The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action.

[Cinnabar]

It takes a lot to defy common sense on a global scale, all to benefit one industry. But for decades, fossil fuel interests have done just that, running a sophisticated and sprawling network of well-funded think tanks and front groups with one goal: Stop any real climate action, no matter the cost to billions.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DENIAL MACHINE
If that was a surprise, now might be a good time to grab your seat. The shocking truth is that this denial machine has been shaping public and political opinion on climate change since the 1970s.
It all began with Exxon Mobil.

https://www.climaterealityproject.or...climate-action

Very interesting article indeed.

The same way the tobacco industry screwed the people for profit so goes the fossil fuel industry.

[cancel2 2022]

In this video, President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech, his warnings, and how he predicted exactly what has happened with climate scientists attempting to seize control of public policy.

[cancel2 2022]

.
Bjorn Lomborg warned about the Climate Industrial Complex ten years ago, the intervening years have confirmed his shrewd and insightful analysis.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124286145192740987

[Cinnabar]

Decades ago, the company’s own scientists confirmed that carbon emissions were indeed warming our planet. As an internal report produced by Exxon researcher James Black from 1978 states, “A doubling of carbon dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing the average global temperature by from 1° to 3°C, with a 10°C rise predicted at the poles.”

Realizing that their product was on the line, Exxon Mobil began pushing forward a multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign to cast doubt on well-established science. So well-established in fact, even all those decades ago, that the company was using the same climate models it publicly attacked to plan future operations in the Arctic — a region they knew would become cheaper to drill as temperatures rose and sea ice rapidly melted.

[cancel2 2022]

.
Bjorn Lomborg warned about the Climate Industrial Complex ten years ago, the intervening years have confirmed his shrewd and insightful analysis.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124286145192740987

The WSJ is paywalled so here is the full text!!

https://admin.americanthinker.com/bl...trial_com.html

[cancel2 2022]

Decades ago, the company’s own scientists confirmed that carbon emissions were indeed warming our planet. As an internal report produced by Exxon researcher James Black from 1978 states, “A doubling of carbon dioxide is estimated to be capable of increasing the average global temperature by from 1° to 3°C, with a 10°C rise predicted at the poles.”

Realizing that their product was on the line, Exxon Mobil began pushing forward a multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign to cast doubt on well-established science. So well-established in fact, even all those decades ago, that the company was using the same climate models it publicly attacked to plan future operations in the Arctic — a region they knew would become cheaper to drill as temperatures rose and sea ice rapidly melted.

Fuck me rigid, you bullshitters aren't even original that same crap has been debunked over and over. This is all about avaricious scumbag lawyers hoping to hit the motherlode. Of course it helps that useful useless idiots like you help them for free.

The Climate Change Debate and the Alarmists' Addiction to Tobacco Analogies
Sam Kazman • July 12, 2016

I’ve pulled up to gas stations hundreds of times to fill up. Not once did I make a decision about which gasoline to buy based on oil company ads about climate change. In fact, I don’t recall seeing even a single climate-change ad that was aimed at affecting my gas-buying decisions.
On the other hand, decades ago, when I used to smoke regularly, I often bought cigarettes based on their low tar and nicotine content. Light cigarettes were touted as being less risky—a claim that subsequently turned out to be false. In fact, the tobacco industry apparently fostered that impression despite knowing that it was false.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the tobacco debate of years past, and today’s controversy over the fossil energy industry and climate change. And it’s a very essential difference. The tobacco industry was found to have engaged in fraud regarding the risks of smoking; it misrepresented those risks in order to boost sales of its cigarettes. That is fraud in the classical sense.

Climate alarmists repeatedly claim that the climate change debate is no different. But it is; it’s a debate over policy, not marketing. And when it comes to policy, government officials are not entitled to administer some truth test. “[I]t cannot be the duty, because it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against false doctrine. The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech and religion. …. [T]he forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from the false for us.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945) (Jackson, J. concurring).

When you look at just who’s attempting to administer this truth test, and how they’re going about doing it, you should be thankful that our forefathers were wise enough to not entrust government with such a role. At the state level, we have attorneys general who issue incredibly overbroad fishing-expedition subpoenas that violate the rights of free speech and donor confidentiality. In Congress, some members seek to put the validity of climate-change skepticism to floor votes. And the Democratic National Committee is considering embedding this approach in its platform.

We call this an inquisition. If you think that’s hyperbole, consider this statement: “Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It's not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

These words come not from a policy wonk, but from a Nobel prize-winning physicist who until recently supported President Obama.

Since 2014, nearly 800 peer-reviewed papers have been published that question the alleged consensus on global warming. I suspect most readers have never heard of any of them.

Does this sound like an open-and-shut case of settled science, or is it politics pure and simple? And is the analogy to tobacco valid, or is it smoke mirrors, and dreams of Big Tobacco Deal-sized payoffs?

https://cei.org/blog/climate-change-...acco-analogies

[cancel2 2022]

Look at the facts: an enormous 259 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity are under development in China. That’s on top of the 993 gigawatts of coal-burning capacity China already possesses. In addition, they are building coal power stations around the world.

The UK’s whole electrical generation capacity, in all forms of power, is 85 gigawatts. If we gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference at all to the impact of Chinese coal burning on the atmosphere. None, not any, zero. If we completely abolished all our fossil-fuel generation, including gas, it would likewise not matter in the slightest, except to us, our economy and our standard of living.

China’s planned increase alone, in coal power is three times the size of our whole electricity-generation industry – wind, nuclear gas, and all. India is also increasing coal generation and last March reached a coal capacity of 200 gigawatts. In the US, the Chinese planned increase is slightly more than all of the coal fired capacity, do any of you ignorant peasants know that?

Do you really think that poor people in Africa are going to give up the chance to have cheap access to electricity because of some over privileged middle class arseholes blocking some streets in London and glueing themselves to aircraft?

If you really cared about emissions then you'd support 4th gen. nuclear rather than wasting vast sums of money on unreliable renewables.

Are Gen IV Nuclear Reactors the Future?

Today’s nuclear power plants generate electricity at stable costs and produce near-zero carbon emissions. Currently, there are 437 operating nuclear reactor power plants and more than 60 under construction (five in the US) ranging from 500 megawatts electrical (MWe) to 1,700 MWe. However, not all reactors are competitive and such large power plants are not well suited for deployment in emerging countries. The next generation of nuclear power plants will continue to be carbon-free, but even more importantly, they will be a viable energy source for both emerging and developed countries.

The 1950s saw the first generation of commercial nuclear reactors. Between 1970 and 1990, utilities were placing orders for large MWe reactors. Around 2008, small modular reactor designs (SMRs) emerged. These smaller MWe versions of current reactor technology have improved safety features and modular construction that lead to shorter deployment times and improved economics. SMRs are an important and arguably an evolutionary step to advancing the next generation of reactors (Gen IV).

International cooperation is being realized, most notably through the Generation IV International Forum (GIF). The GIF was created in January 2000 and today has 13 members. The Mission Innovation initiative was launched in November 2015 on behalf of 21 governments to accelerate public and private global clean energy innovation with the objective to make clean energy widely affordable.

Gen IV global research and development is expanding with several Gen IV technology types under consideration. In 2002, GIF selected six types, from nearly 100 concepts, as Gen IV systems. Further, GIF has divided the research and development amongst working groups formed by laboratories, universities, and government agencies, according to the experience and interest of each. Multiple nations have both SMR and Gen IV reactors in various phases of market readiness.

Government, industry, and environmental support for nuclear is increasing. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed to develop design-specific guidelines for SMRs. In November 2015 at a White House Summit on Nuclear Energy, the executive branch reinforced the important role nuclear plays in providing reliable, zero emissions electricity. The U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council is working with National Labs to bring advance reactors to the market place. The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear will provide access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary for commercialization. At the COP21, four of the world’s leading climate experts, urged countries to recognize that nuclear energy is “the only viable path forward” to the needed rapid decarbonization of the world’s energy systems. [COP is the Conference of the Parties, referring to the countries that have signed up to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.]

Industry investment is broad. The Mission Innovation participating governments will seek to double their research and development investment over the next five years. Twenty-eight wealthy individuals from ten countries have formed the Breakthrough Energy Coalition to increase the public research pipeline. DOE awarded $40 million matching funds for development of two advanced reactors. Over $1.6 billion of investment is going to 46 new reactor companies. Some of the U.S.’s largest companies have made public announcements on investments to create a Gen IV design including General Electric, General Atomics, and Lockheed Martin.

According to The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an accessible, affordable and sustainable energy source is fundamental to the development of modern society and they predict a global demand for primary energy 1.5 to 3 times higher in 2050 as compared to today. Being a carbon-free source of energy is a huge advantage, but Gen IV reactors will need to be economically competitive to renewables. With the simpler Gen IV technology, improved safety, and physical protection, the economics should prove to be less costly to build, operate, and maintain. All of these attributes contribute to a viable energy source with more sustainable commercialization.

However, obstacles remain and the new technology will be challenged to expand in the open power market without a guaranteed cost savings. Gen IV will be more likely to expand in state-owned utilities willing to take the technology risk such as China, India, Saudi Arabia, KEPCO in Korea, and South Africa. In the U.S. market there are several large utilities (TVA, Southern Company, Duke Energy) that have a history of accepting similar technology risk.

Investments to commercialization, continued international cooperation, government support, and multi-years’ worth of effort are needed, but by many indications, Gen IV reactors will be the next nuclear renaissance.

https://www.power-eng.com/2016/04/19...rs-the-future/

[cancel2 2022]

Very interesting article indeed.

The same way the tobacco industry screwed the people for profit so goes the fossil fuel industry.

I doubt if an ignorant peasant like you has even heard of Arrhenius or Angstrom!!



Maybe you should sue Knut Angstrom?

Arrhenius made a fundamental error in that he didn’t recognize H2O is a greenhouse gas. Knut Angstrom pointed this out in 1901, and showed experimentally that adding CO2 has very little impact on climate.

[canceled.2021.3]

I don’t deny that climate exists

I don’t deny that climate changes. It changes four times a year

The temperature in my area has dropped 30 degrees since August. I fully expect cataclysmic results

[cancel2 2022]

I don’t deny that climate exists

I don’t deny that climate changes. It changes four times a year

The temperature in my area has dropped 30 degrees since August. I fully expect cataclysmic results

Cinnabar has buggered off again!

[Micawber]

The strategy is to lie through proxy to prevent diminution of markets for product, and grudgingly admit a kernel of truth themselves to perform loss mitigation
for the litigation nightmare they will face. That's the plan, and everything and anything these criminals say or do from now on can be wholly understood through the
lens I just described.

Feel free to groan Cabana Poontang, you have no integrity and would be better off dead.

[Bigdog]

Very interesting article indeed.

The same way the tobacco industry screwed the people for profit so goes the fossil fuel industry.

This is contradicted by the fact the U.S. has decreased its CO2 emissions to 1980's levels.

Obviously, this is Leftist political garbage. It has noting to do with environmentalism. If the Left was really concerned, they would be attacking China and India. But, Nooooo!!!!

[cancel2 2022]

The strategy is to lie through proxy to prevent diminution of markets for product, and grudgingly admit a kernel of truth themselves to perform loss mitigation
for the litigation nightmare they will face. That's the plan, and everything and anything these criminals say or do from now on can be wholly understood through the
lens I just described.

Feel free to groan Cabana Poontang, you have no integrity and would be better off dead.

You're a truly nasty cunt, banned forever and a day

[cancel2 2022]

This is contradicted by the fact the U.S. has decreased its CO2 emissions to 1980's levels.

Obviously, this is Leftist political garbage. It has noting to do with environmentalism. If the Left was really concerned, they would be attacking China and India. But, Nooooo!!!!

She's too stupid to understand that, maybe Mr. Owl can explain it to her?

[cancel2 2022]

Very interesting article indeed.

The same way the tobacco industry screwed the people for profit so goes the fossil fuel industry.

It's prime grade bullshit wolfed down by ignorant twats like you.