The House Oversight Committee on Thursday expanded its investigation into the fossil fuel industry’s involvement in spreading disinformation about the role fossil fuels play in causing climate change. Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Subcommittee on the Environment Chairman Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called on top executives at ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and lobbying groups American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to testify before Congress next month. Oil and gas companies have faced a slew of lawsuits from cities and states across the U.S. over their investments in campaigns to undermine climate policy and downplay the impact of burning fossil fuels on global warming. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/16/dem...il-companies-over-climate-disinformation.html You aren't the only person who has been duped, Jack. How the oil majors have spent $1Bn since Paris on narrative capture and lobbying on climate https://influencemap.org/report/How...is-Agreement-38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc
Isn't that the physicist with the laser beam from space theory? He should get together with MT Greene. I'm sure they'd have a lot to discuss.
Cooling is under way. Solar Update September, 2021 Guest Blogger This figure also shows a flat trend through the 1970s cooling period followed by a 40 year long downtrend in activity. Whatever solar processes caused the Modern Warm Period and… Figure 1: NCDC global temperature anomaly 1979 – 2021 From the mid-1980s the atmospheric temperature was in an uptrend channel 0.75°C wide with its boundaries shown by the purple lines. It was a disciplined uptrend with the lower bounding line being touched four times over 30 years. Similarly the current downtrend has its lower bound defined by four data points. . . .
Looking in the mirror? This research finds that, in the three years following the Paris Agreement, the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas majors (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP and Total) have invested over $1Bn of shareholder funds on misleading climate-related branding and lobbying. These efforts are overwhelmingly in conflict with the goals of this landmark global climate accord and designed to maintain the social and legal license to operate and expand fossil fuel operations. Company disclosures of spending on climate lobbying and branding are very limited. To fill this transparency gap, InfluenceMap has devised a methodology using best-available disclosures and intensive research of corporate messaging to evaluate oil major spending aimed at influencing the climate agenda, both directly and through their key trade groups.
The reference to Y2K is right on point. At that time I operated a systems integration business. I remember one engineering company that asked us about their personal computers. I told them they do not need to worry. They asked for confirmation. I asked for payment. They paid and we set every one of their computers to a 2000 date and allowed them to use the computers. Then we asked if they wanted to pay us to set them all back to current date. They said they could handle it. They could have confirmed it for themselves in the first place. I remember when companies were hiring vice presidents for Y2K. It was very similar to the covid hysteria.
This just says the congressional dupes strongly believe what they are doing and hearing. Sounds like a euphemistic and camouflaged way of saying we just made it up but only after looking at some numbers on a few sheets of paper. A $billion in three years for nothing but "misleading branding and lobbying"???
Yeah, very few. Only 97% of them. Are you really willing to risk everything on the chance you might be right to deny real science and ignore the mounting proof?
That was 10 or more years ago. I live in Oregon and I haven't heard that for a very long time. So you need to get up to date if you're going to make statements like that. The first article is 8 years old. The second one says "Further complicating the picture is climate change—the major factor behind the longer fire seasons and bigger fires. .... One study found that from 1984 to 2015, climate change doubled the area burned by wildfires across the West, compared to what would have burned without climate change. As the globe keeps warming, scientists expect forests to continue getting warmer, drier and more flammable. Unless people reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will significantly increase the frequency of wildfires. One study projected that if fossil fuels remain the dominant source of global energy and greenhouse gas emissions keep rising, by 2085 the acreage burned by fire in California will increase one-third to three-fourths. Elsewhere in the West, the size and frequency of fire is expected to increase even more dramatically." The third one doesn't excuse climate change or deny it, but includes it. It says "After several massive wildfires ripped through the West in the early 1900s, the newly formed U.S. Forest Service began extinguishing flames as quickly as possible. Managers believed that suppressing fires protected both communities and forests, Martin said. And for decades, it did. But over time, the plan backfired. That was especially true in conifer forests, which used to burn every five to 20 years and grew denser with each missed cycle. Then came drought, tree-killing beetles and climate change". People are desperate to stop and reverse the changes we are seeing. An abundance of objective science says fossil fuels are the main culprit but if we can have a beneficial influence on drought and wildfires by clearing out forest debris, of course we should include strategies for clearing that debris, but burning it will add to the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. So how should it be addressed? I'll trust science, thank you.
I honestly don’t think that we can do anything that will prevent global warming other than reduce our population. Green energy is not green. Green energy is as black as the oil they are made out of. Green energy is nothing but a feel good statement
Mother Jones? Can you get more biased? I may as well counter that with an InfoWars article. Makes sense you’re from Oregon if you buy into that junk. Are you a blue hair that was rioting and demanding to defund the police too?
Excuse me sir, but you missed the propaganda update. It's now called 'climate change'. In the 1970's it was global cooling...and the "coming ice age"...in the 2000's it switched to 'global warming'.....and since that's bullshit it's now 'climate change'. One day it will be renamed 'the weather' once again. For the last few years in Texas it has been relatively mild in the summer. Of course this last winter was the coldest in modern history. For my entire life, a cool front has blown into Texas within + or - 5 days of September 22. This morning was 49-50 degrees in my part of the state. It has done this forever. Nothing has changed. It's called the weather.
I dont think it will happen. Too much bottled water. People forgot how to live without buying something from a grocery store. Products that come from the oil field will have to be legislated away. People won’t do it naturally. The soles of your shoes, plastic bottles, plastic toys, plastic anything. There are shirts and sofas and pants that are made from oil products as well. The tires on your car, the shingles on your roof, the asphalt on the roads, all oil based.