Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
waldo

AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

Recommended Posts

Well it certainly doesn't need to be the end of the obligation, although that it does provide an excuse, flimsy as it is.

What is flimsy is your attempt to blame oil companies for the actions of governments. The no rational reason for oil companies to have any obligation other than paying royalties and following government regulations at the extraction sites.

Many of the countries large oil companys go into don't have anywhere near the ability to generate an oil business.

So? Nothing stops a country from developing its own oil companies where they hire contractors instead of handing the entire thing over to foreign oil companies. Many do. Many fail because governments are generally incompetent at running businesses but their failure is not the fault of oil companies. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is flimsy is your attempt to blame oil companies for the actions of governments. The no rational reason for oil companies to have any obligation other than paying royalties and following government regulations at the extraction sites.

So? Nothing stops a country from developing its own oil companies where they hire contractors instead of handing the entire thing over to foreign oil companies. Many do. Many fail because governments are generally incompetent at running businesses but their failure is not the fault of oil companies.

Well I think there is a very rational reason, and there is even a legal reason. It's called the foreign corrupt practices act. But there should also be a bit of a moral obligation. They have the power at the outset and so why not flex it as they would be forced to do at home?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I think there is a very rational reason, and there is even a legal reason. It's called the foreign corrupt practices act.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you are making.

But there should also be a bit of a moral obligation.

Not by any generally accepted definition of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you are making.

Not by any generally accepted definition of the word.

The FCPA essentially means American companies cannot do abroad what they can't do at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FCPA essentially means American companies cannot do abroad what they can't do at home.

So? Oil companies are only obliged to pay royalties and follow government regulations at extraction sites. They have no obligations to fund pollution control technology for consumers of their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil companies are only obliged to pay royalties and follow government regulations at extraction sites. They have no obligations to fund pollution control technology for consumers of their products.

once again you appear to be headShill here... in the context of this thread's 'mindset' focus, it certainly is quite revealing which MLW members are ready to rally and "go the mattresses" for BigOil. For all youse guys bemoaning the heavy "tax burden" on the Oil&Gas industry, the difference between Pre-tax Margin and Net Margin is only 5%... with gross margins running at ~32% per quarter over the last 5 quarters. Of course, with the FrackingGravyTrain running full out, that low hanging fruit is pushing the gross margins ever higher. I'm surprised no one took a swipe at the EBITDA margin... but then that relative to gross might be a bit too revealing, hey!

you're right about the legal obligations... but who said BigOil ever dipped into the moral obligation well... anyway, hey? If I might take the liberty to presume on WCR's comment that has all you denier/fake-skeptic types in a tizzy, I interpret she implied BigOil has an obligation to attempt to offset "some" of the damage it helps perpetuate. You know, like not spending more on greenwashing than it does investing in alternative energy pursuits. You know, like not walking away from partnership agreements with governments to trial/deply carbon sequestration... as in walking away because they actually have to spend some money - go figure!

tumblr_md0z8hzOm51qc0cxpo1_500.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is flimsy is your attempt to blame oil companies for the actions of governments. The no rational reason for oil companies to have any obligation other than paying royalties and following government regulations at the extraction sites.

What happens when an oil rig goes down? Should they be held accountable for that? Regulations were not followed with the Deepwater Horizon. The standard blow out prevention valve was not installed. PAY UP.

That company is BP, and has had many issues. They need to be taken down a few notches.

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason I deny this global warming via humans, is the amount of conflicting data that has been produced by once recognized scientists, now tarred because they manage to find that the data is not accurate and/or has been heavily manipulated.

The carbon tax is a wealth distribution scheme. The trading market for carbon credits and the like worth a few billion each year. Follow the money!

Besides we have more immediate issues to worry about. Fukushima being one of them. This is having an impact for the last three years, and will continue for another 40+ years.

This is part of my mindset and how I think about it all. I think that is what this thread is about ... right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when an oil rig goes down? Should they be held accountable for that? Regulations were not followed with the Deepwater Horizon. The standard blow out prevention valve was not installed. PAY UP.

And BP will be paying dearly despite the fact that the consequences are being deliberately exaggerated in order to extort more money. What is your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And BP will be paying dearly despite the fact that the consequences are being deliberately exaggerated in order to extort more money. What is your point?

Deliberately exaggerated? Like Fukushima it was severely downplayed by those in charge. BP SHOULD pay. Maybe if they are hit really hard this time, they will take it seriously in the future. Even with the rig going down BP is still making huge HUGE profits. These dolts don't care about anything other than making money. Even if that means ruining your life while claiming they are the victims. But this is getting off the topic intended for this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deliberately exaggerated? Like Fukushima it was severely downplayed by those in charge.

No. Like how the dangers associated by radiation are being deliberately exaggerated in the Fukushima example (e.g. the absurd lawsuit by US sailors asking for billions because they claim radiation exposure while at sea).

BP SHOULD pay. Maybe if they are hit really hard this time, they will take it seriously in the future.

Accidents happen. Get over it. You can bet the industry cares a lot about them since they are really bad for business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Like how the dangers associated by radiation are being deliberately exaggerated in the Fukushima example (e.g. the absurd lawsuit by US sailors asking for billions because they claim radiation exposure while at sea).

You realize they were in the fallout zone when #1 blew it's top. Which set them up for a double dose when #3 blew as well.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/03/10/issues/stakes-high-as-ailing-u-s-navy-sailors-take-on-tepco-over-fukushima-fallout/#.U8vZ0rHennI

After the incident, the USS Regan was denied entry to some Asian ports because of the radiation risk. Someone it taking it more seriously than many in NA.

Accidents happen. Get over it. You can bet the industry cares a lot about them since they are really bad for business.

Accidents do happen. But the BP Deepwater Horizon was 100% preventable. The sailors on the USS Regan could have avoided much of the radiation exposure. Lac Megantic might still be in one piece if the dude did not leave the train unattended.

Only WHEN something goes wrong do they start to give a damn. In so many cases it is about saving money and cutting corners. That kind of action leads to accidents which in most cases are 100% preventable.

Now that we have detracted even MORE from the intended topic... yeesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize they were in the fallout zone when #1 blew it's top. Which set them up for a double dose when #3 blew as well.

Scientifically their claims are completely bogus. It is just not physically possible for the claimed effects to exist. It is nothing by BS created by irrational scaremongers and greed.

After the incident, the USS Regan was denied entry to some Asian ports because of the radiation risk. Someone it taking it more seriously than many in NA.

All it means is there are a lot of stupid people out there that are not capable rationally assessing evidence.

Only WHEN something goes wrong do they start to give a damn. In so many cases it is about saving money and cutting corners.

Are you speaking as someone who has worked on these rigs and is familiar with the safety procedures? If not you have no business claiming that they "only care" when an accident happens. That complete BS. The industry has amazingly few major accidents because they are since with safety because accidents are really bad for business. BP is the exception as opposed to the rule. Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientifically their claims are completely bogus. It is just not physically possible for the claimed effects to exist. It is nothing by BS created by irrational scaremongers and greed.

Right, no scientific evidence. Kind of how you are on the side of no scientific evidence from AWG.

Double denier.

All it means is there are a lot of stupid people out there that are not capable rationally assessing evidence.

I would have done the same thing. Deny them entry unless the ship was decontaminated or measured to be no risk.

Are you speaking as someone who has worked on these rigs and is familiar with the safety procedures? If not you have no business claiming that they "only care" when an accident happens. That complete BS. The industry has amazingly few major accidents because they are since with safety because accidents are really bad for business. BP is the exception as opposed to the rule.

The reports found that there was no blow out preventer valve which would have saved the rig and capped the oil well, which would have prevented all that oil. Which would have meant that all that horrible Corexit stuff was not sprayed into the ocean. Someone tried to save a few bucks, which end up taking down a billion dollar oil rig, billions in investing in resources, manufacturing transporting and assembling the oil rig.

Corners are cut and people and equipment go up in smoke.

And as long as the money is flowing, they really don't care. Shareholders agree, and you may even hold some stock in that through some type of investments.

But think you detracted from the intent of the thread a little too much? Let's get back to it shall we? I dare ya!

Edited by GostHacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reports found that there was no blow out preventer valve which would have saved the rig and capped the oil well, which would have prevented all that oil.

Complete nonsense. The BOP was installed but failed. The final government report suggests a problem with installation:

On 20 March 2011, DNV presented their report to the US Department of Energy.[15] Their primary conclusion was that the rams failed to shear through the drill pipe and seal the bore because the drill pipe had buckled out of the line of action of the rams. They did not suggest any failure of actuation as would be caused by faulty batteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowout_preventer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll grant you that.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.

The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week.

So I guess the challenge was not accepted, let's continue down this deviated path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deny it simply because of the many forms of weather control that many governments and private entities are using around the world. I've gone back as far as the 1850s to see where the notion of weather modification started. Now with many forms of technology the wide spread use of cloud seeding, geo-engineering weather is being deliberately manipulated if not outright controlled.

Another reason I deny this global warming via humans, is the amount of conflicting data that has been produced by once recognized scientists, now tarred because they manage to find that the data is not accurate and/or has been heavily manipulated.

This is part of my mindset and how I think about it all. I think that is what this thread is about ... right?

thanks for your responses. Not to delve into the specifics, if I might... your statements add weight to the earlier mentioned study finding and those statements that suggest some denier's present, "a tendency to espouse conspiracy theories".

setting aside the most obvious difficulty in extrapolating small-scale regional weather 'manipulation' to a global level impact, your statement presumes on so many levels: it presumes that those scientists that have investigated the possible global-scope impact of these so-called weather modifications are "in on the conspiracy"; it presumes that government, academia, intelligence agencies, militaries, etc., are either "in on the conspiracy" or woefully blind to it; it presumes that either some hodge-podge, rag-tag group of random "weather modifiers" have powned the global community... or... some over-seeing entity or groups are really "in control" (ala a rogue "World Government"), etc., etc., etc.!

equally, your statement that supposed, 'conflicting data, newly found inaccurate data and heavily manipulated data', is your rationale for not accepting AGW, is in itself another espousal of conspiracy... and/or... it speaks to the absolute ineptitude of the world-wide community of scientists being unable to validate this supposed "conflicting, inaccurate and manipulated data" towards a reversal in the findings that support the theory of AGW.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I won't ever convince you Waldo. The science is beyond me, and may be beyond you.

Here is what the Australians are doing. Manipulation through electro magnetic frequencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason I deny this global warming via humans

Another reason is that you are incapable of reason even when evidence is presented to you. As shown by the fukushima thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason is that you are incapable of reason even when evidence is presented to you. As shown by the fukushima thread.

I've been posting stuff in that thread for 3 years now. Most ignore it. Not sure what their reasoning is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I won't ever convince you Waldo. The science is beyond me, and may be beyond you.

Look the basics aren't even that hard. Here, I'll try to dumb things down for you:

Ever notice that when things get hot they start to glow red (then even white if they get even hotter)? This is due to a phenomenon known as black body radiation. Basically, as things get hotter they emit more radiation and the frequency of the radiation gets higher (i.e. the color of the 'glow' changes).

The sun is very hot (about 6000 Kelvin). Thus it emits black body radiation in the visible spectrum. That is why when you look at the sun it looks very bright.

The earth is cooler (about 287 Kelvin). It still emits black body radiation primarily in the infrared spectrum (i.e. heat). Humans cannot see this because their eyes can only see visible light.

The earth is basically in equilibrium. Radiation comes from the sun and hits the Earth, warming it. However, the Earth will also emit radiation, which will go into outer space. In equilibrium, these two values have to be equal.

Here is a diagram of the emission spectra of the Sun and of Earth:

Sun2.jpg

Notice how the Sun emits visible light while the Earth emits infrared?

Anyway, with respect to CO2 it is this colourless and odourless gas that you exhale. Anyway, different gases have different absorption spectra (i.e. what frequencies of light they like to absorb). Due to how atoms work, gases tend to have these absorption bands (frequencies where they like to absorb incoming radiation). If you look at the above diagram, you can see the absorption spectrum of CO2.

Notice how the absorption spectrum of CO2 is stronger for the infrared light that the Earth likes to emit compared to the visible light that the Sun likes to emit? This means that CO2 is basically transparent to light from the sun (i.e. light can get to the surface so that you can see the sun), but the atmosphere is very opaque to radiation from the earth (i.e. it is more difficult for light from the surface of the earth to reach outer space).

So as you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it becomes more and more opaque to radiation emitted by the Earth. This makes it more difficult for black body radiation from the Earth to reach outer space because more of that radiation will get absorbed by the CO2. As a result, this will change the balance of how much radiation the Earth absorbs from the sun to the amount of radiation that the Earth emits into outer space. Thus, this will cause the Earth to warm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to the science of geo-engineering. Thanks for the science lesson anyways.

If you are referring to your claims of some secret government organization being able to control the global weather (please tell me if I misunderstand), that easily shown to be ridiculous if you just compare the available energy that people have access to and the amount of energy that would be required to do such a thing.

As a simply order of magnitude comparison:

Global Power Production is 474 EJ per Year.

Total Solar Energy that hits Earth is 3,850,000 EJ per Year.

Even if humans could harness all of the wind on the planet, we are only looked at about 7889 EJ per Year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are referring to your claims of some secret government organization being able to control the global weather (please tell me if I misunderstand), that easily shown to be ridiculous if you just compare the available energy that people have access to and the amount of energy that would be required to do such a thing.

The video I posted is of an Australian private company that has been using this technology for over a decade. Also, I am having a hard time understanding this reply in general. Care to clarify at all?

As a simply order of magnitude comparison:

Global Power Production is 474 EJ per Year.

Total Solar Energy that hits Earth is 3,850,000 EJ per Year.

Even if humans could harness all of the wind on the planet, we are only looked at about 7889 EJ per Year.

This has nothing to do with how weather is manipulated via technology. You are not going to argue that cloud seeding does not happen...are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing is that Waldo and I are on the opposite sides of this AGW thing, but yet I managed to understand what this thread was really about, and gave my thoughts and what I think as a skeptic. Waldo does not have to like my answer, but it was the answering of his inquiry that he appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...