The Climate Is So Bad..........

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Fundamentally, the physics of infrared radiative transfer eventually dominates the sway of any political bias - every time. Even ExxonMobil has finally admitted to funding climate change denial propaganda and the energy company might help to reverse the ongoing trend. I have a wait-and-see attitude here. Clearly, Putin and Saudi Arabia doesn't want Europe's addition to diminish.

"From the 1980s to mid 2000s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to curtail global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol K and sought to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels."

___
And Dr Higgs has been heavily involved with the fossil fuel industry. He most probably counts among one of those scientists whom Bill McGuire describes as "a few maverick scientists" and "oil company apologists".
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
Maybe you can help me out here. One would think that an expert in climate change, Dr. Roger Higgs, should regularly publish in the journal Nature climate change. I couldn't find one publication by him in that journal.

I also tried to find one paper where Roger Higgs was an author in a number of journals that specialize in climate change. Roger wasn't in any of them.
By definition, an "EXPERT" is somebody at least 50 miles away from home that has an "Opinion". If they have a "Degree" from a "College", that means their "opinion" and the college's "opinion" agree.
 

inertia

Super Member
Who appointed "Nature Climate Change" as the sole authority on the subject?

It's not about "who".

Scientific journals provide the critical function of peer review and communication to other scientists in specialized fields.

False Dichotomy.

It seems you're not familiar with the simplest of logical fallacies.

Asking for help in finding a publication written by a scientist for a report relevant to climate change, and providing a list of journals already searched, is not the same as a premise that provides a limited choice between two exhaustive or exclusive alternatives ( a false dichotomy).

It's simply a request for further information.

...

Get familiar with the term. That is what people like you do. You try to limit authority sources to the ones you approve.

I am familiar: William Hughes, et. al, "Critical Thinking An Introduction to the Basic Skills", 6th ed., Broadview press, page 146

People like me? If you mean people that have also worked as a scientist and published in the field of physics, then yes, people like me. Scientific journals exist to provide a record that ensures scholarly standards up to and including specific scientific methodology as determined by subject matter experts.

Again. It is impossible to know this given the many different influences upon our climate. This statement is an distraction. It seeks to present a "reasonable" sense of ambiguity while still demanding the same solution.

___

Be careful when using the term, "impossible". Newer research has provided results with considerably less ambiguity.

What's real is that teams of scientists have significantly reduced the uncertainty between natural and human caused atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations based on data from NASA's OCO-2 instrument on the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite. This data provided a substantial baseline in determining the effect of human emission activities and comparing them to naturally caused emissions.



___
 
Last edited:

inertia

Super Member
And Dr Higgs has been heavily involved with the fossil fuel industry. He most probably counts among one of those scientists whom Bill McGuire describes as "a few maverick scientists" and "oil company apologists".

Thanks for responding. Oil companies have a big investment here. Based on ExxonMobil's historic and deliberate funding of anti-climate change propaganda, it's understandable that these companies want to continue their lucrative monetary source by any and all means.

___
 

inertia

Super Member
And from his CV just look at his background and his clients:


Petroleum Explorationist, Canada: (5 years) 1977-78, Imperial Oil Ltd (Exxon), Calgary. Exploration Geologist. 1 year of diverse training, incl. a 6-month seismic interpretation project (Labrador Sea)

1978-82, Aquitaine Co. of Canada Ltd & successor Canterra Energy Ltd, Calgary. Exploration Geologist, rising to Exploration Supervisor, Peace River Arch District, supervising 2 geologists, 2 geophysicists, 1 technician

1982-1986 Doctoral research, Department of Geology, University of Oxford, UK. (4 years) Thesis: 'A Facies Analysis of the Bude Formation (Lr Westphalian), SW England’ Supervisor: Dr Harold G. Reading

1987-present Consultant in clastic sedimentology & sequence stratigraphy. Founder, managing (30 years) director & sole employee of consultancy Geoclastica Ltd, UK, registered 1998 http://www.geoclastica.com/

Clients: Beicip-Franlab; BHP; British Columbia Ministry of Energy; Canadian Petroleum; Chevron; Ecopetrol; Elf; Emerald; Finavera; Geoquest; Geological Survey of Canada (2 yrs); IFP; Intera; Jordan NPC; Mobil; Noble; Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA, incl. 3 yrs in Caracas 1990-93 & twelve 5-week visits to Puerto La Cruz 2010-12); PetroSA; Polish Oil & Gas Institute; Preussag; Repsol; Schlumberger; Talisman; Tectonic Analysis Inc

Thank you very much -again- for supplying the information I requested in an earlier post. (y):coffee:

__
 

Hypatia_Alexandria

Well-known member
Thanks for responding. Oil companies have a big investment here. Based on ExxonMobil's historic and deliberate funding of anti-climate change propaganda, it's understandable that these companies want to continue their lucrative monetary source by any and all means.

___
Higgs reminds me of those scientists that worked for the tobacco industry back in the 1960s and 1970s.

I have just taken possession of my copy of Bill McGuire's latest book Hothouse Earth: An Inhabitant's Guide. It took a while to arrive as I had to order from another EU country [it is not available here until October].

It is aimed at laypersons like myself so probably will tell you nothing you do not already know but it makes for very grim reading.
 

christ_undivided

Well-known member
It's not about "who".

Scientific journals provide the critical function of peer review and communication to other scientists in specialized fields.



Asking for help in finding a publication written by a scientist for a report relevant to climate change, and providing a list of journals already searched, is not the same as a premise that provides a limited choice between two exhaustive or exclusive alternatives ( a false dichotomy).

It's simply a request for further information.



I am familiar: William Hughes, et. al, "Critical Thinking An Introduction to the Basic Skills", 6th ed., Broadview press, page 146

People like me? If you mean people that have also worked as a scientist and published in the field of physics, then yes, people like me. Scientific journals exist to provide a record that ensures scholarly standards up to and including specific scientific methodology as determined by subject matter experts.



Be careful when using the term, "impossible". Newer research has provided results with considerably less ambiguity.

What's real is that teams of scientists have significantly reduced the uncertainty between natural and human caused atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations based on data from NASA's OCO-2 instrument on the Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite. This data provided a substantial baseline in determining the effect of human emission activities and comparing them to naturally caused emissions.



___
Wow. Another scientist who thinks he is God and his opinions are absolutes. You're another scam artist in a long historical line of scam artists. Newton was confident. He was wrong. Einstein was confident, he was wrong. You are overly confident and you are wrong. I know you are wrong because your methods are not perfect and your sample size is very small. The environment is not a closed ecosystem controlled in a lab somewhere that has been continually tracked and observed as to identify every single influence upon it's lifecycle. Man is so.dumb that he can't even prevent his own death and here you are claiming to know the mysteries of the universe. Yes. Another failing scientist in a long line of failing scientists.
 

Backup

Well-known member
Wow. Another scientist who thinks he is God and his opinions are absolutes. You're another scam artist in a long historical line of scam artists. Newton was confident. He was wrong. Einstein was confident, he was wrong. You are overly confident and you are wrong. I know you are wrong because your methods are not perfect and your sample size is very small. The environment is not a closed ecosystem controlled in a lab somewhere that has been continually tracked and observed as to identify every single influence upon it's lifecycle. Man is so.dumb that he can't even prevent his own death and here you are claiming to know the mysteries of the universe. Yes. Another failing scientist in a long line of failing scientists.
Yes, obviously scientists can be wrong. Corrections and transparency are kind of the whole point.

That doesn’t equate them with climate deniers, who just lie.
 

Backup

Well-known member
They get their money from somewhere. And the providers of the money want results.
we understand you people believe all science is a lie and only crazy conspiracy theories can be believed

You do realize you are claiming propagandists, whose funding, motives, and dishonesty are perfectly clear, should be believed.

And all the world’s scientific institutions should be ignored because you can imagine that they may be on the take.
 

glenlogie

Well-known member
we understand you people believe all science is a lie and only crazy conspiracy theories can be believed

You do realize you are claiming propagandists, whose funding, motives, and dishonesty are perfectly clear, should be believed.

And all the world’s scientific institutions should be ignored because you can imagine that they may be on the take.
Nothing like your comedy routine first thing in the morning
 

christ_undivided

Well-known member
Yes, obviously scientists can be wrong. Corrections and transparency are kind of the whole point.

That doesn’t equate them with climate deniers, who just lie.

You can't possible know that man has any meaningful impact on global warming when there are more significant variables to consider. Climate changes naturally. All anyone cares about now is "grabbing the headlines". It is more about promoting men than it is about actually understanding the entirety of the condition.

These so called "scientists" work till they find what they want to see and then make fallacious claims of undeniability. I've lived long enough to know that the vast majority of information that exists is either wrong or half truths.
 

Misfit

Well-known member
Thanks for responding. Oil companies have a big investment here. Based on ExxonMobil's historic and deliberate funding of anti-climate change propaganda, it's understandable that these companies want to continue their lucrative monetary source by any and all means.
They provide the product that gives us the reliable power source we need, plus for many other things from clothing to medicines. Sorry friend, but these electric cars you champion will not work well in places like South Dakot and Montana in the winter. Plus, if they all went on the electric grid at once, the electric grid would collapse. Plus, the mining of the lithium for the batteries is dirty and polluting, and it's the same for making solar panels. Your "Green Energy" isn't so green after all.
 
Top