Global cooling

mac · Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:59 pm Post subject:

mrgybe and NW30--Billions last year is probably an exaggeration—the direct expenses were over $400 million—in each of the last two years. That doesn’t count education efforts under public relations budgets, so it may take two years to get to billions, and last years might be under a billion—but it is in the neighborhood. The big numbers on lobbying are that total business lobbying in 2009 was $3.5 billion, Health care and global warming were the big targets. Here’s one source that shows dramatic increases in spending, and the impact on the house bill: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/77737-climate-bill-drives-energy-companies-to-spend-more Here’s another, from Hearst newspapers, that shows substantial money—and of interest, has the oil industry projecting a 77 cent/gallon cost for carbon caps. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/top_news/Tesoro_Valero_other_refiners_fight_climate_change_bills.html
Here’s a source with a total for the energy industry at $400 million: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=E&year=2009 It shows a doubling of expenses in the past two years. Of course none of this captures the public relations costs, and getting true totals requires a reporter—but then we’re not supporting newspapers much anymore.
Now let’s turn to the science of global warming and the hysteria—and financial support—for deniers. First, concerns over warming are not new—my oldest reference is a 1987 National Academy of Science study “Responding to Changes in Sea Level”, where my graduate advisor was on the panel, that concluded that the risk of accelerated sea level rise is sufficiently established to begin better monitoring of sea level. Of course the first loud warnings were sounded by James Titus, see for example “Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and coastal zone management.” Projections were projections then, the question then becomes what do the measurements show and are they sufficient to galvanize some type of response.

I will be specific about my secondary source—Andrew J. Gunther, Ph.D. Executive Director, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration. He has a Phd in atmospheric science and has worked in water quality analysis for San Francisco Bay. I will give specific quotes and his sources.

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

Well mrgybe, I could be wrong that oil, coal and other industries spend money to push their interests, but I don't think so. But honestly, I don't have all the facts to prove it, but I never said I did.

I would again mention the idea of an iceberg. You might be able to see some of it, but the majority of it that is hidden under water. I guess I could choose to believe that what's visible is all there is, but that's very naive and shortsided.

We hear all the time how money is all over our political process. With the current debate surrounding healthcare reform, its been in the news that the insurance and large pharmaceutial industries have contributed money to influence the outcome. How much? I couldn't begin to say exactly how much and to whom they gave it to, but I have little doubt that it's significant sums of money.

Getting back to oil, just one of the industries involved in the energy arena, I can say that every time the subject of drilling more oil off the Santa Barbara channel, money flies in hopes of success, and that's only part of it. Potential land swaps and other possible arrangements have often been in the mix in consideration for tipping the scale towards their goals. Given your background and knowledge of the oil business you know far more accurately what goes on when new lucrative opportunities surface. Would you stand by a position that there's no money involved in influencing the potential for success?

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

swchandler wrote:
Oh, the global warming graph is so trick!

How inventive.

Do you plan to spend some quality time breathing the exhaust from your family car?

"I can easily seperate pollution from AGW, they don't have to be undisputedly linked. I don't like pollution as much as you or anyone else, it should be controlled, I'm all in favor of clean water and air.
To me it's like saying "don't light that match, the house will burn down", one doesn't have to guarentee the other."

I don't come even close to being an expert about global warming, but I know full well that humans have been responsible for significant pollution in the past that has affected our environment. Seemingly you understand that too, so I think you'll agree that we need to do everything possible to curb or potentially eliminate negative influences that we're responsible for.

Now, I should emphasize that I haven't been a strong proponent here of the dangers of global warming. But I have to admit that I'm not a denier either. Also, I have never come out in favor of cap and trade as a way to address the global warming issue. Nevertheless, I know that what we do oil and coal is not without impact to the environment, so I'm for cleaning up our act and investing in newer cleaner technologies. I feel it would be foolish not to.

But as you mentioned earlier, you're a global warming denier. You know, some months ago in the LAT, there was an article that showed various photographs if a number of glaciers in Northern America. These photographs were a clear illustration of how significant change had occurred over a relatively short time. They were aerial photographs taken in the late 1930s shown in direct contrast with current ones of the same locations, and they were careful to present the exact same view, elevation and perspective. The degree of change in these glaciers was simply astounding. Obviously something serious has been going on. You may elect to look away from such patent concrete evidence, but I can't.