"Climate change is accelerating beyond expectations"; while Americans' belief in AGW declines

[flickster]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Revenue in 2007 of the top 9 integrated oil companies: 1.6 Trillion dollars.

You want a “follow the money” scenario?

Follow the 1.6 TRILLION Dollars per year.

Compare it to the amounts of grants that a TOP climate scientist like Richard Somerville gets:

* Direct Validation of GCM Parameterizations Against TOGA-COARE Observations Amendment Date: 1998-10-19; Funding Amount: $210,486
* TOGA: Process-Oriented Diagnostic Modeling for TOGA-COARE Amendment Date: 1995-05-26; Funding Amount: $135,000
* Climate Variability Studies over the Northern Hemisphere Amendment Date: 1990-04-06; Funding Amount: $63,529
* Cloud Radiation Feedbacks in Climate Modeling Amendment Date: 1987-11-17; Funding Amount: $130,000
* Cloud Optical Thickness Feedbacks in Climate Modeling Amendment Date: 1985-10-17; Funding Amount: $93,500
* Computing Facility Augmentation at SIO Amendment Date: 1984-11-29; Funding Amount: $44,600
* The Effects of Orography on Planetary Waves in the Atmosphere Amendment Date: 1983-05-12; Funding Amount: $56,600

eta: That would be .00005% of a single years revenues.

Exxon alone invest $25-30 Billion in Capital Projects annually. Sounds like a lot of jobs created via purchased equipment and services.

Spending on the algae fuels project will require only a fraction of Exxon’s annual capital budget of $25 billion to $30 billion, but it will be the world’s largest biofuels development project of its kind, said Craig Venter, genome pioneer and founder of Synthetic Genomics.

[billfish678]

@begbert2

So the argument is now, “No, the oil companies really are poor!”

No, but if you are going to throw numbers around, make some frickin sense with them other than "OMG big numbers ( with no context) " !

[Revtim]

The east coast is going to have to be under water before the political situation is going to allow for real progress, IMHO. I just hope the really bad stuff happens after I’m dead. That’s really the only hope I have left with regards to global warming.

[begbert2]

@billfish678

No, but if you are going to throw numbers around, make some frickin sense with them other than "OMG big numbers ( with no context) " !

I think four orders of magnitude of slackis a sufficient safety margin to at the least dispute the reasonability of the statement, "Throw in shysters like Al Gore, the rest of the politicians and big wigs trying to line their pockets and now mix in data credibility questions…sorry, it’s just turned into another “follow the money” scenario. "

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@billfish678

I think the top 9 oil companies might just maybe have a few more expenses and employ a few more people than Richard Somerville.

Indeed they do. That’s why we follow the money That would mean there are a whole ton of suppliers to oil companies that don’t like the thought of climate change, and are actively denying it. There are a whole ton of employees that depend on oil companies or their suppliers that have a monetary vested interest in denying climate change.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@flickster

Exxon alone invest $25-30 Billion in Capital Projects annually. Sounds like a lot of jobs created via purchased equipment and services.

And every one of those jobs is reliant on money flowing from the continued burning of fossil fuels. Is it any wonder that so many people stick their fingers in their ears and say “no climate change, no climate change, lalallalala” Their livelihoods are dependent on the status quo.

Acknowledging climate change might make these oil-job dependent people uncomfortable with how they get their paychecks, and make them worried that they might have to make lifestyle changes.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@flickster

I do hope you realize there is a difference between revenue and profit

Yes, and I hope you realize that is not the point. The oil companies are responsible for considerable money FLOWING though the economy.

[SenorBeef]

@elucidator

This just may be all our fault, me and mine. When the hippies came out for environmental stuff, we pretty much doomed the cause right then and there. Now in the public mind, even all this totally un-hip data is suspect, buncha tree-huggers and hippies, not to be taken seriously. So now nobody will listen and we’re all gonna die.

Bummer. Sorry.

What bugs me is the “environmentalists” who are so opposed to nuclear power. I don’t know if that includes you, but generally it does indeed include “hippies”

And quite frankly, I don’t get it. If there’s a miracle “HOLY SHIT WE CAN SAVE THE WORLD” technology available to us now, it’s nuclear power. It’s such a ridiculous slam dunk for the environment that I can only conclude that environmentalists who oppose it are retarded. We’re scared of monster movies from the dawn of atomic power or something.

Fuck, it’s practically magic, and it has such tiny downsides compared to any other options available to us. I honestly have no clue how this isn’t the greatest slam dunk in history. GAH!

[flickster]

@Euphonious_Polemic

And every one of those jobs is reliant on money flowing from the continued burning of fossil fuels. Is it any wonder that so many people stick their fingers in their ears and say “no climate change, no climate change, lalallalala” Their livelihoods are dependent on the status quo.

Acknowledging climate change might make these oil-job dependent people uncomfortable with how they get their paychecks, and make them worried that they might have to make lifestyle changes.

Absolutely not true. Example: the $600 million algae bio-fuel project I just referenced earlier.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@flickster

Absolutely not true. Example: the $600 million algae bio-fuel project I just referenced earlier.

So are you trying to say that Exxon’s investment (over many, many years, btw) in biofuels makes it one of the "big wigs trying to line their pockets " with climate change?

Or just what are you trying to say?

[flickster]

@Euphonious_Polemic

So are you trying to say that Exxon’s investment (over many, many years, btw) in biofuels makes it one of the "big wigs trying to line their pockets " with climate change?

Or just what are you trying to say?

Well, we got off on this tangent on your $1.6 trillion insinuation that the top 9 oil producers has that revenue to line somebody’s pockets with

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@flickster

Well, we got off on this tangent on your $1.6 trillion insinuation that the top 9 oil producers has that revenue to line somebody’s pockets with

No,“we” did not get off on a tangent, and I was merely trying to ILLUSTRATE that your statement that

“the rest of the politicians and big wigs trying to line their pockets (turn climate change) into another “follow the money” scenario.”

Was a pile of horseshit.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

To add:

The point is, there is a lot, a ton, a shitload of money, companies and jobs tied up in the status quo of fossil fuel energy production and distribution.

To imply that we have to “follow the money” to explain why people are taking climate changes seriously, is the absolute height of Orwellian doublespeak. There are orders of magnitude more money to follow in the fossil fuel industry. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing. I’m not begrudging anyone their livelihoods or the companies their modest profits. It is simply a fact that if we “follow the money”, we will not find a cabel of rich climate change moguls.

[Sam_Stone]

@SenorBeef

What bugs me is the “environmentalists” who are so opposed to nuclear power. I don’t know if that includes you, but generally it does indeed include “hippies”

And quite frankly, I don’t get it. If there’s a miracle “HOLY SHIT WE CAN SAVE THE WORLD” technology available to us now, it’s nuclear power. It’s such a ridiculous slam dunk for the environment that I can only conclude that environmentalists who oppose it are retarded. We’re scared of monster movies from the dawn of atomic power or something.

Fuck, it’s practically magic, and it has such tiny downsides compared to any other options available to us. I honestly have no clue how this isn’t the greatest slam dunk in history. GAH!

Preach it, brother.

Alberta is planning on building a nuclear power plant. They asked for public input, and I told them they can built it in my backyard if they’d like, so long as they build it.

[flickster]

@Euphonious_Polemic

No,“we” did not get off on a tangent, and I was merely trying to ILLUSTRATE that your statement that

“the rest of the politicians and big wigs trying to line their pockets (turn climate change) into another “follow the money” scenario.”

Was a pile of horseshit.

Are you trying to claim that Al Gore is not after personal financial gain in regarding to AGW? Please…

[flickster]

@Euphonious_Polemic

To add:

The point is, there is a lot, a ton, a shitload of money, companies and jobs tied up in the status quo of fossil fuel energy production and distribution.

To imply that we have to “follow the money” to explain why people are taking climate changes seriously, is the absolute height of Orwellian doublespeak. There are orders of magnitude more money to follow in the fossil fuel industry. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing. I’m not begrudging anyone their livelihoods or the companies their modest profits. It is simply a fact that if we “follow the money”, we will not find a cabel of rich climate change moguls.

Just how many billions do you think are going to be tied up in Carbon Taxes / Cap & Trade? That’s the $$$ pipeline Al & the politicians are really after.

[BrainGlutton]

@flickster

Just how many billions do you think are going to be tied up in Carbon Taxes / Cap & Trade? That’s the $$$ pipeline Al & the politicians are really after.

:dubious: You do understand, don’t you, that politicians who help enact a tax do not get a percentage of the revenues?

[Declan]

@SenorBeef

Fuck, it’s practically magic, and it has such tiny downsides compared to any other options available to us. I honestly have no clue how this isn’t the greatest slam dunk in history. GAH!

Im not going to blame just enviromentalists or hippies on this one, in a sense we were all to blame when we made the best decisions available given the circumstances of the time. Chalk River, Three mile island , Chernobyl were all front and center and people decided that there was cheaper options available at the time, rather than go nuclear.

Now the previous non nuke options are not so cheap anymore and nukes look attractive. The problem for the green movement is not that nukes are dangerous, but that they will promote consumption, rather than conservation.

A portion of the enviro crowd does not want science solutions, they just want a smoking gun that they can kick off the grand crusade, nukes are an anthema to that.

Declan

[Declan]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: You do understand, don’t you, that politicians who help enact a tax do not get a percentage of the revenues?

We hope

Declan

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@flickster

Are you trying to claim that Al Gore is not after personal financial gain in regarding to AGW? Please…

<looks back>

No, nope, I don’t see anything I wrote about Al Gore whatsoever. I do think that the fossil fuel industry has a larger financial stake than a single author/former VP though.

I’m following the money!

eta: Do you actually believe that Al Gore will get a “cut of the action” from carbon taxes through a magical pipeline?