Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

It is sad that this topic keep popping up in this particular forum. Eastern skiing is especially energy intensive and inherently bad for the environment. All those cars driving for hours to ski on snow made with energy coming from polluting sources (although the Canadian hydro is not as bad) to be housed in facilities heated through polluting sources. I do not think you can be a "climate change warrior" and be an eastern skier. If you were a true believer you would simply stop skiing to reduce your carbon footprint. Perhaps the government can drive up the costs so much through regulation that the problem is minimized. Eventually eastern skiing will be greatly reduced not through less snow but due to increased costs imposed by the government to mitigate global warming. The federal government will make up for the job losses with increased benefits programs. All is good!

Seems like bulletproof logic for all you "true believers." So who is gonna man-up and just stop skiing...FOR THE GOOD OF THE PLANET.

Non-believers like me will just keep skiing on a less crowded mountain...because we think the CAGW theory is pure BS. Can't accuse me of hypocrisy when drive up from the flatlands and load onto the lift.

I will be like India Russia and China. You guys can be like Obama... be a good role model so that eventually I'll be inspired by your personal sacrifice and change my mind. I promise I'll post some ski reports so you can stay in touch with the sport through the internet. Hope you all charge your computer batteries off solar chargers.

Oh and I'm REALLY looking forward to the less crowded highways when all the eco-warrior alarmists man-up and stop the whole unnecessary weekend commuting.

Some of you have you have shown YOU ARE CONVINCED that driving your car is destroying the planet....YET YOU STILL DO IT!

This is EXACTLY what the NYAG is accusing EXON of doing....and YOU are doing in....by your logic you should be held liable.

YOU BELIEVE in CAGW and yet you still do the things you think will harm the planet. Shouldn't YOU be prosecuted for performing acts you believe to be harmful?

[Ski_killington]

In what way, shape, or form is this a skiing discussion? I don't come to Kzone to see stupid debates that are more about flinging sh*t at each other than anything else. I come to Kzone to see when the heck Killington will open again. Sky gods! Please move this topic to the political discussion section!

[twilkas]

This article states an investigation has only begun on a possible lie by Exxon Mobil about a subject that has not yet been proven.

Furthermore, it seems entirely plausible to me that Exxon Mobil's research shows and discusses both points of view on climate change. That the company didn't "disclose" something that has been continuously featured in the national (make that world) news for years doesn't strike me as egregious.

For me to agree with your statement, I have to agree that failure to disclose public knowledge is fraud. That seems like a long reach. It also makes the investigation sound more political than not.

The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day. Every day people vote with their useage that the level of concern does not warrant changing behavior. We still drive gasoline cars built by factories powered by fossil fuel power to go recreate on a mountain powered by... fossil fuel. And a little hydro and cow manure.

Homerun again!

Not quite. First off the NYAG does not need proof. NY's anti-fraud laws are far reaching. He is using the 1921 Martin Act, the same law Spitzer successfully used for Ponzi schemes and Wall Street investment firms that misled investors. Exxon has been doing climate change research since the 70's. If they were not forthcoming and honest on their findings, they committed fraud.

Again, just because we use their products does not make them innocent of fraud. This is not about climate change, it is about a benefactor of climate change that allegedly misled investors. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about do they?

"their findings"? that's the part that would take some hashing out. the dishonesty of presenting Climate Change/Climate Science as a totally settled issue would be the featured argument here.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

In what way, shape, or form is this a skiing discussion? I don't come to Kzone to see stupid debates that are more about flinging sh*t at each other than anything else. I come to Kzone to see when the heck Killington will open again. Sky gods! Please move this topic to the political discussion section!

Why, in God's name, would you click on THIS THREAD when it is CLEARLY NOT about skiing?

Climate does in fact impact skiing and those of us who recognize this fact we generally keep all the climate science debates to this CLEARLY LABELED SINGLE thread...and you some how seem to be incapable of avoiding it?

Sad.

[Ski_killington]

In what way, shape, or form is this a skiing discussion? I don't come to Kzone to see stupid debates that are more about flinging sh*t at each other than anything else. I come to Kzone to see when the heck Killington will open again. Sky gods! Please move this topic to the political discussion section!

Why, in God's name, would you click on THIS THREAD when it is CLEARLY NOT about skiing?

Climate does in fact impact skiing and those of us who recognize this fact we generally keep all the climate science debates to this CLEARLY LABELED SINGLE thread...and you some how seem to be incapable of avoiding it?

Sad.

You're a f*** retard. There's a reason why there's different sections on this site. I have a feeling the only reason you don't want this topic moved is so that your fat face can get more attention. If you're going to debate something, do it somewhere where people actually want to see you debate, because most people certainly don't. I've wasted enough time on writing this post already, so if you want to keep acting like a 12 year old, and write BS responses to this message, go right ahead, you'll get no response from me.

[Mister Moose]

Not quite. First off the NYAG does not need proof. NY's anti-fraud laws are far reaching. He is using the 1921 Martin Act, the same law Spitzer successfully used for Ponzi schemes and Wall Street investment firms that misled investors. Exxon has been doing climate change research since the 70's. If they were not forthcoming and honest on their findings, they committed fraud.

Again, just because we use their products does not make them innocent of fraud. This is not about climate change, it is about a benefactor of climate change that allegedly misled investors. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about do they?

I did not make a link between the use of their products and their degree of liability.

I was drawing a link involving the current need for oil in our households, highways, chemical plants, manufacturers, and power plants. Smoking (your example) meets none of these criteria. There was extensive data showing a causative relationship between smoking and cancer, as well as other cardio pulmonary diseases. Even with that data, asking people to stop smoking was always an individual choice. That is not the case with fossil fuels, where some in the government seek to remove individual choice, and there is no proven causative data, ie data that produces predictable, repeatable findings.

If Exxon was "not forthcoming and honest on their findings" enough to constitute fraud, it seems to me this implies they had meaningful research that proves something the rest of us don't know, that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuels - something no one else has yet been able to conclusively prove. That would be news.

Activist judges or juries still give the innocent something to worry about. Lynching no longer needs just a rope and a tree.

[GSKI]

Troll bait friends! Of course our eastern skiing is totally bad for the environment! If you buy into the democrats agenda that we are in a global warming crisis you need to simply quit skiing in the east. Dont worry though they plan to make is so expensive that most of you will not be able to afford it.

[twilkas]

In what way, shape, or form is this a skiing discussion? I don't come to Kzone to see stupid debates that are more about flinging sh*t at each other than anything else. I come to Kzone to see when the heck Killington will open again. Sky gods! Please move this topic to the political discussion section!

Why, in God's name, would you click on THIS THREAD when it is CLEARLY NOT about skiing?

Climate does in fact impact skiing and those of us who recognize this fact we generally keep all the climate science debates to this CLEARLY LABELED SINGLE thread...and you some how seem to be incapable of avoiding it?

Sad.

You're a f*** retard. There's a reason why there's different sections on this site. I have a feeling the only reason you don't want this topic moved is so that your fat face can get more attention. If you're going to debate something, do it somewhere where people actually want to see you debate, because most people certainly don't. I've wasted enough time on writing this post already, so if you want to keep acting like a 12 year old, and write BS responses to this message, go right ahead, you'll get no response from me.

Ski_Killington, your rant should be directed to the board admins. they've decided it stays, quite some time ago.

Personally, i've gotten a lot out of this thread. It has prompted me to read various points of view on a subject I hardly see as settled.
Bubba had a condensed view I can agree with, my version: **yes, let's keep monitoring the issue of climate change, but not get too aggressive on implementing actual tax changes to counter it**

not yet. way too early in the process of figuring all this out. and i'm super leary of anything that has
sooo much momentum and fervor with so much still in question, particularly when we're talking new taxes proposed on account of it.

I, for one, appreciate this thread. Mrs G, when I see you, I promise I won't bring it up, we'll talk about skiing and love of skiing and great and fun people who also love the mountains! :) Unicorns if you want, I don't care ;-)

[Ski_the_Moguls]

[Woodsrider]

This article states an investigation has only begun on a possible lie by Exxon Mobil about a subject that has not yet been proven.

Furthermore, it seems entirely plausible to me that Exxon Mobil's research shows and discusses both points of view on climate change. That the company didn't "disclose" something that has been continuously featured in the national (make that world) news for years doesn't strike me as egregious.

For me to agree with your statement, I have to agree that failure to disclose public knowledge is fraud. That seems like a long reach. It also makes the investigation sound more political than not.

The US consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day. Every day people vote with their useage that the level of concern does not warrant changing behavior. We still drive gasoline cars built by factories powered by fossil fuel power to go recreate on a mountain powered by... fossil fuel. And a little hydro and cow manure.

Homerun again!

Not quite. First off the NYAG does not need proof. NY's anti-fraud laws are far reaching. He is using the 1921 Martin Act, the same law Spitzer successfully used for Ponzi schemes and Wall Street investment firms that misled investors. Exxon has been doing climate change research since the 70's. If they were not forthcoming and honest on their findings, they committed fraud.

Again, just because we use their products does not make them innocent of fraud. This is not about climate change, it is about a benefactor of climate change that allegedly misled investors. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about do they?

"their findings"? that's the part that would take some hashing out. the dishonesty of presenting Climate Change/Climate Science as a totally settled issue would be the featured argument here.

Finally someone is paying attention. Or should I say smart enough to follow along. Yeah that's a tough one.
But I suspect the AG will be able to side step it in the Martin act. The Martin Act allows the NY AG huge power, too much probably. I don't think he will need to prove that Exxon "settled" the science at all. Just that they suppressed the findings. If they were dishonest at all, they can be found guilty. It a a far reaching anti-fraud law.

I am not sure why everyone else is getting so hung up. Rather disappointing really.

[Woodsrider]

Not quite. First off the NYAG does not need proof. NY's anti-fraud laws are far reaching. He is using the 1921 Martin Act, the same law Spitzer successfully used for Ponzi schemes and Wall Street investment firms that misled investors. Exxon has been doing climate change research since the 70's. If they were not forthcoming and honest on their findings, they committed fraud.

Again, just because we use their products does not make them innocent of fraud. This is not about climate change, it is about a benefactor of climate change that allegedly misled investors. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about do they?

I did not make a link between the use of their products and their degree of liability.

I was drawing a link involving the current need for oil in our households, highways, chemical plants, manufacturers, and power plants. Smoking (your example) meets none of these criteria. There was extensive data showing a causative relationship between smoking and cancer, as well as other cardio pulmonary diseases. Even with that data, asking people to stop smoking was always an individual choice. That is not the case with fossil fuels, where some in the government seek to remove individual choice, and there is no proven causative data, ie data that produces predictable, repeatable findings.

If Exxon was "not forthcoming and honest on their findings" enough to constitute fraud, it seems to me this implies they had meaningful research that proves something the rest of us don't know, that climate change is caused by burning of fossil fuels - something no one else has yet been able to conclusively prove. That would be news.

Activist judges or juries still give the innocent something to worry about. Lynching no longer needs just a rope and a tree.

They don't need to prove conclusively that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Just that Exxon believes it and denied it.

[rogman]

It's a pretty good measure of how well Exxon's tactics have worked that there are so many denialists on this forum. The fraud going forward is that Exxon will continue to claim reserves as assets that will have to be left in the ground if we are to avoid exceeding 3.6 degrees F warming. They know this! The debate on this site is useless, other than as a sociology experiment gone horribly wrong. The collective "wisdom" here seems to be that AGW is a socialist conspiracy among the Democrats, Obama, and scientists. If only the truth were so simple; and that all we have to do is to delay or ignore.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

It's a pretty good measure of how well Exxon's tactics have worked that there are so many denialists on this forum. The fraud going forward is that Exxon will continue to claim reserves as assets that will have to be left in the ground if we are to avoid exceeding 3.6 degrees F warming. They know this! The debate on this site is useless, other than as a sociology experiment gone horribly wrong. The collective "wisdom" here seems to be that AGW is a socialist conspiracy among the Democrats, Obama, and scientists. If only the truth were so simple; and that all we have to do is to delay or ignore.

Seriously delusional. Yeah I get all my info from paid Exon Shills?

NAME ONE.

Seriously this whole ..."Exon is confusing us by paying shills" ...is so frankly delusional that its hard not to laugh.

The only people who believe in any type of conspiracy are the nuts who accept CAGW as "settled science."

They (yes that is you) believe that Exon has a virtually invisible but nonetheless incredibly effective conspiracy to corrupt the science of dozens of scientists, without actually paying any of them, to force them to say things that actually make sense to any sane scientist.

I believe that scientists sometimes make mistaken conclusions when looking a noisy data generated from complex systems. Sorry no reference whatsoever to any kind of conspiracy on this site except when you guys invent one.

[MrsG]

I, for one, appreciate this thread. Mrs G, when I see you, I promise I won't bring it up, we'll talk about skiing and love of skiing and great and fun people who also love the mountains! :) Unicorns if you want, I don't care ;-)

Hey t, I learn from this thread as well . . . just gets tiring at times, but I've learned to 'skim' . . .

[rogman]

It's a pretty good measure of how well Exxon's tactics have worked that there are so many denialists on this forum. The fraud going forward is that Exxon will continue to claim reserves as assets that will have to be left in the ground if we are to avoid exceeding 3.6 degrees F warming. They know this! The debate on this site is useless, other than as a sociology experiment gone horribly wrong. The collective "wisdom" here seems to be that AGW is a socialist conspiracy among the Democrats, Obama, and scientists. If only the truth were so simple; and that all we have to do is to delay or ignore.

Seriously delusional. Yeah I get all my info from paid Exon Shills?

NAME ONE.

Seriously this whole ..."Exon is confusing us by paying shills" ...is so frankly delusional that its hard not to laugh.

The only people who believe in any type of conspiracy are the nuts who accept CAGW as "settled science."

They (yes that is you) believe that Exon has a virtually invisible but nonetheless incredibly effective conspiracy to corrupt the science of dozens of scientists, without actually paying any of them, to force them to say things that actually make sense to any sane scientist.

I believe that scientists sometimes make mistaken conclusions when looking a noisy data generated from complex systems. Sorry no reference whatsoever to any kind of conspiracy on this site except when you guys invent one.

I'm super impressed that you know about noise. You must be the best engineer ever....
Exxon shills? Here you go, along with how much they've received. Source: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php
Have you quoted them? Perhaps not. You seem to prefer that hack meteorologist Anthony Watts, who is funded in part by the Heartland Institute (listed below).

AEI American Enterprise Institute $3,770,000
CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute $2,005,000
ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council $1,730,200
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research $1,729,523
Frontiers of Freedom $1,272,000
Annapolis Center $1,153,500
Atlas Economic Research Foundation $1,082,500
National Black Chamber of Commerce $1,025,000
US Chamber of Commerce Foundation $1,000,000
George C. Marshall Institute $865,000
Heritage Foundation $830,000
Manhattan Institute $800,000
National Taxpayers Union Foundation $700,000
Heartland Institute $676,500
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $665,000
National Center for Policy Analysis $645,900
CFACT Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow $582,000
Communications Institute $515,000
Washington Legal Foundation $455,000
Center for American and International Law (formerly Southwestern Legal Foundation) $452,150
FREE Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment $450,000
George Mason Univ. Law and Economics Center $445,000
National Center for Public Policy Research $445,000
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory $417,212
International Policy Network - North America $390,000
Citizens for a Sound Economy (FreedomWorks) $380,250
Mercatus Center, George Mason University $380,000
Acton Institute $365,000
Media Research Center (Cybercast News Service formerly Conservative News) $362,500
Institute for Energy Research $337,000
Congress of Racial Equality $325,000
Reason Foundation / Reason Public Policy Institute $321,000
Hoover Institution $295,000
Pacific Legal Foundation $275,000
Capital Research Center (Greenwatch) $265,000
Center for Defense of Free Enterprise $230,000
Federalist Society $225,000
National Association of Neighborhoods $225,000
National Legal Center for the Public Interest $216,500
Center for a New Europe-USA $170,000
American Council on Science and Health $165,000
Chemical Education Foundation $155,000
PERC Property and Environment Research Center (formerly Political Economy Research Center) $155,000
Cato Institute $125,000
Federal Focus $125,000
Fraser Institute, Canada $120,000
Media Institute $120,000
American Spectator Foundation $115,000
International Republican Institute $115,000
Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change $100,000
Environmental Literacy Council $100,000
Tech Central Science Foundation $95,000
American Conservative Union Foundation $90,000
Landmark Legal Foundation $90,000
Independent Institute $85,000
Free Enterprise Education Institute $80,000
Texas Public Policy Foundation $80,000
Institute for Study of Earth and Man $76,500
Independent Women's Forum $75,000
Consumer Alert $70,000
Mountain States Legal Foundation $60,000
Advancement of Sound Science Center $50,000
Free Enterprise Action Institute $50,000
Regulatory Checkbook $50,000
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri $40,000
Institute for Senior Studies $30,000
Science and Environmental Policy Project $20,000
Lexington Institute $10,000
Institute for Policy Innovaton $5,000