|
|
|
|
energyscholar
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2013 : 13:11:52
|
I saw this story
http://tinyurl.com/k4ke42g (Science Daily)
which claims that fossil fuel companies are using 'dirty tricks' to raise false doubt about climate change issues. The article claims that
| "Some of the characters involved have previously worked to deny the reality of the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain and the link between tobacco and lung cancer. And the tactics they are applying are largely the same as those they used in the tobacco wars." |
I'm curious what other skeptics think of such a claim. Is there hard evidence? How likely is such a conspiracy? What is proper attitude of the confirmed skeptic towards this sort of claim? What do you folks think?
P.s. I will continue with my other thread. I'm just a slow writer.
|
"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2013 : 16:13:49 [Permalink]
|
I really don't see that people in general need that much encouragement ignoring climate change. They are doing a great job doing that already. Take where I live, electricity here is over $.50 kwh and it's higher for commercial rates. It's oil generated only. No gas or coal plants, just fuel oil. One house here one went on line April 1,13 with a solar system. You can go on the computer in that home and see what their system is producing and it's historical numbers so there is no question on the amount of electricity it's producing. It doesn't take an Einstein to see that this is paying off it's cost quickly. Extrapolating out what it generated so far, it is on a 4 year pay back, w/o out any rebates that might have been available, at today's electric rates. That's 18% return on the money spent. If power rates go up anytime in the future it will pay itself back in less time. What investment can anyone think of that will pay a 18% return that is available to home owners today besides this here? One that directly offsets their home's carbon footprint to boot. Yet people here are few and far between that are going solar here. I suppose it will change over time as most people are usually slow realizing a good thing and adapting change. In the states it's a different story with average rate of $.12 the same investment would take about 4 times longer, 16 years. With possible state and federal rebates it would be less.
People are idiots here for not taking advantage of that kind of investment, imo. So in regard to your question, my opinion is there is no reason to bother trying effect the public's opinion on climate change. Nobody really cares enough to get excited about it in real numbers anyway. Efforts would have more effect lobbying Washington for putting obstacles in the way of the alternative energy industry directly. Which is being done. But it could be going on, who knows? However taking the article at face value and with the examples it reports it is. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2013 : 17:54:20 [Permalink]
|
Too bad more people aren't looking into alternatives like Thorium. On Quirks and Quarks CBC radio show they interviewed a guy about it.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/quirks-quarks-blog/2011/02/china-thinks-green-nuclear-with-thorium-plan.html |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2013 : 20:29:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by energyscholar
I'm curious what other skeptics think of such a claim. Is there hard evidence? How likely is such a conspiracy? What is proper attitude of the confirmed skeptic towards this sort of claim? What do you folks think? |
Regardless of whether there's a conspiracy by Big Oil, some people do use much the same arguments as denialists of the facts of other fields. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2013 : 22:06:58 [Permalink]
|
| I don't think there's any need for a conspiracy. People will use oil until nothing remains regardless of how damaging it is. |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2013 : 07:00:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
People will use oil until nothing remains regardless of how damaging it is. |
Until there's something cheaper. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2013 : 13:56:19 [Permalink]
|
The Heartland Institute that is often tapped by journalists for information regarding climate was exposed as operating like a for-profit public relations firm that lobbies on behalf of some of the largest corporations in the world as opposed to it being a non-profit science-based think tank as its tax filings represent. They funded outspoken climate change denialists including Craig D. Idso ($11,600/month), Fred Singer ($5,000/month + expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667/month), and a number of other individuals, and they pledged $90,000 to Anthony Watts for a new website. And David Wojick's planned curriculum for elementary and K-12 schools would "dissuade teachers from teaching science".
http://theskepticsguide.org/archive/podcastinfo.aspx?mid=1&pid=345 @19:24 in the podcast.
For a good exposé of "Lord" Mockton and other denialist shills, see Peter Sinclaire's website and YouTube channel that includes The Climate Denier Crock of the Week videos that are both fun and informative.
http://climatecrocks.com/
|
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2013 : 02:15:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
People will use oil until nothing remains regardless of how damaging it is. |
Until there's something cheaper.
|
Cheaper than pulling something out of the ground that all of our machinery is already built to run on? Don't foresee it happening. The oil will run out before there is a viable alternative and whatever that may be still wont be cheaper. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2013 : 06:57:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Cheaper than pulling something out of the ground that all of our machinery is already built to run on? Don't foresee it happening. The oil will run out before there is a viable alternative and whatever that may be still wont be cheaper. |
A viable alternative will, by definition, be at least as cheap. After all, as the fossil fuels get used up, they'll get more expensive. And clearly, in some places, at least for electricity generation, wind/water/solar/nuke is already as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, so your foresight is broken.
Oh, and at least one study has already concluded that the total cost-of-ownership of a Nissan LEAF is about 83% of that of a comparable gas-burner, so as battery and efficiency technologies improve, all-electric vehicles are going to become more and more viable alternatives for most people. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2013 : 08:26:05 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, the Heartland Institute is probably who they are referring to. ThorGoLucky posted good info.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2013 : 00:50:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
[quote]Originally posted by On fire for Christ
A viable alternative will, by definition, be at least as cheap. After all, as the fossil fuels get used up, they'll get more expensive. And clearly, in some places, at least for electricity generation, wind/water/solar/nuke is already as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels, so your foresight is broken.
|
Ok "as cheap" compared to future prices, yes. As far as I'm aware those fuels can't run jets or cars, with nuclear/wind/water, they probably never will. With the exception of a few solar prototypes that are nowhere near and maybe never will be commercially viable. Battery power still comes from an electric source which people seem to conveniently forget or totally ignore. Fossil fuels still power most energy plants. It's a free market. If the alternatives were viable they would be in place already. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/13/2013 00:52:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2013 : 04:59:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Ok "as cheap" compared to future prices, yes. As far as I'm aware those fuels can't run jets or cars, with nuclear/wind/water, they probably never will. With the exception of a few solar prototypes that are nowhere near and maybe never will be commercially viable. Battery power still comes from an electric source which people seem to conveniently forget or totally ignore. Fossil fuels still power most energy plants. It's a free market. If the alternatives were viable they would be in place already. |
Except for jets, I think I addressed all of this in my last comment. To clarify: you need to factor in rising fossil-fuel prices in order to determine future viability. For example, 30 years ago, commercial production from Alberta's tar sands wasn't a viable option, but with higher oil prices today, it's a booming business. "The alternatives" will become viable as oil runs out.
Again: the Nissan LEAF is already a viable alternative for people who don't have long commutes or who need to haul a lot of stuff. Most of the people I know who own pickup trucks or SUVs would be better off, economically, to trade their vehicles in for LEAFs and rent a truck on those rare occasions when one would actually be needed.
Jets will eventually be powered by carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, perhaps using methods we've already discussed, unless another system with similar energy density is discovered. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2013 : 13:39:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Ok "as cheap" compared to future prices, yes. As far as I'm aware those fuels can't run jets or cars, with nuclear/wind/water, they probably never will. With the exception of a few solar prototypes that are nowhere near and maybe never will be commercially viable. Battery power still comes from an electric source which people seem to conveniently forget or totally ignore. Fossil fuels still power most energy plants. It's a free market. If the alternatives were viable they would be in place already.
|
"As far as I'm aware those fuels can't run jets or cars," Your lack of knowledge on the topic is evident in that comment and your not alone so don't feel insulted, it's just an observable fact that can be corrected.
Just to be clear what I'm talking about are green alternatives, carbon neutral fuels. Those that are non-fossil carbon based and there are several. Jet's can be and have been flown on Biofuels of different sources with minor and no modification and cars, trucks, trains, any ICE can be run on fuels not derived from fossil carbon based oils. There several options that could be utilized today. It's NOT that there aren't other ways, it's there aren't other ways that are as easy and cheaper than ones that wrecks our climate when all the costs are not paid for up front. That is the most critical point. It cost relatively very little to it's price to produce crude oil. Not much more than producing well water or coal which is just like digging out any other rocks. There is a monopoly so what we pay is no where near what it costs in total. We're not in any way running out today. That is the excuse given to justify $100+ oil. And coal, the USA has at 2011 rates of production has over 200 years of known coal reserves in the US alone. If we don't outlaw abandon the use of fossil carbon fuels we are dead as a species. While not seen by everyone that is how I see it. It is a possibility.
About those existing other green fuels. All trains, except those operating high altitudes in a few places, are Diesel electric and the same diesel engine that was intentionally designed to run on peanut oil for it's fuel by Otto Diesel. His vision was in part that farmers would be able to grow their own fuel for their tractors. And he susceeded.Link ,,
Dr. Diesel himself, who envisioned that pure vegetable oils could power early diesel engines for agriculture in remote areas of the world, where petroleum was not available at the time. Today's diesel engine can be run on a variety of carbon neutral, grown vegetable and algae oils. |
Jet's can fly and have flown unmodified on Biofuel| Biojet fuel is made from sustainable sources such as vegetable oils, sugars, animal fats and even waste biomass, and can be used in existing jet engines without modification. |
Their is also the replacement for Gasoline. Ethanol! cars can run on 100% ethanol with minor changes from how they come out from production. The powers that be make it very difficult even illegal but it is doable with today's cars. Changes mostly to the firmware coding in the cars computer, which can be changed easy enough. Can anyone think of why that is? Take E85, what could be the "magic" property of of gasoline that today's cars absolutely need, as their made, that the minor 15% needs to be gasoline? Any guesses?
Jets using 100% biofuel from seeds.
link
A Dassault Falcon 20 twin engine jet took off from the Canadian capital Ottawa last month to test the new jet fuel, made from 100 percent oilseed, for engine performance and emissions, aiming to make sky journeys less polluting. |
Jet and diesel fuel from Aglae.
Link,,,
In 2010, we delivered over 80,000 liters of algal-derived marine diesel and jet fuel to the U.S. Navy, constituting the world's largest delivery of 100% microbial-derived, non-ethanol biofuel. |
Believing we are not there yet is as big as the lie that the use of fossil fuels is not affecting the climate which will, if continued unchecked will be catastrophic to a lot of life on this planet.
Some things keeping us from abandoning all use of the 3 fossil fuels are those massively powerful owners of these commodities that will see their values goes to zero if we stop using it all and switch to the existing alternatives all ready available and all carbon neutral. The international political will and the investors who own all generation plant that use them who don't want to pay the costs of change the fuel they use over time. It will never happen until we demand it globally. Until we do the party will continue until the climate plays "Good Night Ladies" one last time, forever. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2013 : 11:24:09 [Permalink]
|
In Bill Nye Teaches "Climate 101", Phil Plait says,Right now, the biggest problem in explaining the reality of global warming is the well-funded and quite sinister campaign to sow doubt about it. The Climate Reality Project has another video about this that I like, showing the clear and direct connection between—get this—the tobacco companies and their lobby, and that of some of the climate change deniers.
That connection is quite real: Many of the same people and so-called “think tanks” who have labored for years to downplay the dangers of smoking are now shilling doubt when it comes to global warming. I think that lends a needed perspective to their credibility. Video at the link. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dirty Tricks by Climate Change Deniers?
