Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
But back to the issue...
ExxonMobil intentionally misled the public on climate change for decades, Harvard study finds
So here we have a company with a vested interest in non-renewable energy misleading the public on the data they had collected.
Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes and postdoctoral fellow Geoffrey Supran analyzed internal, scientific, and public-facing communications from Exxon Mobil. They found the vast majority of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and internal documents confirmed that climate change is real and caused by human activity. But Exxon’s communications with the public through paid editorials, or ‘advertorials’, in the New York Times promoted climate skepticism.
The study also cites ExxonMobil calculations that capping global warming at under two degrees Celsius — the goal enshrined in the landmark Paris climate accord — would impose sharp limits on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned, and thus potentially affect the firm’s growth.
The new study fleshes out previous reporting on the divergence between what Exxon Mobil knew about climate change and the picture it presented for public consumption. The Times, working with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, reported in 2015 that the company had invested heavily in research into how climate change could affect a variety of operations in the Arctic, with company scientists using widely accepted climate models that its executives publicly dismissed as unreliable.
But why on Earth would they DO such a thing?! It's not like they had anything to gain from lying to the public!
Oh, no wait - that's the climate scientists who keep screaming "Stop polluting the Earth!!!"
Interesting of a clever way of telling a lie, by omission.
No one can find fault with the documented statements he read, these are facts.
What is significant is the one left out regarding "good" people on both sides, thus
equating KKK-NAZIs who came with an off topic (nothing to do with Robert E Lee) agenda
Is this is the Trump Charlottesville debate?
I need to brush up on whatever I've said.
The late, great Petruchio . . . and his playmate. He was a Balinese and the best cat ever. . . . he would actually jump up onto my shoulders and hang out . . .
Now I know you've heard a lot about Climate Change in the wake of Harvey.
RELAX! I'm not going there.
Climate change did not CAUSE Hurricane Harvey.
1. The rising sea levels make flooding more likely.
2. Rising sea temperatures lead to more evaporation and more chance of Hurricanes.
I know it's dry and sciency, but science often is.
Oooo, charts! Graphs!
As so often occurs in science, they may not reflect any cause for alarm . . .
Changes in flooding show no trend over time
Warmists think floods are going to become more frequent but it hasn't happened yet
Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe
Glenn A.Hodgkins et al.
Concern over the potential impact of anthropogenic climate change on flooding has led to a proliferation of studies examining past flood trends. Many studies have analysed annual-maximum flow trends but few have quantified changes in major (25–100 year return period) floods, i.e. those that have the greatest societal impacts. Existing major-flood studies used a limited number of very large catchments affected to varying degrees by alterations such as reservoirs and urbanisation. In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations. Trend testing of major floods was based on counting the number of exceedances of a given flood threshold within a group of gauges. Evidence for significant trends varied between groups of gauges that were defined by catchment size, location, climate, flood threshold and period of record, indicating that generalizations about flood trends across large domains or a diversity of catchment types are ungrounded. Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends.
Journal of Hydrology, Volume 552, September 2017, Pages 704-717
Did I mention that Petruchio (above) would come running if he heard my car keys jangling? We concluded that he thought he was a dog. Although he didn't hang his head out the window, he would sit on my shoulder so he could survey the passing scene.
Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:
1. The rising sea levels make flooding more likely.
Yeah. Right. We were so advanced in the 1800s that we could accurately measure the oceans elevation on the entire planet. Geeeez, we have no ability to even do that now.
It's based on tide gauges.
They were necessary for shipping lanes.
Are you saying shipping did not exist in the 1800's?
I think you underestimate the species who brought you fire, electricity and microwave popcorn.
It's a vertical plank with numbers on it. Not rocket science.
Harvey was what is called a 500 year flood. That means it has a 1 in 500 chance of happening in any given year.
The problem is that 500 year floods are happening with more frequency.
There ARE other factors.
The rising sea temperatures mean a higher chance of getting super storms that dump a month's worth of rain in a day.
The amount of Houston that is paved, rather than open - means the water cannot soak into the ground. Hence the major flooding.
I told you Climate Change did not cause Harvey.
But there are contributing factors that make the storm worse than it should have been.