Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

Yep...Near the end of September and we still have a blanket on at nights....never had it happen in 44 years living here.....Very dry though....The Ross River Dam is down to 40 % and water restrictions apply.

They say it has lot to do with the El Nino.

Tisme can be very cruel.

 

[Tisme]

Tisme can be very cruel.

 

[SirRumpole]

When these sort of people join the climate change club, what deniers are left ?

Shell CEO says carbon price needed to tackle climate change

Shell's global chief executive says an effective carbon price is needed to tackle climate change, whether through a trading or tax system.

Speaking exclusively to ABC TV's The Business program, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden said a price on carbon was necessary to discourage pollution.

"Putting, in one form or another, a real, clear price on carbon that compels people to act with rational economic actions, I think is something that we need," he told presenter Ticky Fullerton.

When pressed over the Australian Government's current direct action plan, which provides funding for programs to cut emissions rather than charging heavy emitters, Mr van Beurden said the design of the system was a matter for politicians in each country.

"Ultimately it doesn't matter too much if you have a trading system, a tax system or another system, as long as it is effective at what it does," he responded.

With the Paris climate change conference now just a couple of months away, Shell has joined forces with a number of other energy producers and industrial firms to form a Commission of Energy Transition.

Members include Australian mining giant BHP Billiton - with its interests in coal, gas and oil - as well as Dow Chemical and General Electric, two major industrial firms which are major energy consumers.

The aim of the commission is to provide advice to governments about how to combat climate change with the least disruption to their economies.

Many environmental groups are deeply sceptical of the commission, with Carbon Tracker saying the group's first report, which it says looks at how to lower the use of fossil fuels to 50 per cent of energy production by 2050, leaves the world open to warming twice as much as the current international target.

"We question the credibility and independence of an Energy Transitions Commission funded by fossil fuel incumbents," said Carbon Tracker's chief executive Anthony Hobley in a press release earlier this week.

"Shell's track record on climate change does not inspire us with confidence and plans that would see half our power generated by fossil fuels in 2050 risk seeing us go way over the UN's 2 °C climate change target."

However, Mr van Beurden said it is vital that companies with actual knowledge of energy production and usage are involved in the designing the solutions.

"The debate has gone to a place where some of the realism that we can bring to it has gone missing," he responded.
Exports needed to make Arrow's Queensland gas viable

Another, local, challenge that Shell faces is a battle to win approval for its takeover of BG Group and its LNG project in central Queensland.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has raised concerns that the project could lower competition and raise domestic gas prices on the east coast.

That has led to some speculation that the ACCC might require much of Shell's gas reserves to be set aside for domestic use.

While Mr van Beurden declined to suggest solutions to the ACCC's concerns, he noted that gas exports were essential to the project's viability.

"It's going to be obvious in order to drive real scale in that project we will need to have access to export markets," he said in the extended interview, which can be watched on The Business's website.

"The original plan was to build our own LNG plant. It may well be that we end up selling gas to other neighbouring LNG facilities so ultimately, and this is also what the ACCC has recognised, Arrow to be developed as a resource base does need the underpinning of an export project, whether its our own, whether it is somebody else's, whether it is somebody else's in which we have a share, is to some extent immaterial."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...price-needed-to-tackle-climate-change/6824510

 

[basilio]

This paper is a very sober risk management analysis of where we currently are with global warming.

Cheers

It's time to 'Do the math' again

DOWNLOAD
Have we gone mad? A new report released today explains why contemporary climate change policy-making should be characterised as increasingly delusional.

As the deadline approaches for submissions to the Australian government's climate targets process, there is a flurry of submissions and reports from advocacy groups and the Climate Change Authority.

Most of these reports are based on the twin propositions that two degrees Celsius (2 °C) of global warming is an appropriate policy target, and that there is a significant carbon budget and an amount of "burnable carbon" for this target, and hence a scientifically-based escalating ladder of emission-reduction targets stretching to mid-century and beyond.

A survey of the relevant scientific literature by David Spratt, "Recount: It's time to 'Do the math' again", published today by Breakthrough concludes that the evidence does not support either of these propositions.
The catastrophic and irreversible consequences of 2 °C of warming demand a strong risk-management approach, with a low rate of failure. We should not take risks with the climate that we would not take with civil infrastructure.

There is no carbon budget available if 2 °C is considered a cap or upper boundary as per the Copenhagen Accord, rather than a hit-or-miss target which can be significantly exceeded; or if a low risk of exceeding 2 °C is required; or if positive feedbacks such as permafrost and other carbon store losses are taken into account.

Effective policy making can only be based on recognising that climate change is already dangerous, and we have no carbon budget left to divide up. Big tipping-point events irreversible on human time scales such as in West Antarctica and large-scale positive feedbacks are already occurring at less than 1 °C of warming. It is clear that 2 °C of climate warming is not a safe cap.

In reality, 2 °C is the boundary between dangerous and very dangerous climate change and 1 °C warmer than human civilisation has ever experienced.

http://www.climatecodered.org/2015/04/its-time-to-do-math-again.html

 

[basilio]

Did you know?

That in the 1970's- 80's Exxon scientists were doing some of the best research into Climate Change and the role of CO2 in increasing temperatures.

This might come as a surprise given that in the 1990's Exxon was also at the forefront manufacturing doubt around the reality and extent of climate change caused by CO2.

In fact it is exactly the same as the tobacco industry which knew way ahead of the curve how addictive and lethal cigarettes were.

Check it out

About This Series

After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this multi-part history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files dating back to the late 1970s, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence, much of which is being published here for the first time.

It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.

Find the entire project here.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...o-climate-research-would-protect-its-business

 

[basilio]

It might seem a bit quaint for Exxon to fund leading research into Climate Change, be clearly briefed about the consequences... and then simply deny, deny deny deny. After all we live in a corporate world where lying taken for granted and called spin.

But there are ramifications for companies that deliberately deceive the public as to the safety of their product. For example the Tobacco industry was finally nailed when it was revealed that they knew all along about the addictive nature of their product and the health risks.

Anyway Exxon now faces a risk of climate litigation as evidence of their cover up come out. (have you sold your Exxon shares yet ?)

ExxonMobil Faces Heightened Risk of Climate Litigation, Its Critics Say
Advocates explore holding the company accountable after new evidence shows it's long understood that global warming threatened its business and the planet.
By Bob Simison, InsideClimate News
Sep 30, 2015


ExxonMobil may face renewed legal challenges from plaintiffs claiming that it should have acted to address the risks of climate change, based on new evidence that its own researchers warned management about the emerging threat decades ago.

In an online petition drive, in public statements and behind the scenes, environmental advocates and their political allies are pressing federal and state authorities to launch investigations, subpoenas or prosecutions to pin down what Exxon knew and when. The oil giant's critics say Exxon might be held liable either for failing to disclose the risks to shareholders and financial regulators, or for manufacturing doubt to deceive people about the science of climate change.

"I think the case is already there to be made," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island. He has raised the possibility of a Justice Department investigation under federal racketeering law. A former prosecutor, he is one of the Senate's leading voices for action to address the climate crisis.

The interest in pursuing legal action against Exxon has been sharpened by new disclosures from an eight-month InsideClimate News investigation documenting extensive concern within the company about the risks of global warming dating back nearly 40 years, according to environmental advocates, litigators and legal experts.

The evidence, much of it drawn from internal Exxon documents, shows Exxon understood that climate change posed catastrophic risks to people if nothing was done to control pollution from fossil fuels. It was also aware of material risks to the company if the use of fossil fuels had to be limited.

The new documentation of Exxon's internal study of climate science would influence the tactics in future litigation, said several people active in the long-running strategizing among the company's most determined antagonists.

Pressure could come from the U.S. Justice Department, state attorneys general, private plaintiffs in the U.S. or abroad, or shareholders, legal authorities said. While no legal pathway is assured, and Exxon would surely mount a powerful defense, at the very least the litigation might lead the company to reveal new details of Exxon’s actions, or force it to be more forthcoming in its public statements.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...Heightened-Climate-Litigation-Its-Critics-Say

 

[basilio]

The question of Corporate responsibility for destroying the liveability of our planet is being stepped up and extends beyond Exxon.

Editor’s Note: This is the first of several articles on American oil companies and whether their track records on shareholder resolutions on climate change expose them to legal liabilities.

These stories also launch ICN’s Climate Accountability Project, which investigates the role that people, companies and other groups have played in opposing or delaying action on climate change.

Refusing to act on climate resolutions could become a costly mistake, and invite the kind of legal onslaught that cost tobacco companies billions of dollars.

By Elizabeth Douglass, InsideClimate News

At ExxonMobil, the answer is still no.

For a quarter-century, stockholders have asked Exxon to confront the threat of climate change in all sorts of ways: by investing in renewable energy, cutting harmful emissions, providing carbon risk assessments and adding a board member with climate expertise. Year after year, the oil giant has said no, rejecting shareholders’ requests and downplaying their concerns long after scientists concluded that unfettered burning of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic climate change. At Chevron and ConocoPhillips, executives have also routinely opposed climate-related shareholder resolutions.

But Exxon, the biggest and richest of the oil giants, is also the most dug-in. Late last month, it fought off another shareholder request to adopt one of the most basic and widely endorsed climate policies in corporate America””to set company-wide goals to lower greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a proposal Exxon investors have introduced at annual meetings on and off since 1990, and it continues to hit the same wall.

“We have been ringing alarm bells for years saying to the oil companies that the status quo is unsustainable, is dangerous for investors, and in the long term isn’t in the companies’ best interests,” said Timothy Smith, shareholder engagement director at Boston-based Walden Asset Management, a 40-year-old investment firm managing $3 billion in assets. “They’re aware of the trends, but that doesn’t mean they’re changing their business plans. They’re not convinced they should move away from [the oil] business, or even curtail it.”

http://books.insideclimatenews.org/exxonsclimategamble

 

[SirRumpole]

The chances of any oil company being successfully sued over climate change is miniscule imo.

It was hard enough proving a causal link between smoking and lung cancer, and there are so many other variables in CO2 emissions, bushfires, volcanoes wood burning stoves, coal fired power stations etc that it would be impossible to assess the damage caused by one oil company.

They will get away with whatever damage they do because as it stands oil is an essential part of daily life, unlike smoking so whereas tobacco companies are an easy target, oil companies can just say that they will put up the price of oil to cover any legal obligations and that will be the end of any lawsuits.

 

[basilio]

Actually Sir Rumpole I think suing Exxon et al for negligence/deception/whatever is pretty pointless. Bit like winning the jackpot on the gambling tables of the Titantic.

The real question is whether the body of evidence that Exxon scientists developed around global warming makes a difference to what we do today. Are we up for tackling the problem or do we pretend nothing bad is going to happen....

 

[basilio]

But I am still xxxxxxx outraged at the duplicity of the Exxon Board to have their own expert scientific knowledge at hand and then decide to bury it in favour of a systemic campaign of deceit.

IMO they should go to jail.


.....(In another universe.)

 

[SirRumpole]

But I am still xxxxxxx outraged at the duplicity of the Exxon Board to have their own expert scientific knowledge at hand and then decide to bury it in favour of a systemic campaign of deceit.

IMO they should go to jail.


.....(In another universe.)

I agree. Pity Freedom of Information doesn't extend to corporations.

 

[basilio]

I agree. Pity Freedom of Information doesn't extend to corporations.

Well in fact the scientific information that Exxon had regarding global warming is now public knowledge. That was the point of the story. It's not conjecture or theory. The documents are out. Certainly there may be much more documentation in the Exxon files. But it would be interesting to see what lawyers make of the story that has been broken by Inside Climate news.

 

[wayneL]

But I am still xxxxxxx outraged at the duplicity of the Exxon Board to have their own expert scientific knowledge at hand and then decide to bury it in favour of a systemic campaign of deceit.

IMO they should go to jail.


.....(In another universe.)

Oh puleeeeze.

You want outrage? How about this, a client of mine's daughter has been suffering depression foe some time and three days ago topped herself.

Featuring prominently in her suicide note was the fear of global warming.

Congratulations a55holes, because of the like of you and your politicking on this matter a beatiful, gorgeous, sensitive young lady is dead.

No prizes for who I think should be locked up

 

[SirRumpole]

Oh puleeeeze.

You want outrage? How about this, a client of mine's daughter has been suffering depression foe some time and three days ago topped herself.

Featuring prominently in her suicide note was the fear of global warming.

Congratulations a55holes, because of the like of you and your politicking on this matter a beatiful, gorgeous, sensitive young lady is dead.

No prizes for who I think should be locked up

That's very sad Wayne, my condolences.

The fact is though that more people including world leaders are realising that climate change is real and will be a problem and we can't shield everyone from that fact. The best we can hope for is that world leaders DO something about the problem so people don't have to be scared of it.

Lack of action is what's causing the fear, not telling people about the problem.

 

[wayneL]

I vehemently disagree. The conversation around climate change is highly politicized and bastids like Obama misrepresenting the science is messing with these kids .

Eg quoting the thoroughly discredited Cooke survey.

 

[basilio]

Wayne It is very sad to hear of your friends daughters suicide. And the concern about global warming as a factor. Yep I can hear that.

Are you aware of the scores of climate scientists who study this subject inside out and are only too aware of how dangerous the situation is ? They are pretty bloody depressed as well. They aren't worried about scare stories - they just know the facts. They also feel deeply concerned that their knowledge individually and collectively is being systematically denied by axxholes like Exxon and co who were/are fully aware of what is happening but are capable of denying it to keep making millions of dollars flogging fossil fuels - even as they realise they destroying our future.

Have you bothered to check out the story on the Exxon scientists and their research into global warming ? The reports they made to Exxon boards? The contributions they made to understanding this field ?

I understand Wayne. I truly do.

 

[basilio]

And on a more constructive note consider this. Check out a 60 sec vid.

If we seriously went in this direction maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much mental and emotional energy energy denying the obvious and actually improving our lives.

Doesn't it make simple sense to move to clean renewable energy ASAP ?

Every hour, enough sunlight blasts the earth to power humanity for a year. By 2050, across the entire world, solar energy could power our computers, phones, lights, hot water – anything we use electricity for today. There would be no need to pollute the planet with oil, coal or gas. Plus, solar panels are cheap at the moment. What better way to save a heating planet?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/jul/22/sun-cool-down-earth-video


_________________________________________________________________

And while your at it have a look at The Guardians campaign to create hope and serious solutions.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ches-phase-two-of-its-climate-change-campaign

 

[wayneL]

And on a more constructive note consider this. Check out a 60 sec vid.

If we seriously went in this direction maybe we wouldn't have to spend so much mental and emotional energy energy denying the obvious and actually improving our lives.

Doesn't it make simple sense to move to clean renewable energy ASAP ?



http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/jul/22/sun-cool-down-earth-video


_________________________________________________________________

And while your at it have a look at The Guardians campaign to create hope and serious solutions.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ches-phase-two-of-its-climate-change-campaign

Of course it does. I'm on record in this thread for agreeing on energy security and general pollution grounds.

It does not make sense to politicize and over-dramatize a biased, cherry picked and apocalyptic view of the science when their are a range of views and possibilities.... except for a political agenda of course.

As far as I am concerned, you (collectively) have blood on your hands, a pox on your house.

 

[explod]

Of course it does. I'm on record in this thread for agreeing on energy security and general pollution grounds.

As far as I am concerned, you (collectively) have blood on your hands, a pox on your house.

A bit rough there ole Pal.

There could, and I suspect be a myriad of reasons for the unfortunate death of your friends daughter. In my experience faults or reasons are sought to appease conscience of other traits, often closer to home.

You cannot just box these things up and then put blame on those who do not agree with you.

On global warming my views are clear. Concede there are many reasons but to cut out the use of coal and oil to the proven clean alternatives is at least a start.

 

[Knobby22]

Pull your head in, Wayne.
Blood on our hands, indeed! Overdramatise, indeed!

It's the feeling of helplessness and inability to affect change that has made it an issue.
And we know who is causing that and where the guilt belongs!

In any case, it would have been only one of a number of factors.