Big Oil behind Global Warming Hoax!

[reality_hammer]

The global warming hoax enablers love to claim that "Big Oil" is behind all of the thousands of scientists and lay people who have pointed out the problems endemic to the global warming hoax.

Now we find out (once again thanks to the East Anglia CRU emails) that "Big Oil" was approached to help fund the hoaxWhat nefarious scheme did they have?

Comments

[kierthos]

Actually, Shell Oil has had the position of recognizing the threat of climate change since 1998, and been working to reduce their greenhouse has emissions since then.

BP also takes the view that global warming is unequivocal and 'very likely' due to human activity.

But what the hell. Let's say they're wrong. Let's also say that NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the American Meteorological Society, the Environmental Protection Agency, not to mention all the various universities and institutions around the world... let's just say, for sake of argument that they're all wrong. Despite the fact of many of them working independently over the course of years came to the same conclusions.

They're wrong (again, just for the sake of argument).

So, that would mean that the "only" reasons to reduce greenhouse gases and pollutants would be to have cleaner air and water.

What's wrong with that?

[izuko]

First of all, if they're wrong, then we need to separate out greenhouse gasses from pollutants. Which means "greenhouse gasses and pollutants" becomes a strawman.

[kierthos]

Well, some greenhouse gases are pollutants, but the point still stands.

If climate change is a cunning myth perpetrated independently by dozens of scientific organizations around the world for the real goal of reducing pollution, what's wrong about that? Yes, you've been horribly tricked into a series of policies that would reduce pollutants. How dare we have cleaner air and water! Frankly, if it is a cunning hoax, it's far less evil a hoax then the whole "Iraq was behind 9/11!" folderol that was foisted on the American people during the Bush II: Electric Boogaloo years

[izuko]

Some greenhouse gasses are pollutants, but when they talk about greenhouse gasses, they pretty much mean CO2 (even though that's not the big ones). Thus you can leave off "greenhouse gasses" and talk strictly about pollutants without leaving out anything legitimate.

If climate change is a cunning myth perpetrated independently

Which it's not. Many of the same people involved in the CRU are also involved in other research, as well as the "Copenhagen Diagnosis." So there's really no independence there. Especially since many of the people whose hands are in the cookie jar are influential names in the racket. It would be like finding out that Admiral Rickover fudged a key reactor safety analysis or ten. Yeah, it's just a navy guy, but given everything that he influenced, it would probably END nuclear power in the U.S.

Ok, back to the story.

by dozens of scientific organizations around the world for the real goal of reducing pollution

Then reduce pollution. Leave greenhouse gasses out of it.

what's wrong about that?Dunno...

[kierthos]

Actually, my point about independent research is that not every organization/government agency/scientific academy is getting the data from one source. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has it's own research facilities, and there's NESDIS, and the EPA's own studies, and so on. They're using a variety of methods to determine what's going on. There's sampling of ice cores, studies of the atmosphere, the oceans, tree cores, and yes, historical records.

Do they share data? Of course. But it's not all coming from one source (the theoretical crux of the conspiracy).

[reality_hammer]

Actually the global warming hoax perpetrators are tossing out various data sets because it has become too hard to "hide the decline" with them.

Thus the hand waving over satellite data. Because, you know, it's kinda hard to create an urban heat island in space!

So the hoaxers do what they've always done: ignore the data or "adjust" it so it matches their "models".

[izuko]

More to the point, WHY don't you (or hammer, or anyone else) believe in anthropogenic (human caused) climate change? Lets see

Something we could all test and verify would be nice

[reality_hammer]

I haven't seen any valid theories to support the hypothesis that human activities are unduly influencing changes in climate.

[reality_hammer]

I'm glad the stance that "but Big Oil funds you!" is seen by almost everyone as not a valid (counter) argument.

As for "independent" studies, I have yet to see any that qualify for the scientific method: publicly available original source data, publicly available experiments (including source code if necessary) where truly independent experiments have reached the same conclusions.

So, that would mean that the "only" reasons to reduce greenhouse gases and pollutants would be to have cleaner air and water.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing at all. You'll have to ask the Global Warming Hoax crowd why they felt it necessary to elevate the issue to a "crisis" via fraudulent means.