|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Apr 25, 2009 5:23:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Apr 25, 2009 6:20:00 GMT
Kenfeldman: your missive is vacuous. The global climate coalition terminated in 2002. The Thursday evening meetings were awkward and Howie kept forgetting to bring the potato chips.
If, as you say, "the industry", whatever that is, is misinforming people, be a brave man, and give the direct evidence of such assertion. And the million bucks; what is your source for that?
Your comments and citations mark singularly the fact that the western education system has succeeded only in that it has liberally sprinkled idiots throughout society.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 25, 2009 10:22:35 GMT
First off...the oil companies have to be very "political". Them going along with a bunch of people publicly doesn't mean they actually believe it. It's called lip service...almost everyone does it to deal with the discomfort of having to deal with others yammering on about things...often that aren't any of their business or that aren't important. Here's the bottom line on anthropogenic global warming...the "evidence" can be summed up on a single side of a business card and you can use a very large font and it'll still fit. There's the straight math that assumes all energy that EVER gets into CO2's spectrum must forever remain within that spectrum. There's the recent temperature increase. Then there are computer models. That's it, everything else either points AWAY from CO2 having any significant impact OR it has nothing to do with CO2 at all. Heck, the models and temperature data aren't actually proof either. The models haven't had any time for verification (although they seem to have managed to predict so poorly they've been falsified already) and temperature hasn't done anything unusual yet...and has multiple contributing factors that MAY NOT have anything to do with CO2. I don't think (significant) CO2 forcing is a load of crap because I'm looking at a bunch of conspiracy sites. I think CO2 forcing is a load of crap because THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE! Lots of voices going on about how it must be so does not constitute evidence and never has. Alarmists use proxies to say the world's temperature was rock solid...and then claim there are insanely powerful feedbacks. These conditions are pretty much mutually exclusive. Alarmists use proxies to "support" CO2's role in climate...but ALL the proxies all show CO2 being driven by temperature and more to the point, temperature fluctuates WILDLY up or down, ignoring any supposed contribution by CO2. Alarmists use information that has NOTHING to do with CO2 as proof of CO2's affects...ice melting, "increased" storm activity, etc. Ice cares nothing for the source of the temperature increase, storm activity/intensity hasn't increased...and essentially all our information on how weather works says global warming should CUT BACK on extreme weather. Alarmists also keep talking about a warmer climate causing massive droughts when all the temperature proxies (often cited by said alarmists) assume warmer=wetter. This concept of CO2 forcing as THE main control for climate is going to be looked back on with all the fondness associated with the church's censorship of Galileo or the burning of witches. The REAL problem isn't the oil company spending a few million to get the truth out (or information out in a form that normal people can "understand"). The REAL problem is that BILLIONS are being spent to shove this catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming nonsense down the public's throats in spite of masses of evidence saying it's not happening. |
|
van
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 59
|
Post by van on Apr 25, 2009 11:32:28 GMT
Ken A million bucks ($) don't give you squat in todays ad market period. It may have gotten you 1 - 30 sec spot in the late 80s but the last super-bowl was over $2.5 mil. The cheapest prime time shows are over $100k but average well over $200k . Now I ask you "How many times have you seen a prime time ad debunking the global warming mantra?" Or any ad for that matter. Now I ask you how many times a day are we bombarded with distorted ads by the likes of "Earth share" save the polar bear crap. Green this were a Green Company saving the environment by cutting our greenhouse emissions. Not to mention all the free "public service messages" Many with celeb spokesmen. Or all the pseudo science shows that are dedicated to the global warming myth. So now compare the $1 mil on one side to the $100s and $100s of millions of global warming money pushing its agenda plus all the free "public service messages" plus "Green Company Ads". Oh and lest not forget all the brain washing done to our kids on this subject at the taxpayers expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Apr 25, 2009 12:38:38 GMT
Hi Ken. First: One million versus tens of billions. Team watermelon is way ahead on spending! Second: It has become established procedure to attack oil companies. Al Gore would have you believe that burning carbon-based fuel is beyond wrong, a sin, etc. But that hasn't gotten him to stop doing so himself, as we all know. Anyone jetting around the world three and four times a week evidently thinks that the internal combustion engine is awesome! I know I think it's awesome. I'm grateful to live in the era of miraculously easy travel, just as I'm grateful to live in the era of air conditioning and relatively affordable home heating. By the way, you no longer use carbon-based fuel yourself, right, Ken?  People like to fantasize that a reasonable replacement of the internal combustion aubomobile is right around the corner. The other day I was a guest on Air America and the host (Montel Williams) tried to lecture me about a car being marketed in France that runs on compressed air. "No carbon footprint whatsoever," Montel said. Of course, this is ludicrous. The energy that goes into making the vehicle and compressing the air that drives it forward comes from the electric grid. If you put a million such cars on the road in the United States, you would increase reliance on coal for the added electricity required, which is not something people in your camp typically support. (And, yes, I know that France's electricity is largely nuclear derived.) Electric cars and hybrids may very well have far more negative impacts on the environment than the cars most of us drive today have. Huge batteries typically means huge toxicity, at least so far. Not sure what the computer models say about this one... |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 25, 2009 18:09:38 GMT
It's now official. As long ago as 1995, scientists for oil and coal companies were saying, Yet for the past 14 years, the industry has been spending well over $1 million per year to spread disinformation to dupe well-meaning people, including many people on this website. A million a year! LOL! Just how stupid are we! Al Gore spends twice that a week! www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/business/media/01green.html?ref=science |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 26, 2009 2:20:17 GMT
Fossil fuel like calcium carbonate under tectonic pressure. Methane on Titan. 40 billion dollars spent on proving AGW and 1/100 spent on plain climate science. The oil companies cannot even begin to level the playing field against big government. A government that was afraid to let Lord Monckton to debate Gore.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 26, 2009 21:14:41 GMT
Did Al Gore ever disclose where the $300,000,000 came from for his latest FRAUD campaign?
Kenfeldman, your ad is a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 28, 2009 16:15:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 2, 2009 16:16:40 GMT
Where is kenfeldman to defend his post?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 4, 2009 14:00:51 GMT
The New York Times may have “corrected” their story but their lie continues to be replicated across the Internet even after the correction was published: The lies are always on page 1. The corrections are usually buried in some obscure place. Job completed! |
|
|
|
Post by jimg on May 4, 2009 14:56:36 GMT
What page was the "correction" printed on?
As one of the Revkin posters commented on his high integrity for posting the correction, if the correction wasn't on page 1, then the orginal article serves its purpose quite well and as for integrity...
|
|
|
|
Post by bhunter1955 on May 5, 2009 5:57:17 GMT
*sigh* well now, all I wanted to was lurk and get an education in solar science... but...
Ive been an environmental advisor for 28 years in the oil in industry in Canada. I have worked all aspects of the business from Oil Sands and Production and Exploration through refineries right down to the retail station including a stint in corporate...
There is so much to say and I know I'm going to ramble...
So,
The first presumption is what science are we ignoring? The answer is none. We look at it all. Everything. Both sides of the coin. Greenpeace to Monkton. We all know here at least, that the science isn't settled.
Widely and convienently forgotten is that the Rio Conference Precautionary Principle encompasses "cost effective actions" not action at all costs.
Ultimately we are responsible to our shareholders as to the way we do business. You wouldn't run your life wanting to go deeper and deeper into debt every year and neither does a business. Look at the job losses in the auto industry if you want to see what happens... For example, the FSU and Eastern Europe have huge carbon credits because all those inefficient, uncompetitive state run factories were shut down once they opened up to the real world. They can sell carbon credits til the cows come home without any change whatsoever in world wide emissions...
So, we do what makes business sense. If you look at the metrics we use you would see a continuing decline in measures of "energy intensity", how much energy it takes to make a liter of gasoline or "production intensity" how much energy it takes to produce a barrel of oil. Energy efficiency projects make sense. So we are committed to doing what makes business sense. If something has a reasonable rate of return, say pays off in less than a year, it get's done. If something has a payoff years down the road. No.
If you look at gross profits, they're insane. If you look at Return on Capital Employed, the oil industry gets about 10% to 12% ROCE. Banks and financial institutions get about 17%. (All under normal economic conditions...) Refineries are *huge* capital investments while your typical bank isn't. So we walk a fine line on what we spend versus what we make overall.
We get energy efficiency improvements *in spite* of the fact that every time they make a regulatory change that requires a change in the composition of gasoline, less sulphur, less aromatics, less whatever, it means that we have to build more units with more furnaces and use more fuel, natural gas, to make and deliver the same gallon of gasoline to the service station. But because demand rises, so does the overall emissions of CO2.
We will talk to global climate change because if we don't, we get demonized. (Even more than normal.) We are not going to bankrupt our business, we will do what makes business sense. Just like the Precautionary Principle said.
|
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on May 5, 2009 6:19:48 GMT
For all the reasons implicit in the foregoing, newspapers are dying. Television, as we have known it, thank goodness, is next. It's ironic that so many newspapers are called the "Sun."
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 5, 2009 6:39:00 GMT
*sigh* well now, all I wanted to was lurk and get an education in solar science... but... Ive been an environmental advisor for 28 years in the oil in industry in Canada. I have worked all aspects of the business from Oil Sands and Production and Exploration through refineries right down to the retail station including a stint in corporate... There is so much to say and I know I'm going to ramble... So, I would hate to be in your line of work. In the eyes of environmentalists everything you (and the oil industry) do is done with the intent of harming the planet and everyone on it. To hear them talk you'd think you guys used all that same technology to refine pure evil. Any scientists you employ are assumed to be little more than paid spokesmen...and all the while, many environmentalists lie (or are duped into repeating) about melting ice caps, ever increasing temperatures, etc. Good luck on the solar studies. Apparently we have a few actual professionals in the field too so its nice place to come for that. |
|
Is anyone surprised?
