Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
zygalski said:
Who's reqiesting a total halt on using crude oil?
Hope this isn't another crude (geddit?) strawman.
No one on here but there are plenty on the loony eco-left.Hope this isn't another crude (geddit?) strawman.
That said, if you don't understand the point being made about there being no need to debunk AGW by "big oil" then you are either trolling or very stupid.
XM5ER said:
No one on here but there are plenty on the loony eco-left.
That said, if you don't understand the point being made about there being no need to debunk AGW by "big oil" then you are either trolling or very stupid.
If I'm reading this page* correctly, petrol for cars makes up a fairly large proportion of the total amount of oil used, so I don't think campaigns of FUD from 'big oil' are too much of a stretch of the imagination.That said, if you don't understand the point being made about there being no need to debunk AGW by "big oil" then you are either trolling or very stupid.
These numbers are for the USA:
budgie smuggler said:
If I'm reading this page* correctly, petrol for cars makes up a fairly large proportion of the total amount of oil used, so I don't think campaigns of FUD from 'big oil' are too much of a stretch of the imagination.
These numbers are for the USA:
FUD?These numbers are for the USA:
How quickly do you think all those V8s will become 12v?
budgie smuggler said:
XM5ER said:
No one on here but there are plenty on the loony eco-left.
That said, if you don't understand the point being made about there being no need to debunk AGW by "big oil" then you are either trolling or very stupid.
If I'm reading this page* correctly, petrol for cars makes up a fairly large proportion of the total amount of oil used, so I don't think campaigns of FUD from 'big oil' are too much of a stretch of the imagination.That said, if you don't understand the point being made about there being no need to debunk AGW by "big oil" then you are either trolling or very stupid.
These numbers are for the USA:
I'm sure this would have been posted in previous chapters, but an interesting story that I had never been aware of until just now; my biology teacher, who sparked my interest in science aged 10ish, was friends with David Bellamy.
from Jan 2013...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817...
Read his wiki here... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
from Jan 2013...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817...
Read his wiki here... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
XM5ER said:
zygalski said:
Who's reqiesting a total halt on using crude oil?
Hope this isn't another crude (geddit?) strawman.
No one on here but there are plenty on the loony eco-left.Hope this isn't another crude (geddit?) strawman.
That said, if you don't understand the point being made about there being no need to debunk AGW by "big oil" then you are either trolling or very stupid.
steveT350C said:
I'm sure this would have been posted in previous chapters, but an interesting story that I had never been aware of until just now; my biology teacher, who sparked my interest in science aged 10ish, was friends with David Bellamy.
from Jan 2013...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817...
Read his wiki here... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
from Jan 2013...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817...
Read his wiki here... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy
grumbledoak said:
All the "environmental" b
ks the BBS pushes, yet the truth is summed up completely in their treatment of David Bellamy.
As their "education" brief was with Johnny Ball.
Everyone's entitled to go a bit potty once they reach a certain age.ks the BBS pushes, yet the truth is summed up completely in their treatment of David Bellamy.As their "education" brief was with Johnny Ball.
Jinx said:
blindswelledrat said:
No he hasn't. Why did you say that? By default any lack of equal representation would equate to lack of diversity anyway, even if you had a vague point, which you don't.
Nonsense - Diversity is the spread of variables not the ratio.And one will often correlate with the other, as in this case. So you don't mean 'nonsense' do you? .
jshell said:
It's not about volume, it's about income. Oil companies make 1-2p per litre from petrol/diesel, but other products are worth many, many multiples of that value.
I'll take your word for that, as I haven't seen numbers either way. However, it was presented earlier in the thread that 'big oil' have no incentive to debunk AGW, but my point was, clearly they do. XM5ER said:
budgie smuggler said:
I'll take your word for that, as I haven't seen numbers either way. However, it was presented earlier in the thread that 'big oil' have no incentive to debunk AGW, but my point was, clearly they do.
Have you heard of a cost/benefit analysis? Thanks.
What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.
Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
Not satisfied with fabricating the fictitious 97% consensus, the historian Oreskes continues with further dodgy analysis in support of confirmation bias.
Oreskes smears ExxonMobil
Oreskes smears ExxonMobil
HairyPoppins said:
XM5ER said:
budgie smuggler said:
I'll take your word for that, as I haven't seen numbers either way. However, it was presented earlier in the thread that 'big oil' have no incentive to debunk AGW, but my point was, clearly they do.
Have you heard of a cost/benefit analysis? Thanks.
HairyPoppins said:
What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.
Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
The reason their is different answers to your question is that we are not oil companies, we can only guess at their actions.Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.
If GW is as serious as is claimed, why are the main counties with the highest emissions not doing anything, China India, but the UK is pointlessly shutting down coal fired power stations,
It's all about politics not science. Occam's razor applies.
Edit to add a link.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/co...
Edited by PRTVR on Thursday 23 November 11:38
Scotland to become world leader in preventing global warming? 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4208...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4208...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff