Climategate

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Are you trying to imply that the corporate industry of the United States supports climate change legislation such as cap and trade?

certain businesses do support regulation, because it be would huge business for them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

certain businesses do support regulation, because it be would huge business for them.

Of course businesses that would profit from it would support it, but by and large the corporate industry of this country is very against cap and trade. Trying to make it sound otherwise is completely dishonest.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrum

GOP Senators Drop Out of Panel Inquiry Into CIA Program - washingtonpost.com

McCain: Don't Investigate Torture Memos - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Sen. Bond Pulls GOP Staff Off Torture Investigation - The Gaggle Blog - Newsweek.com


Loud and wrong as always.

So this is ANOTHER investigation? Haven't we been investigating this for the last 6 years? How many more does there have to be???

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Are you trying to imply that the corporate industry of the United States supports climate change legislation such as cap and trade?

I am trying to imply that it strains credulity to think some of the most prominent pillars of modern day capitalism are knowingly assisting in propagating bad science with the intent to undermine the free market system because it would be contrary to their own self-interest.

It is equally difficult to believe that these titans of industry are unknowingly assisting in propagating bad science. If this was so, one would then have to say that these major companies are either unable or unwilling to fund their own scientific research at the risk of their own financial well-being. One would also be compelled to hold the belief that these businesses are unable to either find their own evidence or simply obtain the pre-existing scientific reports that effectively rebut the idea of anthropogenic climate change (the studies that ACC deniers claim are being suppressed by the mainstream scientific community).

If this global warming hoax is so obvious even to non-scientists on an internet discussion forum such as this one, it stands to reason that the same hoax should be much more apparent to major corporations that could possibly lose money complying with unreasonable environmental standards required by future climate legislation, and who are also answerable to their board of directors and shareholders. Multi-million dollar companies are not usually known for making decisions lightly, especially decisions about making or endorsing statements about ACC that could lead to adverse regulations negatively affecting their bottom line.

The 100+ companies that form the basis of my question support collective actions that will lead to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Among other policies, they support increasing research and development into new technologies that emit less greenhouse gases, a national registry for companies to publicly report their progress in reducing emissions, a global framework under which all major greenhouse gas emitting countries are committed to appropriate reduction goals, and the concept of businesses working with the government to improve energy efficiency.

What (if anything) we can/should do about ACC is certainly up for debate.

What isn't up for debate is that according to leading scientists there is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has been warming over the last 100 years, that greenhouse gas concentration has been increasing during the same time period, that major sources of these greenhouse gases include use of fossil fuels and deforestation, the consequences of global warming are potentially serious, and taking steps to address the risks of such warming are prudent. A significant portion of the corporate industry of the United States (including major companies that rely in large part on fossil fuels or deforestation) joins an overwhelming number of scientific and academic organizations around the world in recognizing these facts.

Do all of these major corporations believe we should take action against ACC because they "feel free business should have less control"?

I hope someone here who thinks that ACC is a hoax perpetrated by the left to cripple capitalism will tell us that they honestly believe that over 100 CEO's of some of the world's best known and most profitable corporate businesses are in on the fix as well.

The ACC deniers already accept the dubious position that there are absolutely no trustworthy organizations in the world to whom a reasonable person could turn for an accurate, unbiased opinion on climate science. I suppose that saying companies like Shell, Exxon, Wal-Mart, BP, Chevron, Microsoft, Verizon, Target, Coca-Cola, AT&T, and even NASDAQ itself dislike the idea of "free business" shouldn't be too difficult.

Stylerod, I'll ask you again. JaJae, you can answer too. Would you, or anybody else here, like to state that they honestly believe that the top 5 Fortune 500 companies taking in nearly 2 trillion dollars revenue and over 100 billion in profits a year, all endorse addressing the risks of ACC because those corporations, the five largest corporations in the world, are either scientifically ignorant or because those corporations "feel free business should have less control"?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

certain businesses do support regulation, because it be would huge business for them.

So certain businesses are trying to undermine the free market in order to make a lot of money on the free market?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Stylerod, I'll ask you again. JaJae, you can answer too. Would you, or anybody else here, like to state that they honestly believe that the top 5 Fortune 500 companies taking in nearly 2 trillion dollars revenue and over 100 billion in profits a year, all endorse addressing the risks of ACC because those corporations, the five largest corporations in the world, are either scientifically ignorant or because those corporations "feel free business should have less control"?

I think you have officially lost your marbles. Look I know you like to run around the internet and expand your list of companies that have an employee stating global warming is a problem. And I know you like to spam other blogs with that list as well. And I know you've been called out for trolling for doing so.

But quite frankly, you have completely lost your marbles. I can't even began to fathom how someone can distort reality in this way. And quite frankly the fact that you consider Exxon to be a defender of your climate change political views while blaming them for funding the skeptics is downright one of the funniest things I've read on this forum in a long time. You should post more often, you're funny.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So certain businesses are trying to undermine the free market in order to make a lot of money on the free market?

regulations are by their very definition not "free market"

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So certain businesses are trying to undermine the free market in order to make a lot of money on the free market?

The minute you have a regulation preventing anyone from operating freely the market is no longer free.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

regulations are by their very definition an example of "free markets"

A free market would be entirely voluntary. Regulations require enforcement.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So this is ANOTHER investigation? Haven't we been investigating this for the last 6 years? How many more does there have to be???

Are you kidding me? We haven't been investigating this for 6 years. The Republicans walked out on the lawmakers investigation because the justice department began one that could possibly lead to criminal charges.

This is a protest against enforcement of the law and an attempt to cover up possible crimes.

[Stylerod]

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by stolz25

A free market would be entirely voluntary. Regulations require enforcement.

whoops

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by me

Stylerod, I'll ask you again. JaJae, you can answer too. Would you, or anybody else here, like to state that they honestly believe that the top 5 Fortune 500 companies taking in nearly 2 trillion dollars revenue and over 100 billion in profits a year, all endorse addressing the risks of ACC because those corporations, the five largest corporations in the world, are either scientifically ignorant or because those corporations "feel free business should have less control"?

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think you have officially lost your marbles. Look I know you like to run around the internet and expand your list of companies that have an employee stating global warming is a problem. And I know you like to spam other blogs with that list as well. And I know you've been called out for trolling for doing so.

But quite frankly, you have completely lost your marbles. I can't even began to fathom how someone can distort reality in this way. And quite frankly the fact that you consider Exxon to be a defender of your climate change political views while blaming them for funding the skeptics is downright one of the funniest things I've read on this forum in a long time. You should post more often, you're funny.

You can't answer my question, I see. Don't feel bad, apparently no one else can either.

I did not distort reality in the quote above, nor anywhere in my post. Oil companies used to fund the skeptics, but now they're on board with the alarmists. You really should keep up with this information if you wish to discuss this issue and not look foolish.

You'll see that the top 5 Fortune 500 companies here:

Top 5 Fortune 500 companies for 2009
Profits=128 billion
Revenue=1,935 billion

Global 500 2009: Annual ranking of the world's biggest companies from Fortune Magazine.

And the the top 5 Fortune 500 companies positions on climate change:

Responding to climate change - Responsible Energy

Originally Posted by Shell

We were one of the first energy companies to acknowledge the threat of climate change; to call for action by governments, our industry and energy users; and to take action ourselves. We have stepped up our appeals to government for urgent and wide-ranging policies, and our own efforts to develop the technologies needed to reduce CO2 emissions from our operations and products.

Climate change

Originally Posted by ExxonMobil

With increased global energy demand, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by an average of 1 percent per year through the year 2030. As was recently summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the risks to society and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant. Meeting the enormous energy demand growth and managing the risk of GHG emissions are the twin challenges of our time.

We all must engage in the search for solutions if we are to succeed at mitigating these risks. Progress can be achieved through climate change policy frameworks that enable countries to pursue economic progress while promoting the development of technologies necessary to generate and use energy more efficiently. As the largest publicly traded international energy company, the energy ExxonMobil produces meets 2 percent of the world’s needs. We share the responsibility to take action with scientists, citizens, and governments around the world and are doing so in several substantive ways.

Walmartstores.com: Greenhouse Gas

Originally Posted by Walmart

At Walmart, we know that being an efficient and profitable business and being a good steward of the environment are goals that can work together. As one of the largest companies in the world, with an expanding global presence, we know we have a responsibility to deal with environmental problems, especially climate change. One of our environmental goals at Walmart is to be supplied 100% by renewable energy, and one of the ways we hope to achieve this is by establishing a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Network to study and actively reduce our carbon footprint. Our GHG Network works to create business advantages from measuring, reducing and eliminating the use of fossil fuels in our stores, supply chain and by customers.

Facing climate change | About BP | BP

Originally Posted by BP

The world is getting warmer. In fact, the world has been getting warmer for several centuries, although in recent decades recorded temperatures have risen more distinctly. Forecasts suggest that in coming decades global temperatures will continue to go up.

Human activity, largely through greenhouse gas emissions, is an important factor in this warming, although some scientific questions remain.

If asked to describe their ‘carbon footprint’, many people may think first about the transportation they use. In fact, carbon dioxide emissions from cars, planes, trains and other forms of transport do add significantly to greenhouse gases, but they account for only about 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

A much larger contributor is power. Currently electricity emissions make up about 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and this number is set to grow substantially in the coming decades. By 2030 power could account for around 40% of greenhouse gas emissions.

Altogether, emissions from the burning of fossil fuels make up some 65% of greenhouse gases. Agriculture and land use are also significant contributors. For example, as waste decays on farms it releases methane, a greenhouse gas. Deforestation to make way for agriculture or industry is another factor. In fact, this is the second largest source of greenhouse gases after the burning of fossil fuels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the impacts of climate change will become more serious if global average temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above their pre-industrial levels.

To achieve this, greenhouse gas emissions will need to be reduced significantly in coming decades, despite the expected rise in energy consumption.

The best way to achieve this is still a matter of debate. New energy technologies and new uses of existing technologies may make a big difference. The solution won’t happen overnight, although reductions in CO2 emissions achieved now may lighten the burden on future generations.

Chevron - Climate Change

Originally Posted by Chevron

Climate Change and Chevron's Response

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states in its Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to manmade GHGs. Chevron is working to be part of the solution to the energy and climate challenge facing the world. Near-term mitigation actions, development of advanced energy technologies for the long term, and adaptation to the potential impacts of climate change are needed to meet the challenge.

As you can see JaJae, you're wrong.

Shell, not only the largest oil company, but the largest corporation in the world, characterizes climate change as a "threat" and specifically calls for "urgent and wide-ranging policies" and "action" by government.

Furthermore, a CEO stating global warming is a problem or a company issuing or endorsing a statement on climate change is quite different than "an employee" stating global warming is a problem.

And these are not my "climate change political views", these are the results of my research into the state of scientific, academic, and corporate opinion regarding climate change. Is there really significant disagreement, or is there a consensus? My independent research indicates that there is indeed a scientific consensus.

I spent 30+ hours doing research and compiling my list specifically to rebut your claims that a majority of scientists do not think climate change will be a problem. If your claims are true, that ratio is not reflected in the number of scientific organizations that have made or endorsed statements regarding the subject.

It is worth noting that in the two years since I first posted my research here, not one single person has questioned the veracity of my evidence or methods.

It is also worth noting that in every update of my list so far over the last two years, the number of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations agreeing that ACC is happening and if left unchecked will be a problem has grown, the number of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations that have no position has shrunk, and the number of scientific, academic, and corporate organizations that say either 1. the globe is not warming, 2. human activity is not contributing to the current warming, or 3. the risks of adverse effects do not warrant mitigation, has remained steady at zero.

To you, those facts means nothing. To me, it says volumes about the real state of scientific opinion regarding climate change.

Global Warming Opinion: Scientific, Academic, and Corporate

I'm not trolling. I'm bringing facts to the table, and being skeptical of the skeptics. I welcome questions or comments, and am willing to share my thought processes. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly made claims about the state of climate science that you refuse to back up.

So, why not simply answer my question? I answered yours. It would only be polite on your part, and it's not a difficult question at all. I'd be curious to hear anyone answer it.

Would you, or anybody else here, like to state that they honestly believe that the top 5 Fortune 500 companies taking in nearly 2 trillion dollars revenue and over 100 billion in profits a year, all endorse addressing the risks of ACC because those corporations, the five largest corporations in the world, are either scientifically ignorant or because those corporations "feel free business should have less control"?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

regulations are by their very definition not "free market"

Originally Posted by stolz25

The minute you have a regulation preventing anyone from operating freely the market is no longer free.

My sincere apologies. Please allow me to rephrase myself.

So, certain businesses are trying to undermine the market in order to make a lot of money on the market?

Do those businesses that stand to make a lot of money as a result of new regulations include the top 5 Fortune 500 companies?

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

So, certain businesses are trying to undermine the market in order to make a lot of money on the market?

Do you think this is new? This practice is so common Bastiat wrote a wrote an ironic petition suggesting the legislature should make laws for people to block out the sun in order to promote candle-makers and other light producers.

Bastiat's famous Candlestick makers' Petition

Heck, this practice was the very essence of mercantilism, which is still very much alive today.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And quite frankly the fact that you consider Exxon to be a defender of your climate change political views while blaming them for funding the skeptics is downright one of the funniest things I've read on this forum in a long time.

You know my climate change political views, do you?

What climate change legislation do I support? What policy tools to mitigate the negative effects of anthropogenic climate change do I favor?

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Do you think this is new? This practice is so common Bastiat wrote a wrote an ironic petition suggesting the legislature should make laws for people to block out the sun in order to promote candle-makers and other light producers.

Bastiat's famous Candlestick makers' Petition

Heck, this practice was the very essence of mercantilism, which is still very much alive today.

I'm attempting to reconcile the fact that some folks seem to think that global warming alarmism is a hoax and a tool being used by the left in order to move power away from free business and toward government; away from the ideals of capitalism and toward those of socialism, so to speak.

We assume that the left isn't perpetrating this global warming hoax simply because they love the government. They passionately hate the military, so how much could they really love the government? The left are perpetrating this hoax in part because they also dislike big business, the rich, the upper class, the financially successful, ect. Since most people on the left are typically environmentalists too, they especially hate companies that traffic in fossil fuels.

Now, you and KG are telling me that official regulations will stimulate some businesses. I don't doubt it. I'm well aware that governments have been stimulating economies for quite some time.

I'm trying to point out that cooking up a global warming hoax in order to enact legislation that ultimately ends up increasing the revenue of businesses (especially those businesses that traffic in fossil fuels) is an awfully odd and seemingly counter-productive way for the political left to go about promoting a socialist, environmentalist, and anti-business agenda.

[thatguyoverthere]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And I know you like to spam other blogs with that list as well. And I know you've been called out for trolling for doing so.

Posting a link to my own research to a whopping 2 other website comment sections discussing climate change is spamming? If you say so.

Sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to link to this forum and use the fruits of my own intellectual labor when continuing to debate issues surrounding scientific opinion regarding climate change. But, in all fairness, since nobody here was able to challenge my evidence or conclusions, I decided to give some other climate skeptics a crack at it.

You see, I'm what they call a fair-minded individual, and I wanted to give a wider range of skeptics an equal opportunity to make their case and fact-check my work. Maybe I should have spammed more than 2 websites... *sigh*

-

I see you've yet another claim, JaJae. Where, exactly, on this forum have I been "called out for trolling" for "spam(ing) other blogs" with my own research? I must have missed it.

[JaJae]

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

I'm trying to point out that cooking up a global warming hoax in order to enact legislation that ultimately ends up increasing the revenue of businesses (especially those businesses that traffic in fossil fuels) is an awfully odd and seemingly counter-productive way for the political left to go about promoting a socialist, environmentalist, and anti-business agenda.

It doesn't have to increase the revenue of businesses on the whole. It just has to favor certain ones. For instance, Boone Pickens (who made his fortune in oil) was running a campaign trying to get legislation passed in Texas to help get his windmill farms running there. He was hoping for both grants and favorable legislation to help him gather up more land from what I understand.

The government can't really promote business, since they are just re-directing resources from the places they would normally go. Any legislation will either do nothing or end up hurting business on the whole.