The Guardian: “Climate change denial won’t even benefit oil companies soon”… Is it even grammatically possible to deny climate change?

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

I owe the USA Today Editorial Staff an apology.  Their “Hellish July” editorial wasn’t the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.  It wasn’t even the stupidest thing I’ve read this week…

Climate change denial won’t even benefit oil companies soon

Phil McDuff

The damage caused by our addiction to burning fossil fuels will be so widespread that nobody stands to gain

The year 2018 is on track to be…

[…]

One hot summer does not a changing climate make, but the trend in the global data is now irrefutable. When Michael Mann published the “hockey stick” graph back in 1998, there was vociferous public pushback, yet the observed temperature rises match what Mann had predicted. Today’s hockey stick graph isn’t a forward projection but a historical record. The world has been getting hotter, and it will continue to do so. The only question now is how much hotter it gets.

[…]

Maybe we are destined to become the civilisational equivalent of Monty Python’s Mr Creosote, a man who gorged himself until he literally exploded.

Regardless of the alternative histories and the might-have-beens, it may be too late to stop it, but we still need to learn an important lesson. If a CEO tells us that it would be bad for business if they weren’t allowed to pump poison into the air and water, then that’s too bad for them: one business is not an economy, and it certainly isn’t a biosphere. We’d have survived the crisis of an oil CEO missing out on his fifth yacht, but many won’t survive the consequences of letting them lead us by the nose into disaster.

 Phil McDuff writes on economics and social policy

The Grauniad

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/719509-reaction-images

Firstly, Phil gets a +42 for the Monty Python reference.

Secondly, I’ll let commentators ridicule this mind-numbingly stupid passage:

When Michael Mann published the “hockey stick” graph back in 1998, there was vociferous public pushback, yet the observed temperature rises match what Mann had predicted. Today’s hockey stick graph isn’t a forward projection but a historical record.

Thirdly, no oil company has ever denied “climate change.”  Without climate change, sedimentary geology would be pretty boring and Earth probably wouldn’t have much in the way of fossil fuels. Oil companies benefit from climate change.  If not for climate change, oil companies probably wouldn’t even exist.

Oddly enough, the relevance of climate change to sedimentary geology is also one of primary bits of “evidence” in the incredibly moronic #ExxonKnew fraud.

This may be even stupider than the McDuff nonsense…

Similarly, as Steve Coll5 wrote in Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power (2012), the company’s

investments in skeptics of the scientific consensus coincided with what at least a few of ExxonMobil’s own managers regarded as a hypocritical drive inside the corporation to explore whether climate change might offer new opportunities for oil exploration and profit.

The company tried to use the work of one of its most celebrated earth scientists, Peter Vail, to predict how alterations to the planet’s surface made by the changing climate could help it discover new deposits of oil and gas. “‘So don’t believe for a minute that ExxonMobil doesn’t think climate change is real,’ said a former manager…. ‘They were using climate change as a source of insight into exploration.’”6

The New York Review of Books: The Rockefeller Family Fund Takes on ExxonMobil

Are these people so fracking stupid that they can’t differentiate the scientifically challenged AGW hypothesis from the application of paleoclimatology to sedimentary geology?  That was a rhetorical question.

As stupid as that passage was, it did stumble upon one of the two pillars of sedimentary geology: paleoclimatology.  The other pillar being paleogeography.  It also ignorantly references one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in the history of geology: Sequence stratigraphy.

Theory Caused a ‘Sea Change’ in Thought

Vail’s Ideas Were a ‘Breakthrough’

 

When Peter Vail presented his theory linking stratigraphic interpretation with global sea level changes at the AAPG Annual Meeting in Dallas in 1975, it was akin to a shot heard ’round the world in the geology profession.

Vail’s hypothesis was a unifying concept for stratigraphy: Sedimentary basins filled with different sediments, he theorized, but the sediments were deposited in an episodic manner by global sea level changes.

That public pronouncement was at once lauded and accepted by many members of the scientific community and decried by others.

In fact, the ensuing controversy and scientific discussion among E&P industry stalwarts and academicians continues in some circles even today, providing apt testimony that this was a man on the cutting edge of research.

Unfazed by the naysayers and confident in his convictions, Vail spent a whole career furthering the case for seismic stratigraphy, which revolutionized the geology practicioners’ view of stratigraphy and the way oil and gas exploration is conducted.

Given his profound impact on the profession of geology, it comes as no surprise to Vail’s many former colleagues and others in the geology community that he has been selected to receive the 2003 Sidney Powers Memorial Award, AAPG’s highest honor.

Long held in high esteem by the association, Vail previously was awarded Honorary Membership in AAPG. He also has been the recipient of the AAPG President’s Award and the Matson Award for best papers.

Other industry-based society awards received during his illustrious career include:

  • Virgil Kauffman Gold Medal of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG).
  • Individual Achievement Award from the Offshore Technology Conference.
  • Twenhofel Medal of the Society of Sedimentary Geology (SEPM).
  • Honorary Membership in SEG.

These are but a few of the plethora of honors bestowed upon this intrepid scientist who also has played a key role on various industry, government and academic steering committees and has been honored by universities at home and abroad in recognition of his work.

He has been a prolific contributor to professional literature, having authored more than 60 publications appearing in journals, textbooks and guidebooks.

[…]

AAPG Explorer, May 2003

A few eustatic sea level charts from Vail et al., 1977:

1st order and 2nd order sea level cycles over the Phanerozoic Eon. Vail, et al., 1977.

Global cycles of sea level changes from Late Triassic through Tertiary. Vail et al., 1977.

Global cycles of sea level change over Cenozoic Era.

This knowledge of sea level change was locked away in ExxonMobil’s vault until intrepid journalists… Had you! Didn’t I?

So… Oil companies have never denied climate change.

Fourthly, this is the dumbest sentence from a mind-numbingly stupid article:

The damage caused by our addiction to burning fossil fuels will be so widespread that nobody stands to gain

Fossil fuels feed nearly half of Earth’s human population.

About 25% of bulk chemical natural gas consumption is used as a feedstock for fertilizer production, fossil fuels contribute to the value added to our economy by farming.  The Haber-Bosch process, which manufactures synthetic fertilizer from natural gas and atmospheric nitrogen, feeds nearly half of the world population.

Trends in human population and nitrogen use throughout the twentieth century. Of the total world population (solid line), an estimate is made of the number of people that could be sustained without reactive nitrogen from the Haber–Bosch process (long dashed line), also expressed as a percentage of the global population (short dashed line). The recorded increase in average fertilizer use per hectare of agricultural land (blue symbols) and the increase in per capita meat production (green symbols) is also shown. Erisman et al., 2008

Even if one ignores the multitude of other benefits of fossil fuels, the ability to feed 48% of 7.6 billion people means that at least 3,648,000,000 people stand to gain from our continued “addiction” to fossil fuels.  While the Haber-Bosch process doesn’t “burn” much natural gas, it accounts for about 3% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

References

Erisman, J. W., Sutton, M. A., Galloway, J., Klimont, Z. & Winiwarter, W. How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat. Geosci.1,636–639 (2008)

Vail, P. R., R.M. Mitchum, and S. Thompson, III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 3: Relative changes of sea level from coastal onlap, in C.E. Payton, ed., AAPG Memoir 26: Seismic stratigraphy—Applications to hydrocarbon exploration: 63-97 (1977)

 

 

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “The Guardian: “Climate change denial won’t even benefit oil companies soon”… Is it even grammatically possible to deny climate change?

      • Well, that would certainly help with that 95% population drop we’re in such desperate need of… endorsed, of course, by elites who seem to think that 95% should come out of us unwashed masses.

        • “……………. us unwashed masses………….”
          You just keep your “snide” remark to yourself JOEL !

          • Not entirely sure how this comment was intended, but you’re far from the first to express the wish that I would just shut up.
            I live in Portland Oregon, after all.

    • ‘The Guardian’, traditionally known as the Grauniad because of its inability to produce any articles that make sense.

      • My understanding has always been that Grauniad comes from the paper’s more than frequent typos – including its own name – rather than its undoubted inability to publish sense (with the exception of Neville Cardus). It should never have left Manchester.

      • The nickname actually comes from one particularly egregious spelling error of the paper’s own name.

        • I now honestly think that “The Watchtower” – published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses – has a more realistic and sensible view of Science than the Guardian does.

  1. While the Haber-Bosch process doesn’t “burn” natural gas,

    and there it ends. WordPress having fun again?

    Anyway, the H-B process technically does not burn natural gas, true. The entire cycle in the fertilizer industry does, however, end up converting it to CO2 in the long run. (The CO from the syngas production stage is combusted to produce quite a bit of the energy needed to create the pressure and temperature needed to combine the nitrogen and hydrogen.)

    • The Scarecrow of OZ and modern politicians did and do very nicely without a brain, so survival can’t be that much of a surprise.

    • They have something that passes for rational thought.

      If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by clarity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason. Chesterton

      It’s something like applying a formula without checking to see if the answer is anywhere near plausible. Some folks actually think quite a bit and somehow manage to always come up with wrong answers. The answer may be less thinking and more observing. S. Holmes

      • Any methodology, whether intellectual (logic), political (democracy), or algorithmic (mathematics), is as vulnerable to “garbage in, garbage out” as any computer model.

    • They aren’t. Many are collapsing. They are groveling for what ever viewership is left given the collapse of circulation.
      Most have devolved to locating themselves in the supermarket check-out lines along such other “prestigious journals”. It’s a short hop away from alien Elvis clones.

      We sadly seem to be reverting to a new period of “yellow journalism” the likes of which haven’t been around since Hearst and Pulitzer so misinformed the public it caused a war.

      • in faint defense of Hearst and Pulitzer, they simply provided a plausible justification for the war that the US was itching to fight before they had said anything. Spain was on the ropes, and all these territories were seen to be easy pickings for an up and coming power. But it had to look like we were provoked into fighting it.

  2. Time for these morons to explain why burning fossil fuels is an “addiction.” also time to explain why global warmists nearly always opt for addictive solar and wind.

    • It’s only and addiction if one assumes modern society is a disease.
      I suppose some of these loons do think that, but I don’t see them remedying the situation with personal actions.

    • Well, I want THEM to spend a minimum of two calendar years with NO support of any kind from so-called fossil fuels, and NO substitutes of any other kind, either. No electricity of any source, no heat except what body heat they generate, no cooked food, no water for bathing or cleaning clothing, and most important of all, NO MODERN MEDICAL HELP AND NO TECHNO GEAR OF ANY KIND. PERIOD.

      This is what THEY want to condemn the rest of us to. I think THEY should be forced to go through it first. That might shut them up.

      Now I’m aggravated and annoyed, so i think I’ll go watch the lightning in the thunderstorm dumping rain on my house. 🙂

      CHEERS!!!

  3. and the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century British Empire was set in motion by the use of the Yoredale Series Coal Beds of Northern England. Eustatic and Isostatic sea level changes over many millions of years in the Carboniferous Period (name kinda gives it away)

    • So much lovely Latin today. The die was cast indeed. And we crossed the Rubicon into our modern industrial age. Perhaps the greatest event in human history. As a result, society has changed as much if not more than the transition from hunter/gatherer to agriculture. We have today wards of the state whose physical comforts rival many princes and chieftains of old, and whose lifespans are also far longer, despite the epidemic of obsesity. All thanks to the recycling of CO2 back into the atmosphere where it belongs! Yet all that these crackpots can see is an imagined effect on climate, and income inequality. They would return us all to energy poverty for no rational reason.

  4. It would be nice if we all could own a newspaper to promote the stocks we’ve invested in…….

  5. The general public will keep benefiting the oil companies by continuing to buy the oil companies products. I have relatives that are true believers that have no qualm at all about once again loading up the motorhome and heading out on another long, gasoline fueled trip.

    • That’s about 99.999999% of CAGW ‘believers’. They simply cannot see themselves. Isn’t the Guardian funded partly from the sale of its Auto Trader stake (automotive classified business)? The irony is too funny.

  6. Todays climate headline in the Guardian talks about “Climate denial” which presumably is denying there’s a climate at all, haven’t read it, won’t link to it. Wierdo’s.

  7. Who in the hell had a hellish July anyway? Certainly the press, I guess. My July has been cooler than June, thank you. I know why all this happened and it wasn’t climate, it was weather. Happened before and can happen again in similar combinations of oceanic and atmospheric factors.

    • No hellish July here in the middle of the U.S. It’s been rather pleasant, in fact.

      Here’s hoping for a mild August. 🙂

      • Here in central Washington State we have had a warm spell.
        We notice it every year in July and August.
        No one worries. It is time for river floating, mountain hiking, and cold beer.
        It’s called summer.

        • In Western Washington, Seattle area, they got a few 90s days. Up on Whidbey about 100 miles north of SeaTac, we never got out of the 80s. Meh.

        • central Colorado, Denver:
          We had another typical few week run of 90+ daily sweep, and then back down to the upper 70’s & 80’s. I’m sure the California fires are assisting a bit since we have a wonderful smoky haze that’s had me stuffed up now for about a week.

          Interesting though, I’m waking up every morning and noticing how chilly it is outside, at 6:00am. I don’t recall that cool chill in August in some time, but, it is also likely I never paid much attention.

    • My July was hot, but normal. The ONLY thing that was bad, really bad, was that my freezer’s defrost cycle heater quit on the 4th of July (of course!) and the appliance repairman was out of town until July 7th. But he came, quickly fixed it, explained everything, and gave me an estimate on replacing the oven igniter for my GAS-FIRED stove, and went to another call right after mine.
      Good guy, good at what he does, glad I found his website and had him come fix the fridge.

  8. I am willing to accept proof that humans are going to alter the climate to such an extent as it threatens the biosphere upon which our lives depend. But as far as I am concerned the burden of proof is on the advocates of “climate change.”

    These activists can start by cogently showing me how the climate changed so severely a mere 25,000 years ago that where Chicago presently site was covered by a mile of glacial ice. Then they could show me how the climate grew so cold so quickly about 12,000 years ago that Mamoths in Siberia were flash-frozen with green plants still in their stomaces. Then they could tell my what human activity caused the destruction of the climate in the American Southwest, so that the Anasazi had to abandon their cliff-dwellings they had settled over 1,600 years ago.

    They could help me to understand the urgency of “climate change” by explaining how the Norse could settle Greenland and live by growing row crops, raising cattle and sheep. And I really want to know why it was so cold in the 1400’s that from 1408 to 1814 Londoners were able to hold large Frost Fairs on the frozen River Thames. Before the invention of hydrocarbon fuels, why was the winter of 1848 so cold that water stopped flowing over Niagra Falls?

    Please tell me these things before you expect me to believe your claims of future climate doom.

    • While you’re at it, ask them why the Rubicon froze more than once. I doubt they even know where that river is or why it’s so important as a figure of speech.

  9. As with all things “The Guardian” – all my comments were deleted by their “unbiased” moderators for breaching their “community standards” by discussing the topic and avoiding personal insults. It seems this places me too far from their normal community behavior. I wonder if those consumers of this leftist trash are aware how heavily curated their information sources really are.

    • They’re terrible. They leave in attacks on polite people who argue the point rather than the person, and delete factual, logical refutations. It’s disturbing to think that anybody only reading their rubbish will never get to hear counter arguments. Ironically, many of them consider themselves to be ‘critical thinkers’. Critical thinkers don’t usually refuse to look at alternative arguments and dismiss them outright as ‘denialism’ – with a set of presumptions attached to that tag – right wing, flat earther, in the pay of big oil, stupid, even racist! This begs the question: under what circumstances could their ‘beliefs’ ever be refuted, if they refuse to engage? The good news is they are losing money, and they have fewer articles open for comments. Hopefully soon they will disappear.

      • interesting. I’ve often had to double check myself before commenting to the likes of Silbi and Nick, et. al. for that very reason: “am I refusing to investigate other claims?” and as is always the case, I have to remind myself. “No, you have spent 1,000’s of hours on this and you know the history, collusion, corruption, and outright fraud that is all things climate industry.”

        I was once a true believer in the CAGW narrative, but only because I never actually investigated any of the claims. Once a person genuinely does that, it is game over. It definitely adds cynicism because then you have to ask yourself, “what other lies have I bought into?” and then it just snowballs from there.

        This ain’t the only front of attack on the individual and consciousness. Not by a long shot.

        • It sounds like we’ve had a very similar journey to truth. I found a loose thread via art, and saw that the entire fabric of society was moth eaten, and threatening to unravel. I had thought science was immune because it had a set of rules, methodologies, checks and balances. Then I started researching. All the dots connected up; fundamentally we are talking about a concerted attack on rationality, objectivity, and the truth. The way the game works is this: there are no rules, except the ones set arbitrarily by whoever is in power to achieve their aims. And you play along with the game; you offer up your independence and skepticism to become part of the herd. Or you are penalised. The hard part is getting people to understand just how desperately dangerous this is, and what the total corruption of universities and research institutions actually signifies.

  10. I think a lot of the comments on ‘Hellish July’ come from people too young to have experienced the full range of weather events, both hot and cold, wet and dry.
    1975 and 1976 were two very hot and dry years, as was 1959. In those years the older members of our community were quoting 1926 as having been a hotter and drier year.
    Similarly there have been extremely cold winters, particularly 1947, the late 1960s, and early 1980s.
    The ‘beast from the East’ this last winter was another, and there were many road accidents caused by young drivers (under the age of 40) who had no experience in driving in cold weather.

  11. The climate extremists,are the children playing with loaded pistols.
    Their whiney fact free rants have dulled the senses of too many adults. Their counter factual belief in apocalyptic garbage stories is putting us all at risk.
    If these deluded climate extremists ever actually gain power millions upon millions will die.
    And the climate will continue as it did in the past, isnow, and will in the future: ignoring their dangerous silly beliefs.

  12. The next big mandate coming up soon. If you are a rental property owner be advised:

    Apartments rarely come with access to charging stations. But electric vehicles need them

    https://theconversation.com/apartments-rarely-come-with-access-to-charging-stations-but-electric-vehicles-need-them-100296?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top-stories

    I saw this on the RTO Insider twitter feed. You can bank this is in the works.

  13. Is it worth battling it out with Guardianistas? Or is better to simply ignore them and hope they go away?

  14. Stupid ignores the rate of change. Stupid thinks continuous exponential growth is possible. Stupid continues to unwittingly do the bidding of the rich and powerful. Stupid thinks they’ll find all the answers in an echo-chamber. Stupid thinks it will all just grow back.

    • The rate of change in the climate is not unusual at all. In fact, climate has been remarkably stable. Are you admitting that the AGW scam is simply a ruse to stymie growth? To cut off the ‘sugar’ supply? There are other ways to achieve environmental sustainability that don’t involve lying and corrupting science. Or does the end justify the means? There have been trillions wasted on this; money that could have gone into all sorts of other environmental projects, and lots of people have made a lot of money out of it. Are you one of those unwittingly doing the bidding of the rich and powerful such as Al Gore?

      • If you gave that just the slightest contemplation Sylvia, you would have realised picking out Al Gore as one of the rich and powerful is not just naive but exceptionally stupid.

        • Ryan…welcome back. I have a few questions for you:

          If sustainability is so critical, then why such strict regulations on water conservation practices in Colorado? This horsehockey just passed, and restricts collection storage to 110 gallons:
          https://source.colostate.edu/extension-offers-fact-sheet-on-how-to-harvest-rainwater-under-new-colorado-rules/

          Under House Bill 1005, rain barrels can only be installed at single-family households and multi-family households with four or fewer units. A maximum of two rain barrels can be used at each household and the combined storage of the two rain barrels cannot exceed 110 gallons. Rain barrels can only be used to capture rainwater from rooftop downspouts and the captured rainwater must be used to water outdoor lawns, plants and/or gardens on the same property from which the rainwater was captured. Rain barrel water cannot be used for drinking or other indoor water uses.

          If sustainability is so heralded:
          Why at my hunting cabin in Fremont county Colorado (where I have mineral and water rights) am I not permitted to build a composting toilet (as it is claimed to violate plumbing codes)? Are not composting toilets sustainable? hint* Composting toilets don’t tie into plumbing by the way.

          If sustainability is so important:
          Why aren’t new buildings required to have a significantly different method of architecture and insulation techniques?
          Why can’t I build an strawbale house on 40 Acres in sedalia, following all the safety guidelines associated with such a structure, because Douglas county claims it is against code? Why can I not build an Earthship there from 90+% of recycled materials, again, adhering strictly to the best safety methods known at the time for humans to dwell in said residence?

          Why is E85 still being pushed even thought it is devastating to natural wetlands and disastrous to small engines?

          Why are there minimum sq footage requirements to build new homes, or scrape and build a new home on an existing lot?

          Why are all the rules being made in counties (Clear Creek and Boulder county specifically)
          mandating that tiny homes be tied into the grid and you can’t build a tiny home on your own land, unless it is tied into the grid otherwise you can’t park it there more than 60 days.

          If sustainability is so amazing:
          why must I ask permission to have chickens (no rooster) on my own property in Arvada, with a limit

          why does the city think they have the right to tell me how many animals I can have on my homestead?
          https://arvada.org/residents/animal-info/arvada-animal-rules-regulations

          “Limits of Animals – Arvada ordinance limits pet animals to no more then 3 dogs, or no more than 2 pot-bellied pigs per household. It further limits the combinations of dogs and pot-bellied pigs with cats up to 4 maximum per household”.

          Why can I not grow my own vegetables, raise chickens and eggs, make my own beer/liquor/wine; then barter freely with neighbors or anyone interested without obtaining draconian and expensive(wasteful extortion) permits/fees, regulatory oversight? How is that sustainable for the individual and community?

          Do you think the government has the right to interfere with individual transactions? If so, why? What is your justification? How can you claim that system is sustainable for a healthy, small community of people who want to freely associate?

          The list is literally endless. If sustainability was so critical why is it that nearly every single governmental body makes it so difficult to comply that the cost of trying to live on the land, cheaply, organically, and holistically is prohibitive.

          The onus is on people like you to defend your worldview when all of the solutions you advocate are based on violence (the state) and yet nearly all of their actions are in direct opposition to real sustainability.

        • Since facts aren’t your strong suit:
          https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
          that is called collusion/corruption/fraud…

          https://business.financialpost.com/news/how-al-gore-amassed-a-200-million-fortune-after-presidential-defeat

          You are welcome for this daily dose of reality. careful though, open your mouth. I don’t want to see your head explode by too much pressure buildup from having to face reality

  15. Our “addiction” to fossil fuels???????????????????????????????????????????????????

    I’m trying to NOT fall off my chair, laughing. I have run into dimwitted people in my life, but this bunch of braindead spongiform clackers HAVE to be THE dumbest bunch of people that ever escaped a petri dish.

    Someone tell me – please make it a short version, too – just exactly HOW these mind-numbingly stupid people expect people to avoid freezing to death in the winter without using fossil fuels? How are they/we to cook food, keep our clothes clean, bathe, move from one place to another WITHOUT THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS?

    How?

    And last, but certainly not least, is there ANY way to get them to shut up and go sit in the corner? Maybe if they had to make it through an entire fall-winter-spring without the very things (fossil fuels, again!) that they despise, they’d somehow just wither away to what THEY are: NOTHINGS. Enormous NOTHINGS.

    Geezo Pete, they are SO stupid, they don’t even know they’re alive.

    • You must be really riled up. Your posts are starting to look like Trevor’s. Please find your safe space, we don’t need another Hyperventilating Trevor.

      • Really, Jeff, I AM in my safe space.

        You should be able to see, in what I said, a reflection of the same things that the climate hippies aim at us. I’m simply doing the ‘right back at you’ thing.

    • “Someone tell me – please make it a short version, too – just exactly HOW these mind-numbingly stupid people expect people to avoid freezing to death in the winter without using fossil fuels?”

      They haven’t thought that far ahead, Sara. They haven’t yet realized that windmills and solar thermal are not a substitute for fossil fuels.

  16. It is a bit counterintuitive, but Big Oil has been THE driving force behind the man-made climate hysteria, CO² nonsense… Why? Because they want to make electric vehicles/transport prohibitively expensive, in order to maintain profits long term
    By championing inefficient and expensive “renewable” electricity production, closing down coal fired power stations etc, and by restricting the global supply of petroleum, Big Oil is attempting to push oil prices ever higher, while taking out the competition… if electricity is expensive and unreliable, it really can’t be used for transportation on any sort of large scale.

    Big oil doesn’t want us to have cheap abundant energy, they want it to be expensive and controlled by a handful of rich families… Truly diabolical, so what’s new?

    • I’ve been putting this off but am now listening to this now in the background:
      Corbett is one of the most reliable independent journalists:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySnk-f2ThpE

      I’ll weigh in once I’m finished. BTW, before anyone downvotes without watching: James Corbett has plenty of work on how CAGW is a scam…so take off your partisan blinders before you respond like the typical groupthink lefties

  17. I would now be even more careful of anything in the Guardian newspaper or on-line. It used to be an extremely liberal newspaper that was read by academics but it has moved so far to the left and is fully endorsing the Labour party in the UK which is the old Communist party of Great Britain is disguise. They are still supporting them even though there is a massive row about anti-Semitism going on inside the Labour party, the Guardian is still giving full backing to the leaders of the party.

  18. Wow David, I have to say, even though I’ve never had deep interest in geology, those charts are fascinating. Based on our current relative sea level as compared to past periods, I can certainly understand the grave concern over SLR… /sarc

    Oh, and yeah, what everyone else said about the Guardian.

    rip

  19. “‘So don’t believe for a minute that ExxonMobil doesn’t think climate change is real,’ said a former manager…. ‘They were using climate change as a source of insight into exploration.’”

    If Exxon Mobil was using the changing climate’s alterations to the planet’s surface to help it discover new deposits of oil and gas, it had to be related to climate change that occurred in the distant past, which had nothing to do with humans. It just goes to show that the climate has and can change naturally, without the influence of human beings. So why should we assume that the small changes in the climate that have occurred in modern times must be 100 percent human caused? It could be natural, or it could be a combination of natural and human factors. No one has enough information to know for sure. So the question is not whether climate change is real. The only question is ‘what is the underlying cause?’

  20. “…the observed temperature rises match what Mann had predicted. Today’s hockey stick graph isn’t a forward projection but a historical record.”

    Can anyone display a graph of observed temperatures next to Mann’s hockey stick graph to prove how wrong the above statement is?

Comments are closed.