Trump does not believe science of Man-Made Climate Change

YYYUUUUUGGGGEEEE SAMPLE SIZE 6 months out of 10,000 years of change.

>talkin' science
>reading slate (clickbait)

kill yourself my man (Viper)

Links to the scientific fabrication of climate data ?

good for trump, only chumps and losers beilive in man made global warming, oh wait climate change, since the planet stopped warming as much, they have to call it something else to get that carbon tax ball rolling

That isnt an argument.

This all hinges on the fact that CO2 Levels are HIGH. They are not even close to being HIGH, in fact they are bordering on the low end where some plants wont grow because they require 500ppm of CO2!

I do try and leave as small a carbon footprint as possible. Bike to work, local food

At this point, because we have waited to long for cleaner energies, its probably all mute ....

We are in big trouble with positive climate feedback loops looming on the horizon.

[link to transitionvoice.com]

because he does not know what he is doing...
when you put co2 in a grow-room , you should turn the light off...

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

[link to www.forbes.com]

[link to www.breitbart.com]

Whether or not you "believe" science doesn't matter.

Another distinct irony with all of this is the sixth mass extinction - currently under way,has nothing to do with us polluting the environment. That never even gets mentioned on posts like this.

Maybe it isnt human nature and greed/population overshoot that is to blame, maybe it's just a natural cycle.

The arrogance of people is bizarre. We seem to live under the illusion that we can do whatever we want to Earth and there are no consequences.

well then I hope he has plenty of sunlight for photosythesis!

Good. Most people know that 'global warming' is nothing but a scam created by the UN to gain control over nations on a global scale. It's not only a scam but a poorly designed one at that.


The more I learn about Trump, the more he has my support.

That bike you're riding was made in various factories that emit pollutants into the air, therefore you are part of the problem. Well according to your... beliefs...

Oh and 98% of climate scientists believe global warming is made up. My made up statistic is higher than yours so I win this argument.

Next.

Most people are retards. Just ask them. Global warming caused by burning of fossil fuels is real science.

[link to www.theguardian.com]

The non linky mr peer reviewed god level climate change papers wants a link to Climate Gate.
Look it up yourself Einstein. You will only dismiss it anyway because you really don't want the truth. You just want to believe/follow your religion.

I'm done trying too disrupt your hallucination. I'll just leave you and this thread so you can practice your religion. If you ever wake up you might need to be deprogrammed from being so deep into your cult.
Enjoy your religion Chicken Little, but the sky really isn't falling.

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.


Rockefeller family tried and failed to get ExxonMobil to accept climate change
Read more
However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.

Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.

Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer.

In the email Bernstein, a chemical engineer and climate expert who spent 30 years at Exxon and Mobil and was a lead author on two of the United Nations’ blockbuster IPCC climate science reports, said climate change first emerged on the company’s radar in 1981, when the company was considering the development of south-east Asia’s biggest gas field, off Indonesia.

That was seven years ahead of other oil companies and the public, according to Bernstein’s account.

Climate change was largely confined to the realm of science until 1988, when the climate scientist James Hansen told Congress that global warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due to the burning of fossil fuels.

By that time, it was clear that developing the Natuna site would set off a huge amount of climate change pollution – effectively a “carbon bomb”, according to Bernstein.

“When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for about 1% of projected global CO2 emissions. I’m sure that it would still be the largest point source of CO2, but since CO2 emissions have grown faster than projected in 1989, it would probably account for a smaller fraction of global CO2 emissions,” Bernstein wrote.

The email was written in response to an inquiry on business ethics from the Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics at Ohio University.

“What it shows is that Exxon knew years earlier than James Hansen’s testimony to Congress that climate change was a reality; that it accepted the reality, instead of denying the reality as they have done publicly, and to such an extent that it took it into account in their decision making, in making their economic calculation,” the director of the institute, Alyssa Bernstein (no relation), told the Guardian.

“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”

Bernstein’s response, first posted on the institute’s website last October, was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists on Wednesday as part of a report on climate disinformation promoted by companies such as ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Peabody Energy, called the Climate Deception Dossiers.

Asked about Bernstein’s comments, Exxon said climate science in the early 1980s was at a preliminary stage, but the company now saw climate change as a risk.

The science in 1981 on this subject was in the very, very early days and there was considerable division of opinion
Richard Keil, Exxon spokesman
“The science in 1981 on this subject was in the very, very early days and there was considerable division of opinion,” Richard Keil, an Exxon spokesman, said. “There was nobody you could have gone to in 1981 or 1984 who would have said whether it was real or not. Nobody could provide a definitive answer.”

He rejected the idea that Exxon had funded groups promoting climate denial. “I am here to talk to you about the present,” he said. “We have been factoring the likelihood of some kind of carbon tax into our business planning since 2007. We do not fund or support those who deny the reality of climate change.”

Exxon, unlike other companies and the public at large in the early 1980s, was already aware of climate change – and the prospect of regulations to limit the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, according to Bernstein’s account.

“In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue,” he wrote.

“Natural resource companies – oil, coal, minerals – have to make investments that have lifetimes of 50-100 years. Whatever their public stance, internally they make very careful assessments of the potential for regulation, including the scientific basis for those regulations,” Bernstein wrote in the email.

Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard University professor who researches the history of climate science, said it was unsurprising Exxon would have factored climate change in its plans in the early 1980s – but she disputed Bernstein’s suggestion that other companies were not. She also took issue with Exxon’s assertion of uncertainty about the science in the 1980s, noting the National Academy of Science describing a consensus on climate change from the 1970s.

The White House and the National Academy of Sciences came out with reports on climate change in the 1970s, and government scientific agencies were studying climate change in the 1960s, she said. There were also a number of major scientific meetings on climate change in the 1970s.

“I find it difficult to believe that an industry whose business model depends on fossil fuels could have been completely ignoring major environmental reports, major environmental meetings taken place in which carbon dioxide and climate change were talked about,” she said in an interview with the Guardian.

The East Natuna gas field, about 140 miles north-east of the Natuna islands in the South China Sea and 700 miles north of Jakarta, is the biggest in south-east Asia, with about 46tn cubic ft (1.3tn cubic metres) of recoverable reserves.

However, Exxon did not go into production on the field.

Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits
Lenny Bernstein
Bernstein writes in his email to Ohio University: “Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.”

Bernstein, who is now in his mid-70s, spent 20 years as a scientist at Exxon and 10 years at Mobil. During the 1990s he headed the science and technology advisory committee of the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group that lobbied aggressively against the scientific consensus around the causes of climate change.

However, GCC climate experts accepted the impact of human activity on climate change in their internal communications as early as 1995, according to a document filed in a 2009 lawsuit and included in the UCS dossier.


Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
Read more
The document, a 17-page primer on climate science produced by Bernstein’s advisory committee, discounts the alternate theories about the causes of climate change promoted by climate contrarian researchers such as Willie Soon, who was partly funded by Exxon.

“The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change,” the advisory committee said.

The 1995 primer was never released for publication. A subsequent version, which was publicly distributed in 1998, removed the reference to “contrarian theories”, and continued to dispute the science underlying climate change.

Kenneth Kimmel, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said ExxonMobil and the other companies profiled in its report had failed to take responsibility about the danger to the public of producing fossil fuels.


US taxpayers subsidising world's biggest fossil fuel companies
Read more
“Instead of taking responsibility, they have either directly – or indirectly through trade and industry groups – sown doubt about the science of climate change and fought efforts to cut emissions,” he wrote in a blogpost. “I believe that the conduct outlined in the UCS report puts the fossil fuel companies’ social license at risk. And once that social license is gone, it is very hard to get it back. Just look at what happened to tobacco companies after litigation finally pried open the documents that exposed decades of misinformation and deception.”

Keil, the ExxonMobil spokesman, confirmed that the company had decided not to develop Natuna, but would not comment on the reasons. “There could be a huge range of reasons why we don’t develop projects,” he said.

Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms Video Abstract

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Take the time and figure it out yourself- you may need an interest span longer than a FOX news clip, so a little Due Diligence, open mind and some brain work will go a long way to understand what the whole climate "thing" is about-

[link to bullionbullscanada.com]

Fascinating worth re-posting>

[link to bullionbullscanada.com]

So instead on 97% of climate scientists its now 96.5% .... does this make a difference ??

Do you even know how the pee-er review pay for play process even works?

Climate change has always happened ever since there has been a climate on this planet - they is dynamic and always changing - NO ONE argues to the contrary.

The meme of "man-made" climate change is not verified by
science at this point. Of course MANY western governments
want you to believe otherwise as their 'carbon credit' scheme will make LOTS OF MONEY for them.

GET A GRIP

What humans breathe out too. Why hasn't the climate change community used the billions they'be taken to plant trees everywhere. That is the best way to process CO2.

Because population control is much more fun.

There - fixed it for you.

Last Edited by Booger Cancer on 04/18/2016 05:57 PM