Actions speak louder than words.
Very old adage, and still very valid.
Correct, that you didn’t quote the dollar amount; that was wolfpup and I was mistaken since you’ve taken up the mantle of defending his cite.
You did say this though.
This is in response to me questioning the counting of groups in the Brulle study (groups like Heritage). By stating “they” I take that to mean the groups Brulle counted: AEI, Heritage, Cato, AFP, and so on, as that was what I was referring to. Perhaps you meant that to mean Heritage specifically? In other words, does your use of the pronoun they refer to groups or Heritage?
And perhaps you would see that I’m responding to several people including wolfpup regarding this specific cite and that you responded to my questioning that cite with a defense of it and with back and forth discussion of it. It’s disingenuous of you to act like you haven’t in effect taken some measure of ownership over the Brulle paper as a cite. You might have, for example, made some sort of explicit statement that you don’t agree with its methodology on certain components of it while you were defending its methodology on other points of it.
Can you name any big companies (say bigger than 1,000 employees) who explicitly have made public call outs of their employees that are climate change denialists? According to a recent poll I found, 23% of Americans say they do not believe climate change is happening, 63% say the do believe climate change is happening, and 14% weren’t sure. Based upon probability, every single large company has at least some denialists as employees. Can you show any thing are doing these public call outs?
The quote I made was referring to the Heritage, regarding AEI:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545
IOW, lukewarmers, IMHO they are like deniers, but more evolved, their denial is then related to minimizing the effect of humans, of course the part of some of the scholars endorsing a carbon tax was the reason why I mentioned here and in other discussions why it would be iffy to use the AEI, but what other scholars say is something that justifies the other studies that refer to the AEI as a denier organization.
Discuss with those posters then, I used Frontline, Oreskes MediaMatters and others, and I already said that I’m not on full agreement of using AEI, I would completely agree on not using them if the buzz comes that they finally dumped their contrarian scholars.
The point stands, this is like if the tobacco companies that stopped funding or making direct denial of what their product was doing, and we had let their CEOs and other powerful members to continue funding deniers. The issue here is that this should be focused on the companies that are responsible of pollution, putting others into the discussions is just a Chewbakka defense.
IMHO most fossil fuel companies have learned from what happened to the Tobacco companies.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/case/bergman.html
A confrontational position would be bad in regards to future liability, but nevertheless the indirect ways of keeping the government away from dispensing justice continues. And the longer it goes, I can see even RICO laws being used against the polluters.
Were we all to live the Ritzi life that Al Gore and I live now, paying more for it will do nothing to affect ACC.
The extravagant lifestyle of the rich costs energy–gobs of it.
The world wants to live richly. Now.
Therefore, all energy, from all sources will be consumed for the forseeable future as it is brought online.
It is not the case that “alternative energy” displaces fossils. Alternative sources simply add to the total available energy, permitting more people to live richly.
You seem to have this absolutely unsupportable idea that new energy sources are going to replace and diminish fossil fuel use, and that for this reason Big Oil has some sort of stake in denying climate change.
Big Oil has a stake in keeping their product as inexpensive as possible, and their motivation to obfuscate climate change science, or pay lip service to supporting it, is in service of that while they decide which markets and products are best pursued.
But in terms of ACC, we are going to continue to burn up all the fossils we can extract along with using all the other energy sources we can figure out, because the demand is insatiable.
And the reason for that insatiable demand is Al Gore, me, and all the others wanting to live better.
Here is a projection of world energy consumption 30 years out, assuming the rest of the world doesn’t actually catch up with me and Al Gore. If it does, you can assume those curves at the end–for all sources–go straight up.
Obviously.
Past history of humans using technology shows that we can change to avoid harmful contaminants that we missed how harmful they were when we started to use them. The fact that we are still here and civilization did not stop after we controlled CFCs, acid rain and Lead in gasoline shows that we will not stop progress, you have not learned anything at all, and are really just posting useless platitudes.
And thank you for showing all that you are not paying attention, that is not what Al Gore is doing, so stop making claims of what he is doing that are only in your imagination.
Think about the cars of the 50s, 60s, or 70s and think about the cars we have today – smaller, fuel-efficient cars, some of them hybrids or even pure electric – but even the plain gasoline ones are far lighter on average with more fuel-efficient engines. Think about energy-efficient appliances – high-efficiency furnaces and air conditioners, better fridges, washers, and dryers. Think about the recycling and conservation programs we have today. Where I live coal-fired power plants have been and continue to be phased out, and the majority of electric power is now from clean energy. Even so, per-capita electricity use has been declining. In the US, total CO2 emissions have been flat or declining for more than a decade despite population growth.
Clearly, your persistent morbid cynicism is just as misplaced as some of your climate skepticism.
It’s true that parts of the developing world, notably China and India, are increasing carbon emissions at an alarming rate, and I’ve long argued that this is a major problem area. Just as we’re starting to do, however, it’s one that can be addressed by technology and, if necessary, it can be incentivized through trade policy. I don’t accept the idea that just because we’ve spent the last couple of hundred years ignorantly and recklessly using the atmosphere as a sewer, now it’s “their turn” to do the same in the 21st century, just as I don’t accept your fatalistic groundless cynicism.
Well, thanks for making my point for me, Wolfpup.
Let’s start though, by getting rid of the silly idea that the US is somehow doing well by decreasing their carbon emissions. You see, shifting the energy-intensive manufacturing of the stuff it takes for me to live richly over to China and India does not get me off the hook for my carbon emissions. When Al Gore and I get our new golf clubs and stay at the Ritz with all of the stuff the Ritz needs to accommodate our lifestyle, it’s our demand that generates the market for that stuff, and it’s beyond ridiculous to fret that China and India are increasing emissions at an alarming rate while me and Al live in a country that is improving, when it is Al and I creating the demand those countries are meeting!
Surely you can see past the bullshit of that position. It ain’t China and India. It’s me and Al Gore, and those who want to live like us (aka, the rest of the world). We have AC and big houses and lots of new stuff, and they want them too. Right now they are mostly making that stuff for me and Al Gore, though.
Back to cars. What do you think happened when we made cars more fuel efficient? Let me see…auto sales stayed flat and gasoline consumption plummeted, right?..
Oh, wait…my bad. Here is what happened instead. We made cars cheaper to operate, and the world is rapidly getting richer, and now we are burning more oil for cars than we ever were! Holy batmobile! Apparently it never occurred to the fuel-efficient crowd that more fuel efficient cars means more cars, and increased total consumption of gasoline!
Of course we can figure out ways to be more efficient. We are going to have to, because as the world standard per capita creeps closer to Al Gore and me, the total energy need is going to soar way, way past any ability to replace fossils with alternate energy. Instead, fossil is going to rise, alternate is going to rise, and total energy will be the sum of all of that, because the demand for living richly is insatiable.
That this cruel truth–with Al Gore and me as neat archetypes right at the center of it–is seen by you and GIGO buster and your naive pards as “fatalistic groundless cynicism” does not render it less of a cruel truth.
Neither you, nor the IPCC, nor any anti-Denialists can show any reasonable calculation where the developing world gets to live like the rest of us and yet fossil fuel consumption actually diminishes (for the next 30-50 years, anyway). There is no scenario (outside of worldwide catastrophe, prolonged depression, mass extinction and the like) in which there is a reduction of fossil fuel use in absolute amounts.
You say “cynicism” to me. I say “pollyanna” to you, “hypocrisy” to the pretense of Al Gore that we can live our personal life richly and be a promotor for the ACC cause, and “naive” to the view that as a collective we are going to sacrifice now for the putative good of future generations.
But we’ll see, won’t we?
The real truth was that Al Gore is not at all like you, so unless you are willing to say on the record that I and many are lying on what he is doing you need to drop your silly act of equivalence.
And this is wrong as the IPCC itself published reasonable calculations on how to do it.
Richard Alley and his group also published reports with the help of economists like Nordhouse that showed how the ones that oppose the change by claiming it will too costly as the ones that are real alarmists.
Besides you going now for personal insults, the only other thing I still see is just a repeating the gross ignorance you have about Al Gore.
The repeating ignorance from you? Yes.
EVERYONE back off on the personal comments. They do nothing to promote the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
Are you seriously suggesting that making cars more fuel-efficient is causing us to buy more of them? Seriously? Despite the fact that car use is declining in North America?
What you’re not seeing or refusing to acknowledge is that the changes I mentioned before that are occurring in many areas of our lives that relate to energy use and our approach to the environment are fundamental, permanent, and transformational.
In that respect what you’re saying about “shifting our emissions” to China and India is misleading because that’s not the only reason emissions have stabilized here and even decreased. But I did acknowledge that emissions from the developing world are a problem. In that same vein the link you posted about the increasing number of cars were worldwide figures that are largely due to the developing countries, which is expected because they’re, well, developing. But they’re not developing in a vacuum – they have the benefit of scientific knowledge and availability of rapidly evolving clean technologies that the western world didn’t have when we industrialized and perpetrated this climate disaster, so whatever happens they are not on the same trajectory. And we have the ability, if we so choose, to influence those countries’ environmental stewardship precisely because, as you never tire of telling us, we are their primary customers.
And once again, no solution is put forward.
And that is just like saying that this thread was not read.
Again, part of the solution in this case is to not let companies out of the hook for having injected this issue as a litmus test for the Republicans. Part of the solution then requires to not vote for republicans until they learn a lesson, or criticize them harshly as one of the last Republican scientists like Barry Bickmore can tell them:
It is that damage done to a political party what needs to be fixed by the fossil fuel companies, it requires public shame of members that are denying what many are reporting officially, stopping their surrogates from supporting denier politicians and supporting the ones that are in favor of part of the solution like carbon taxes or cap-n-trade.
Should they change their behavior and stop selling gasoline? What would you use to power your car? Wind power?
No one is saying that, so stop with the straw man.
The actual deniers are those who pretend in the face of the fact that temps have been going down for the last 16 years that the temps are rising! What a crock. ANd they are still pretending that the sea level is going to rise even when every time they make that prediction the sea level refuses to rise to their bidding.
Cite? As reported many times before those “16” years item is the real crock.
As pointed elsewhere you claimed that someone had reported that the oceans were going to rise by meters by end of the **previous **century, that is also a straw man, a cite was requested of who made that claim but none was produced before, will this time be different? We’ll see.
We could always burn all the straw with which you constructed that response.
Nothing I have said indicates that the oil companies should stop producing oil or even that they should not profit from their actions.