated profits to fund a network of climate skeptics to tell lies about global warming that their own scientists were telling them were lies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

I’m sorry, but it would take talents of persuasion beyond even those commonly encountered on this blog to sell such actions as a virtue, at least to me.