FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Climate change not denied
Climate change not denied
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? "
it's Rapid Climate Change but I'd imagine that they're now measuring the earth's flatness!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
All the big petrochemical companies are being taken to court for compensation for big infrastructure projects that are going to be needed like sea walls to protect cities lke new York and San Francisco.The argument isn't if it's happening but did the oil industry know and continued regardless.The science has been around along time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All the big petrochemical companies are being taken to court for compensation for big infrastructure projects that are going to be needed like sea walls to protect cities lke new York and San Francisco.The argument isn't if it's happening but did the oil industry know and continued regardless.The science has been around along time."
Strange how all governments World wide accept and allow, are they going to be sued too
what a load of nonsense, lets hope their lawyers are on top of their game to protect all my pensions  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"All the big petrochemical companies are being taken to court for compensation for big infrastructure projects that are going to be needed like sea walls to protect cities lke new York and San Francisco.The argument isn't if it's happening but did the oil industry know and continued regardless.The science has been around along time.
Strange how all governments World wide accept and allow, are they going to be sued too
what a load of nonsense, lets hope their lawyers are on top of their game to protect all my pensions "
Please explain this bit
"Strange how all governments World wide accept and allow, are they going to be sued too"as it makes no sense gramatically. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The debate on climate change makes me wonder how many brainwashed people were defending cigarettes long after the rest of us accepted the obvious truth.
Wait, apparently there are still people denying it. No matter the decades of science, no matter the irrefutable proof and no matter that the makers of cigarettes finally admit that they knew cigarettes caused cancer and funded a huge disinformation campaign to cause doubt, some people still think cigarettes dont cause cancer. And today we can watch history repeat with easily manipulated people stubbornly clinging to the idea that they couldnt possibly be wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"its a phenomena which of yet cannot be proven that humans contribute to warming
.
some great corporations listed here though"
Did you read the article?
Chevron has accepted the science. You don't because you're worried about the value of pension?
“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said attorney Theodore Boutrous, of the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “There’s no debate about climate science.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"The debate on climate change makes me wonder how many brainwashed people were defending cigarettes long after the rest of us accepted the obvious truth.
Wait, apparently there are still people denying it. No matter the decades of science, no matter the irrefutable proof and no matter that the makers of cigarettes finally admit that they knew cigarettes caused cancer and funded a huge disinformation campaign to cause doubt, some people still think cigarettes dont cause cancer. And today we can watch history repeat with easily manipulated people stubbornly clinging to the idea that they couldnt possibly be wrong."
It's the same with people not wanting their children vaccinated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The debate on climate change makes me wonder how many brainwashed people were defending cigarettes long after the rest of us accepted the obvious truth.
Wait, apparently there are still people denying it. No matter the decades of science, no matter the irrefutable proof and no matter that the makers of cigarettes finally admit that they knew cigarettes caused cancer and funded a huge disinformation campaign to cause doubt, some people still think cigarettes dont cause cancer. And today we can watch history repeat with easily manipulated people stubbornly clinging to the idea that they couldnt possibly be wrong.
It's the same with people not wanting their children vaccinated."
Anti vaxxers , climate change deniers ,911 truthers ,moon landings deniers.They usually believe every conspiracy going and that should set off alarm bells.
Often these people are insecure and need to control. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The debate on climate change makes me wonder how many brainwashed people were defending cigarettes long after the rest of us accepted the obvious truth.
Wait, apparently there are still people denying it. No matter the decades of science, no matter the irrefutable proof and no matter that the makers of cigarettes finally admit that they knew cigarettes caused cancer and funded a huge disinformation campaign to cause doubt, some people still think cigarettes dont cause cancer. And today we can watch history repeat with easily manipulated people stubbornly clinging to the idea that they couldnt possibly be wrong.
It's the same with people not wanting their children vaccinated."
I think I'd have to disown my parents for such stupidity and dangerous implications, if I'd not died before I was an adult.
With climate change it's a simple intelligence test complete, once denial is exclaimed.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"its a phenomena which of yet cannot be proven that humans contribute to warming
.
some great corporations listed here though
Did you read the article?
Chevron has accepted the science. You don't because you're worried about the value of pension?
“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said attorney Theodore Boutrous, of the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “There’s no debate about climate science.”"
extremely likely
Chevron supports a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded it was “extremely likely” humans contribute to warming. However, Boutrous also said earlier IPCC reports were not as certain.
extremely likely does not prove guilt.
I am not worried about my present pension, its set hard & fast, but I do have other oil company pensions that I cannot draw until 55, may leave them where they are to mature |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"extremely likely does not prove guilt."
You misunderstand scientists’ use of language. It’s rare to get them to say that anything is certain, because very little is.
‘Extremely likely’ is like saying we’ll need the invention of a previously unimagined branch of science to find a different result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"its a phenomena which of yet cannot be proven that humans contribute to warming
.
some great corporations listed here though
Did you read the article?
Chevron has accepted the science. You don't because you're worried about the value of pension?
“Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said attorney Theodore Boutrous, of the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “There’s no debate about climate science.”
extremely likely
Chevron supports a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded it was “extremely likely” humans contribute to warming. However, Boutrous also said earlier IPCC reports were not as certain.
extremely likely does not prove guilt.
I am not worried about my present pension, its set hard & fast, but I do have other oil company pensions that I cannot draw until 55, may leave them where they are to mature "
Earlier reports had less data so we're evidently less certain. That doesn't change the fact that it is now accepted.
Have you ever met an engineer or a scientist? The thing about working with large complicated models is that there is uncertainty. You accept that you do not "know". The people who design the aeroplanes that you fly in, the skyscrapers that you work in and the drugs that you take are not "certain" of anything. They are Moore or less qualified to take the decisions and give the opinions that they do than climate scientists.
You really do only care about hypertension in this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? "
It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways. "
i prefer to do my own research .... luckily we have thousands of scientists who have proven man made climate change exists |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways. "
You don't think that an oil company accepting the science has any significance then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways.
You don't think that an oil company accepting the science has any significance then?"
It would be necessary to know what all the other oil companies have to say . I would attach little significance to one case . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways.
You don't think that an oil company accepting the science has any significance then? It would be necessary to know what all the other oil companies have to say . I would attach little significance to one case . "
It's not one company in court.The city of New York is seeking damages from BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
It's also looking to pull all of it's investments in pension funds out of these companies to the tune of £189 billion.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways.
You don't think that an oil company accepting the science has any significance then? It would be necessary to know what all the other oil companies have to say . I would attach little significance to one case .
It's not one company in court.The city of New York is seeking damages from BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
It's also looking to pull all of it's investments in pension funds out of these companies to the tune of £189 billion.
"
Just a money grabbing exercise then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways.
You don't think that an oil company accepting the science has any significance then? It would be necessary to know what all the other oil companies have to say . I would attach little significance to one case .
It's not one company in court.The city of New York is seeking damages from BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
It's also looking to pull all of it's investments in pension funds out of these companies to the tune of £189 billion.
Just a money grabbing exercise then."
The money is required for coastal defence to protect the city of new York which generates 1.5 trillion dollars for the US economy.Its about money and jobs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways.
You don't think that an oil company accepting the science has any significance then? It would be necessary to know what all the other oil companies have to say . I would attach little significance to one case . "
Precedents established in law can have highly significant influence of course. As others show, this is one of many companies - presumably they will have forecast such a situation for many years.
Where do you stand on man made climate change?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways. "
Or in your case, ignore any evidence presented entirely as you don’t like to read it. If it wasn’t written in an anonymous dodgy investment mag then you are not interested.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...by Cevron in a US court.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-climatechange-hearing/u-s-judge-to-question-big-oil-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1GX185
Where does that put climate change deniers then? It is difficult to see why one court case should influence anyone's opinion. Different people will interpret evidence in different ways. "
Precedent..
Just Google it pat..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"its a phenomena which of yet cannot be proven that humans contribute to warming
.
some great corporations listed here though"
cannot be proven?
Hmmm....... Jehovah's witness or trumpette ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"its a phenomena which of yet cannot be proven that humans contribute to warming
.
some great corporations listed here though
cannot be proven?
Hmmm....... Jehovah's witness or trumpette ?"
nope,
just one of those "couldntgiveafucker" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
extremely likely
Chevron supports a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded it was “extremely likely” humans contribute to warming. However, Boutrous also said earlier IPCC reports were not as certain.
extremely likely does not prove guilt.
"
How would it "prove" it to your satisfaction? Maybe we could build a replica of the earth, where we can control all the variables?
Not really feasible...I guess we'll just have to make do with overwhelming evidence that's agreed on by most peer-review science papers.
Interesting though that on another thread you seem to be of the opinion that we can save the planet by recycling bottles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
extremely likely
Chevron supports a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded it was “extremely likely” humans contribute to warming. However, Boutrous also said earlier IPCC reports were not as certain.
extremely likely does not prove guilt.
How would it "prove" it to your satisfaction? Maybe we could build a replica of the earth, where we can control all the variables?
Not really feasible...I guess we'll just have to make do with overwhelming evidence that's agreed on by most peer-review science papers.
Interesting though that on another thread you seem to be of the opinion that we can save the planet by recycling bottles."
Just the English; filthy litter covered country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
extremely likely
Chevron supports a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded it was “extremely likely” humans contribute to warming. However, Boutrous also said earlier IPCC reports were not as certain.
extremely likely does not prove guilt.
How would it "prove" it to your satisfaction? Maybe we could build a replica of the earth, where we can control all the variables?
Not really feasible...I guess we'll just have to make do with overwhelming evidence that's agreed on by most peer-review science papers.
Interesting though that on another thread you seem to be of the opinion that we can save the planet by recycling bottles.
Just the English; filthy litter covered country."
You say stuff like this, and then bitch and moan when people call you racist and xenophobic.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
