Climate change deniers for 27 years…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
Is this the part of the email she’s basing this one?
Pretty sure it doesn’t say what she thinks it did, but then she probably wasn’t hired for her impartial point of view.
not a big surprise, people expecting industries to put themselves out of business are dreaming. Way back in the 1940’s, a scientist by the name of Corey Patterson (spelling?) figured out that the atmosphere was heavily tainted with lead, and that it wasn’t natural, that it was coming from the tetraethyl lead used in gasoline as an anti knock agent. The gasoline and car industry tried to get the man fired, and for years had a bunch of trained seal doctors and researchers saying how there was no evidence that lead in the atmosphere caused any harm, despite the fact that lead is quite toxic, it is a major neurotoxin and causes issues with the liver and kidneys as well. There was direct evidence of neurological problems with kids who lived near highways (especially the highways that were put through cities in the 1950’s, usually right through poor neigborhoods, naturally) and other problems. Lead only was removed from gasoline in the 1970’s, not for health reasons, but because of catalytic converters used to cut down nitrate pollution from cars (lead fouls the exotic metals used in them), and was only finally banned in 1980, when most cars on the road were using unleaded.
A friend of mine works for an environmental agency. Getting rid of lead was probably the most important pro environment event during his career.
Where do you find this stuff, dstark?
Googling Taylor Hill, the author of your last link, turned up this gem:
Not much doubt he’s a keen guy, but he either cut&pasted for your piece or he called in a favor and had some else do cleanup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead indicates that leaded gasoline for road vehicles was not completely gone from the US until 1996 (1992 in California). NASCAR races switched to unleaded in 2008. Aviation gasoline (used in piston engine planes; jet planes use diesel-like jet fuel) still contains lead.
It was in the early 80s that Carl Sagan et al. started warning us about nuclear winter, essentially the opposite of what we used to call global warming. I wonder if that became a convenient way for big oil to “justify” such recklessness. E.g., “Why worry about the greenhouse effect if nukes are just gonna freeze the planet anyway.” I was 20-ish at the time, and nothing scared me more than the threat of nuclear war.
maybe they were confused because back then it was called ‘global warming’ ?
@dstark, one group who tried to duplicate the 97% consensus made it a point to ask the writers of the papers if their specific papers supported man made global warming and a number said no. The study had counted these papers as part of the 97%. So who do we believe, the person who read the abstracts and papers or the person who wrote those abstracts and papers?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Can’t talk the ability to reproduce Powell’s work as it hasn’t been published and analysis made of the methods he used.
@dadoftwingirls, I have no idea if those guys were included in the study or are scientists who were ever part of the 97 percent who said yes.
Did you check out the guys listed in your link?
I saw the original link and (too lazy to click on it) assumed it was from the Guardian and decided to check it out by seeing whatever related might be up on the web site for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Holy Cow, this came from UCS! Talk about street cred…
Anyway, all of the original source materials are available at this link and are free for all to use (with proper citing, of course).
Pretty frightening and damning graphic. Thinking of “London Fog” (really coal smoke) and Pittsburgh having to light the street lamps all day because of pollution a century or more ago, I thought we had made some progress since then. Nope, not even a blip.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2015/07/11/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-in-just-15-years-scientists-say/2751436649025/
Similar theme to what was being yelled at us in the early ‘70s, except then, it wasn’t a "mini’ ice age that we were being warned about, and it was man-made.
There was no “mini ice age” then and there is none on the way now. The amount of warming we have created already overshadows any maximum amount of cooling that could occur from even a large solar minimum.
Moreover, solar minima only last a few decades, after which the full brunt of the global warming will hit again.
dstark, the 97% consensus used the same method to get their numer which was to review abstracts of scientific articles. This wasn’t a survey of scientists. Once others tried to duplicate the survey methods, they didn’t get the 97% the authors of the study got.
Dadoftwingirls, ok. If there are so many scientists saying man is not responsible for climate change, why did your link choose economists and people on the dole?
Isn’t it true that there are no real scientific organizations denying man made climate change…Haven’t geologist organizations stopped denying?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
And it seems they didn’t bother to critically read the smoking gun email either. What a surprise.
No matter. Even if the thread title’s a tease, Global Warming, … well,… AGW, Extreme Weather, Climate Change, or whatever the focus groups indicate will poll better tomorrow, is always topical.
In regard to any company or organization, I’d think a stance of ‘non-committal’ would be the bare minimum necessary to keep the torches away from you door, dstark. Appears to say something meaningful to passionate people like that Taylor Hill guy, when it doesn’t say squat.
Can’t blame them - they’ve seen what happens when, oh, some ignorant & aged Noble Prize winner sticks his head up where the mob can see it and proceeds to wee all over the religion.