Thread: The ExxonMobil Agenda on Global Warming

This whole global warming fiasco has become so politicized. I'd like to be able to wrap my head around it, but with both sides slinging so much mud at the other, it's hard to even know where to start. Certainly most us of don't have near enough training/knowledge in climate science to directly evaluate the scientific claims, so that resigns us to drawing second- or third-hand conclusions. And as you point out, the sources are always suspect.

Originally Posted by skysaw

It's the same motive the tobacco companies had in lying to congress (and the world) about the harm in tobacco smoke.

So you think smoking should be illegal because it's dangerous? Let's ban alcohol, fast food, and contact sports while we're at it.

As for global warming, no one really doubts that there is a short term warming trend. But there is not a single shred of evidence positively and unambiguously supporting the hypotheses that the trend is long term and is being caused by humans. For example, the main bit of evidence being used by anthropogenic global warming proponents is that atmospheric CO2 levels and termperatures increase in lockstep. But this is not unambiguous, because increasing temperatures can cause increased CO2 through the same positive feedback processes of which Al Gore is so fond of reminding us (like forest fires, melting permafrost, etc.).

Originally Posted by drewmandan

So you think smoking should be illegal because it's dangerous? Let's ban alcohol, fast food, and contact sports while we're at it.

You missed the point, and no I don't think it should be illegal. But the cigarette companies telling people that it's not harmful most definitely should be illegal. You light up a cigarette and you harm yourself. You light up the world and you harm everyone.

As for global warming, no one really doubts that there is a short term warming trend. But there is not a single shred of evidence positively and unambiguously supporting the hypotheses that the trend is long term and is being caused by humans. For example, the main bit of evidence being used by anthropogenic global warming proponents is that atmospheric CO2 levels and termperatures increase in lockstep. But this is not unambiguous, because increasing temperatures can cause increased CO2 through the same positive feedback processes of which Al Gore is so fond of reminding us (like forest fires, melting permafrost, etc.).

I tell you what, let's play a game, shall we? Take a look at this chart showing the temperature of planets in our solar system:

Now answer me this:

Which planet seems to be the odd one out? Why is Venus so darned hot?

Answer: It's the atmosphere. Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's is 0.0384%. Mercury has almost no atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

Sure temperature contributes to C02 levels, that's certainly no reason to ignore the fact that the C02 levels also contribute to temperature. It does NOT naturally follow that increasing C02 levels will have no effect.

Originally Posted by skysaw

You missed the point, and no I don't think it should be illegal. But the cigarette companies telling people that it's not harmful most definitely should be illegal. You light up a cigarette and you harm yourself. You light up the world and you harm everyone.

Cigarette companies never said that they weren't harmful. They just didn't say that they were harmful. Big difference. By your logic, fast food should have a warning label on the bag saying "Warning: Causes diabetes and heart disease". Incidentally, the death rates of cigarettes and fast food are about the same, so you really can't dismiss my point.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I tell you what, let's play a game, shall we? Take a look at this chart showing the temperature of planets in our solar system:

Now answer me this:

Which planet seems to be the odd one out? Why is Venus so darned hot?

Answer: It's the atmosphere. Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's is 0.0384%. Mercury has almost no atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

Sure temperature contributes to C02 levels, that's certainly no reason to ignore the fact that the C02 levels also contribute to temperature. It does NOT naturally follow that increasing C02 levels will have no effect.

Thank you for proving my point. You have stupidly copy-pasted a bunch of crap about correlation between CO2 and temperature without providing one solid bit of evidence demonstrating that CO2 came first. Bravo, sheep.

Oh apparently, you didn't even understand my point. I agree that CO2 causes higher temperatures, at least if you exclude plant life from the equation. But that does not unambiguously prove that CO2 came first. You haven't proved that humans caused the recent slight temperature shift.

In fact, you've also demonstrated another fallacious meme among the non-scientific AGW crowd, which is the silly notion that Earth could turn into Venus if 'we're not careful'. Not even the so-called experts think this can happen. Venus is a dead planet. Earth has a robust ecosystem. Venus is 30% closer to the sun. Venus has no water. Venus has no magnetic field. Venus has no tectonics. Venus rotates less than one time per year, effectively preventing weather on the planet. Need I go on?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Cigarette companies never said that they weren't harmful. They just didn't say that they were harmful. Big difference.

Holy cow, you couldn't be more wrong! I suppose you are too young to remember the congressional hearings where top execs swore up and down that they didn't know they were harmful. Later, internal memos proved they had done their own tests and suppressed the results. They knew 100% of the connection, yet waged a campaign of disinformation, creating in the process the term "junk science," which is what they called any study they didn't approve of.

Thank you for proving my point. You have stupidly copy-pasted a bunch of crap about correlation between CO2 and temperature without providing one solid bit of evidence demonstrating that CO2 came first. Bravo, sheep.

Thank you for assuming my original text was copied and pasted. It wasn't. I borrowed a chart from an unrelated site simply to show you temperatures. If this is the sort of jumping to conclusions you are likely to do, then I'm not surprised at your position.

In fact, you've also demonstrated another fallacious meme among the non-scientific AGW crowd, which is the silly notion that Earth could turn into Venus if 'we're not careful'. Not even the so-called experts think this can happen.

Another point lost on you, though I am less and less surprised. I never said anything about Earth becoming "another Venus."

But let me play along...

Venus is a dead planet.

So is Mercury. Venus is hotter.

Venus is 30% closer to the sun.

Mercury is closer still. Venus is hotter.

Venus has no water.

It has more traces of water than Mercury. Venus is hotter.

Venus has no magnetic field.

Mercury has very little field. Venus is hotter.

Venus rotates less than one time per year, effectively preventing weather on the planet

You apparently do not know the definition of the word "weather."

I'm sorry that you have bought into ExxonMobil's message. It's clear that their money has been well spent.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Cigarette companies never said that they weren't harmful. They just didn't say that they were harmful. Big difference. By your logic, fast food should have a warning label on the bag saying "Warning: Causes diabetes and heart disease". Incidentally, the death rates of cigarettes and fast food are about the same, so you really can't dismiss my point.

Wrong, Big Tobacco said right to congress that there was no evidence that smoking causes cancer.

Cigarettes should be illegal because they are so dangerous, comparing them to alcohol is laughable. There are maybe 1000 alcohol related deaths each year (drunk driving, liver failure...) and 50 times that many deaths due to cigarettes. Tobacco is also forcing our dependance on foreign oil, corn thrives in the same climate as tobacco, if the tobacco fields were replaced with corn we'd have plenty of ethanol.

Fast food doesn't kill people, their lifestyle does. Eating fast food and not exercising is their problem. I eat fast food when I'm on the road because it's convenient, I also run 3-18 miles every day.

It's a mute point anyway. People smoke because of their own disregard for their own health, no one forces them to. We don't have a choice but to live on Earth. If global warming continues we'll be in an ice age in a century.

The problem is that this has become a political debate. Science says that global climate change is man-made and fixable. Conservatives accuse the Progressives of having an agenda.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Holy cow, you couldn't be more wrong! I suppose you are too young to remember the congressional hearings where top execs swore up and down that they didn't know they were harmful. Later, internal memos proved they had done their own tests and suppressed the results. They knew 100% of the connection, yet waged a campaign of disinformation, creating in the process the term "junk science," which is what they called any study they didn't approve of.

One question: Did cigarette packages and/or advertisements say something like, "Cigarettes will never harm you"? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Thank you for assuming my original text was copied and pasted. It wasn't. I borrowed a chart from an unrelated site simply to show you temperatures. If this is the sort of jumping to conclusions you are likely to do, then I'm not surprised at your position.

Copy-pasted figuratively, idiot. No one would be dumb enough to think a scientist would have the prose of a 12 year old.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Another point lost on you, though I am less and less surprised. I never said anything about Earth becoming "another Venus."

You certainly implied it.

Originally Posted by skysaw

But let me play along...

So is Mercury. Venus is hotter.

Yes, Venus has a CO2 atmosphere that produces a greenhouse effect. Mercury doesn't.

Originally Posted by skysaw

It has more traces of water than Mercury. Venus is hotter.

False. Mercury has frozen ice near the poles, Venus has none to speak of.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Mercury has very little field. Venus is hotter.

False. Mercury has an abnormally strong geomagnetic field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury..._magnetosphere

Originally Posted by skysaw

You apparently do not know the definition of the word "weather."

Apparently you do not, as Venus has a nearly constant wind speed of about 3 m/s over the entire surface of the planet, day and night, with no variation, ever. You call that weather? Do you even understand why I brought weather up in the first place? Go ahead, tell me why I brought up Venus' lack of weather.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm sorry that you have bought into ExxonMobil's message. It's clear that their money has been well spent.

Yeah, I'm just a dirty capitalist. Hail Lenin.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Wrong, Big Tobacco said right to congress that there was no evidence that smoking causes cancer.

Did the packages say "Cigarettes never cause harm"?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Cigarettes should be illegal blah blah blah

Yeah, cuz protecting people from themselves is more important than personal liberty.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Fast food doesn't kill people, their lifestyle does. Eating fast food and not exercising is their problem. I eat fast food when I'm on the road because it's convenient, I also run 3-18 miles every day.

I'm pretty sure exercise also helps prevent lung cancer.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It's a mute point anyway. People smoke because of their own disregard for their own health, no one forces them to.

Moot point.

Right, no one forces people to smoke. It's a choice. There are warnings on the box. But that's not enough for you? Now you want them illegal? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

We don't have a choice but to live on Earth. If global warming continues we'll be in an ice age in a century.

I've seen The Day After Tomorrow too. Let's see the science backing your claim that there will be an ice age this century.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The problem is that this has become a political debate.

You should have stopped there.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Did the packages say "Cigarettes never cause harm"?

No, but the CEOs and their "scientists" did.

Yeah, cuz protecting people from themselves is more important than personal liberty.

Cocaine is illegal.

I'm pretty sure exercise also helps prevent lung cancer.

Carcinogens cause lung cancer, not being out of shape. The only way to prevent it is to not ingest the carcinogens in the first place.

Right, no one forces people to smoke. It's a choice. There are warnings on the box. But that's not enough for you? Now you want them illegal? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Personal liberties can be taken away for the better good of humanity. Are you suggesting that we unban trans-fats, cocaine, PCP...?

I've seen The Day After Tomorrow too. Let's see the science backing your claim that there will be an ice age this century.

Ice Ages come in a heartbeat, the last one occurred in less than a few decades. The idea of a giant super-cyclone is stupid, but the science of the north atlantic current is reality. A disruption of it will cause Europe to go into an ice age in a decade, it's the major source of oceanic warmth. It happened during the last ice age as huge cold reservoir over Canada broke into the sea at the end of the last ice age, it re-ice aged Europe for a few extra centuries. There is also a massive cold reservoir in the ice of Greenland.

You should have stopped there.

Are you saying that everything after it is untrue? Find a (independent) climatologist who's said in the last 5 years that global warming is not man made, or a conservative senator that said that it is.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

One question: Did cigarette packages and/or advertisements say something like, "Cigarettes will never harm you"? If not, you don't have a leg to stand on.

What a colossal non sequitur. You believe that somehow a lie printed on a cigarette package trumps actual human beings lying? Lying to congress? In trial?

Copy-pasted figuratively, idiot. No one would be dumb enough to think a scientist would have the prose of a 12 year old.

Obvious bull. Please tell me how original text is copy and pasted "figuratively." And knock it off with the insults already. It doesn't help your point. It just makes it look like you've run out of arguments.

Yes, Venus has a CO2 atmosphere that produces a greenhouse effect. Mercury doesn't.

Wow, I'm glad we agree. More greenhouse gasses make for a hotter planet temperature. What are we arguing about anyway? Do you think we're not actually producing greenhouse gasses?

Apparently you do not, as Venus has a nearly constant wind speed of about 3 m/s over the entire surface of the planet, day and night, with no variation, ever. You call that weather?

Wow. So wind is weather, and nothing else is? I'd say the lightning storms observed by the Venus probe would qualify. Or the huge double atmospheric vortex at the south pole. Oh hold on a second... that is wind!

But all of this is just a way for you to avoid the actual topic of this thread. The topic is ExxonMobil, and the scientists on their bankroll. All I asked of readers is to consider the source of the information they get. Since you haven't actually posted any such source, I encourage you to do so now. In fact, I challenge you to find me a credible American scientist, organization, or peer-reviewed study that publicly denies global warming that I cannot directly tie to ExxonMobil.

Actually, the biggest problem will be methane, not CO2. The CO2 creates a very slow warming (which is why it's only gone up a degree in the past 100 years, but the oceans are starting to warm up and there are huge amounts of methane frozen down there, which are just starting to bubble up. Methane has 10x the greenhouse capacity of CO2.

There's also huge amounts of methane getting released in the melting permafrost of Canada, Alaska, and Russia.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, but the CEOs and their "scientists" did.

Is there a label on the packages saying "Consult our scientists about the results of smoking tobacco"? I'm just going to keep asking until you get my point, which is that it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer to delineate every conceivable way that a person could die by using that product. Otherwise, we would need warning labels on TV remotes. After all, they are choking hazards.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Cocaine is illegal.

I don't think it should be. Same reasoning. Were you trying to find some inconsistency in my world view?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Carcinogens cause lung cancer, not being out of shape. The only way to prevent it is to not ingest the carcinogens in the first place.

Not true on both accounts. Cancer can both happen without known carcinogens via random, unpredictable mutations, and can be treated by exercise in some (read: not ALL) cases, because exercise strengthens the immune system and the immune system can help fight off SOME forms of cancer. I do not claim that exercise cures all forms of cancer. But it is true that a smoker who exercises, all else being equal, will live slightly longer than a smoker that doesn't, on the average.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Personal liberties can be taken away for the better good of humanity. Are you suggesting that we unban trans-fats, cocaine, PCP...?

Again, you're poking around for inconsistencies. No, I do not agree that personal liberty, meaning the right to do with your own body as you wish can ever be sacrificed for a "greater good".

I wasn't aware that trans-fats were illegal. I know that if I churn myself some butter at a farm and eat it, I won't get arrested. But to answer the question in a more precise way than the question itself, YES we should legalize all drugs and YES the sale of all forms of unhealthy foods should be allowed so long as the manufacturers do not claim an unproven level of safety, as that would be a lie.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Ice Ages come in a heartbeat, the last one occurred in less than a few decades.

I wasn't aware of this. Please show me where you read that.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The idea of a giant super-cyclone is stupid, but the science of the north atlantic current is reality. A disruption of it will cause Europe to go into an ice age in a decade, it's the major source of oceanic warmth. It happened during the last ice age as huge cold reservoir over Canada broke into the sea at the end of the last ice age, it re-ice aged Europe for a few extra centuries. There is also a massive cold reservoir in the ice of Greenland.

I don't disagree with any of this. I only doubt that it can change so rapidly.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Are you saying that everything after it is untrue? Find a (independent) climatologist who's said in the last 5 years that global warming is not man made, or a conservative senator that said that it is.

I can't be bothered. The onus is on you to prove "for all" statements.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wow, I'm glad we agree. More greenhouse gasses make for a hotter planet temperature. What are we arguing about anyway? Do you think we're not actually producing greenhouse gasses?

I don't think our production of greenhouse gases more than makes up for the negative feedback loop of plant life absorbing them. CO2 levels are increasing, but I have not seen evidence proving that it's our doing.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wow. So wind is weather, and nothing else is? I'd say the lightning storms observed by the Venus probe would qualify. Or the huge double atmospheric vortex at the south pole. Oh hold on a second... that is wind!

When it comes to global climate, only wind matters, because that's the engine of heat distribution. I am not aware of a vortex on Venus. Link?

Originally Posted by skysaw

But all of this is just a way for you to avoid the actual topic of this thread. The topic is ExxonMobil, and the scientists on their bankroll. All I asked of readers is to consider the source of the information they get. Since you haven't actually posted any such source, I encourage you to do so now. In fact, I challenge you to find me a credible American scientist, organization, or peer-reviewed study that publicly denies global warming that I cannot directly tie to ExxonMobil.

Quick google search:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Is there a label on the packages saying "Consult our scientists about the results of smoking tobacco"? I'm just going to keep asking until you get my point, which is that it's not the responsibility of the manufacturer to delineate every conceivable way that a person could die by using that product. Otherwise, we would need warning labels on TV remotes. After all, they are choking hazards.

They still lied to congress and the people. Omitting results is scientific fraud.

Not true on both accounts. Cancer can both happen without known carcinogens via random, unpredictable mutations, and can be treated by exercise in some (read: not ALL) cases, because exercise strengthens the immune system and the immune system can help fight off SOME forms of cancer. I do not claim that exercise cures all forms of cancer. But it is true that a smoker who exercises, all else being equal, will live slightly longer than a smoker that doesn't, on the average.

Random cancer is not part of the argument against cancer. Of course it occurs randomly, but smoking increases those risks by huge amounts.

Again, you're poking around for inconsistencies. No, I do not agree that personal liberty, meaning the right to do with your own body as you wish can ever be sacrificed for a "greater good".

I wasn't aware that trans-fats were illegal. I know that if I churn myself some butter at a farm and eat it, I won't get arrested. But to answer the question in a more precise way than the question itself, YES we should legalize all drugs and YES the sale of all forms of unhealthy foods should be allowed so long as the manufacturers do not claim an unproven level of safety, as that would be a lie.

Trans fats are illegal in public places, you can still cook with them in your own home, you just cant be served them. It's a good thing.

I wasn't aware of this. Please show me where you read that.

I don't disagree with any of this. I only doubt that it can change so rapidly.

A Discover Channel special called "A Global Warning" Temperature can be determined via ice cores and the years can be counted like rings on a tree. Ice ages occur in only a few decades after something catastrophic (like a disruption of oceanic currents) happens.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Quick google search:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml

Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than a "quick google search."

On the author of that press release, Hudson Institute

FUNDING
Hudson Institute has received (at least) $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 2000.

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

This is a matter of public record. Want to give it another go? Best two out of three?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

When it comes to global climate, only wind matters, because that's the engine of heat distribution. I am not aware of a vortex on Venus. Link?

While we're waiting, here's your link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7117303.stm

From that article:

Originally Posted by BBC News, November 2007

Venus Express has also confirmed the presence of lightning on the planet. The idea of lightning on Venus was once considered controversial, but the magnetometer instrument on Venus Express has now put all doubts to one side.

Indeed, the data suggests that lightning is more common on Venus than it is on Earth.

Previous observations have revealed a vast rotating vortex of clouds with a "double-eye" feature at Venus' north pole. Researchers have now found evidence for similar features at the south pole, but these rotate slightly faster.

Still has little to do with the subject of this thread, but there you go, Venusian weather. Go figure.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They still lied to congress and the people. Omitting results is scientific fraud.

Be more precise. Are you claiming that omitting every single risk factor from packaging is in some way immoral?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Random cancer is not part of the argument against cancer. Of course it occurs randomly, but smoking increases those risks by huge amounts.

So? Why should I not be allowed to choose?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Trans fats are illegal in public places, you can still cook with them in your own home, you just cant be served them. It's a good thing.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. But if eating trans fats isn't a crime, why bring it up in a discussion about making inhaling tobacco smoke a crime?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

A Discover Channel special called "A Global Warning" Temperature can be determined via ice cores and the years can be counted like rings on a tree. Ice ages occur in only a few decades after something catastrophic (like a disruption of oceanic currents) happens.

Transcript would be nice. Or a link to a clip. Anything.

Actually...

I apologize, but I'm not done yet. That press release was not just from Hudson Institute, but was written by senior fellow Dennis Avery. As it turns out, Mr. Avery (not a scientist, by the way) has other credentials as well.

He is also an advisor at both CFACT - Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($542,000 from ExxonMobil), and American Council on Science and Health ($125,000 from ExxonMobil).

Please let me know if you would like to see the supporting documentation for that funding as well. I would be pleased as punch to provide it.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Sorry, but it's going to take a lot more than a "quick google search."

On the author of that press release, Hudson Institute

FUNDING
Hudson Institute has received (at least) $25,000 from ExxonMobil since 2000.

2000
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2005
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report

This is a matter of public record. Want to give it another go? Best two out of three?

I find those numbers dubious. But at any rate, I would think $25,000 is an incredibly tiny amount of money to be doing what you claim it does.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I find those numbers dubious. But at any rate, I would think $25,000 is an incredibly tiny amount of money to be doing what you claim it does.

Please read the follow-up. We're now up to $693,000.

And by "dubious" do you mean "I didn't bother clicking on the PDF file?"

FIA is a bitch, ain't it?

Ok, still not done.

The only scientist quoted in that press release is S. Fred Singer. Now Singer actually is a scientist, so now we're getting somewhere. PhD in Physics, Princeton. Former Director, US National Weather Satellite Center. Former Professor of Environmental Sciences, Univeristy of Virginia (1971-94). Former Deputy Administrator EPA (1970-71). Impressive scientific resume. No problem. But where are his allegeances?

Associations
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project. ($20,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. ($125,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. ($125,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. ($465,900 from Exxon since 1998)

Research Fellow, Independent Institute. ($70,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Expert, Heartland Institute. ($676,500 from Exxon since 1998)

Former Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. ($1,182,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. ($295,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. ($490,000 from Exxon since 1998)

Former Fellow, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. ($30,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Contributing Writer, Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Newsletter, Federalists Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. ($105,000 from Exxon since 2000)

Speaker, Centre for the New Europe ($170,000 from Exxon since 2003)

Do you see a connection? Apparently Singer didn't. He claimed he has had "no ties to oil for the past 20 years." This even though Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies.

My challenge stands.

Answer: It's the atmosphere. Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide. Earth's is 0.0384%. Mercury has almost no atmosphere.

Conclusion from your own data: if the amount of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is enough to cause its temperature to rise by, say, 200K (rough guess), a simple calculation shows us that the rise in temperature due the totalCO2 in Earth's atmosphere (not the change, which is even smaller) is reponsible for roughly a 0.1K temperature rise.

Holy shit, what are we going to do??

The concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been hundreds of times higher in Earth's history. This illustrates how the claim that the Earth could develop a Venusian climate is complete and utter nonsense; because it hasn't.

The fact is, the study of the macroscopic climate is incredibly imprecise. There are all sorts of models out there, none of them confirmed.

But when you do get actual empirical evidence and not bullshit computer models, look what it tells you; multiple times in the past, when CO2 levels made ours look laughable, there was no superheating, and no farfetched scenarios involving bubbles of gas escaping or stuff like that.

Another fact - this time, one which has an comparatively huge amount of empirical verification; higher temperatures decrease CO2 solubility. So, as soon as the planet gets warmer, a whole 2/3 of its surface starts to churn out large quantities of CO2. Wanted an explanation for your graphs? There you have it. At the very least it's worthy of some serious study (if there has been any it has been ignored; the CO2 debate is not a scientific one at all, it's a complete joke).

And of course, what oil companies do with their money does not change the science. Neither does all the propaganda from green lunatics, or sleazy governments. As someone has said, in matters like this, people are throwing crap around all over the place. So what you've got to do if you want the truth is some actual science.

And incedentally, I don't work for Mobil either. In fact, I'll state, without hesitation, that we absolutely must reduce our dependence on oil. But it's not because of this CO2 rubbish; it's due to something one hell of a lot more serious; there's only about 50 years of oil left, and we've already passed peak production. If governments don't pull their fingers out of their arses before it starts to hurt (NB: governments never do this), there's going to be one hell of a social and political crisis coming up. Living standards will go to hell and there'll be wars all over the planet. Now that's scary.

Global Warming is a big sack of shit.

Totally bollocks.

I would sit around and bore you with all the nitpicking stuff, but MC has already done this for me:

http://michaelcrichton.com/speech-ou...talfuture.html

Originally Posted by Xei

Conclusion from your own data: if the amount of CO2 in Venus's atmosphere is enough to cause its temperature to rise by, say, 200K (rough guess), a simple calculation shows us that the rise in temperature due the totalCO2 in Earth's atmosphere (not the change, which is even smaller) is reponsible for roughly a 0.1K temperature rise.

DAMMIT Xei, thats what I wanted to point out =(