Tweet
Metamars has emphatically noted, from at least as early as February of this year, that
Exxon-Mobil is the dog that DIDN’T bark
and has threatened to write a diary on the subject. A more recent reminder was issued by your favorite, irrepressible climate dilettante, on Novemenber 18, 2012, right here at MyFDL, via a comment in my diary Speaking evil of Australia’s Carbon Tax can cost you a $1.1 Million Fine*
Well, on Nov 16, 2012, Newsday reported, in Exxon backs Obama plan to impose climate change fees
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) is part of a growing coalition backing a carbon tax as an alternative to costly regulation, giving newfound prominence to an idea once anathema in Washington.
….
Exxon is the biggest U.S. natural-gas producer. A carbon tax could boost demand for natural gas in U.S. power plants, as gas emits half the carbon dioxide as coal when burned to make electricity. Natural gas futures fell 1.5 percent to $3.703 per million British thermal units today. Gas prices fell to a 10- year low in April after mild winter weather crimped demand for heating fuels while production rose to a record.
(emphasis mine)
Never mind the fact that fracking will emit more methane into the atmosphere, and never mind the fact that Chinese per capita CO2 production shot up 9% last year (making minor decreases of green house gases by Western countries of little use),….. metamars will again CHALLENGE PROGRESSIVES WHO WILL LOOK UPON A CARBON TAX WITH GREAT JOY TO NOT GET SO SNOOKERED THAT NONE OF THAT EXTRA GOVERNMENT BOODLE GOES TOWARDS R&D OF REVOLUTIONARY, TOTALLY NON-CARBON, DENSE ENERGY SOURCES.
E.g., Eric Lerner, whose Focus Fusion effort has beaten the fusion big boys wrt a max temperature parameter, has to waste time and energy soliciting funding. Australia has had a $2,500/per year/per family of 4 carbon tax since earlier this year, but Lerner is still grossly underfunded.
And if LENR’s (so-called “cold fusion”) is developed, but the sheeple are still bleating within the veal pens dictated by their more clever masters, what makes you think that those LENR’s will actually be allowed to be sold in the US?
Oil, gas and coal aren’t just about energy – they’re also about control. People who pretend otherwise, or keep putting their faith in ‘authority figures’ that are known to have lied about climate, have themselves to blame, most of all. They will have stupidly contributed to their own serfdom.
* a comment of mine from that diary:
The way I see things, we are on a trajectory where we’re going to get a carbon tax, and essentially next to no global mitigation of CO2! How dumb is that! That tax will also come packaged with yet more ‘globaloney’ – in this case, loss of sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats.
I know cap and trade is supposed to be dead, in the US, but as I’ve noted elsewhere, Exxon Mobil is the dog that DIDN’T bark. They are NOT using their ample cash to educate the public about the science against CO2 catastrophism – nor even (for those who don’t believe such science exists; Al Gore is still saying “the science is settled”) to just LIE, and LIE, and LIE, and LIE, AGAIN. (Certainly no problem for a ‘denialist’ company, right?)
In other words, the elite financial establishment is on the side using CO2 catastrophism for continuing their process of turning 95% of us into serfs. The elite establishment has been very successful, so far….. Maybe Obama and the Republicans will put on another dog and pony show, a default will threaten, and just in the nick of time – a carbon tax that will also SAVE THE PLANET EARTH! Yay! Yipee! Oh, how some of us will cheer!! (And if we’re not careful, we won’t even get a carbon tax. Instead, we’ll get cap and trade, perhaps with a chump change transaction tax to help Uncle Sam keep the lights on. Oh, well! The D’s and R’s tried, didn’t they?)
22 Comments
I was directed to this Newsday article, today, by a whistle-blowing diary called, IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing
If you want some insight into the process that gives us IPCC headlines, and tramples on inconvenient scientific truth, I suggest you read the above.
This is bullshit (from the LNER article):
If the Hydrogen nucleus Proton combines with a free electron what happens to the Hydrogen Atom’s electrons? (Hydrogen consists of one Proton & One Electron).
A neutron contains 3 colors of udd quarks, a proton three colors of uud quarks.
An electron is a fermion not a baryon or quark, and Proton + Electron does not yield neutron.
If this were possible hydrogen would spontaneously convert into a neutron flux.
Lithium cannot “decay” into Beryllium and then the Helium. Lithium has an atomic number of 3, Beryllium of 4, Helium 2.
Lithium->Beryllium->Helium is not going to happen.
Don’t see how this is relevant. Lightning is no low energy, low temperature phenomenon.
Metamars, your dairy is complete and utter nonsense.
Proof? (Better proof than your LNER nonsense).
‘Zat so?
The title of this diary is,
Newsday: “Exxon backs Obama plan to impose climate change fees”
not
“Widom-Larsen theory 100% accepted as cold fusion explanation”
So, your statement is 99% nonsense….
You misunderstand. Al Gore is indeed still saying “the science is settled”. But a standard innuendo (or even, more stupidly, strong claim) by CO2 climate catatstrophists, of scientists who are non-CO2 catastrophists, is that they are taking $$ from Exxon-Mobil. (Exxon-Mobil did indeed used to fund a propaganda effort against CO2 catastrophism; this is no excuse for assuming some sort of time warp, dictating current activity by Exxon-Mobil; even worse is to assume that Exxon-Mobil could essentially buy large numbers of scientific skeptics, even if it wanted to).
Since, according to the CO2 climate catastrophists, Exxon-Mobil is so duplicitous now, my challenge to them was to think about why Exxon-Mobil isn’t doing a public educational program about climate science. Anticipating that our friendly, neighborhood CO2 catastrophists might say something like, “Ah, but metamars, the science is settled, and we KNOW that we are on a catastrophic trajectory. Thus, Exxon Mobil has no real climate science with which to educate the public”, I took that option away from them, by pointing out, right from the get-go, that Exxon-Mobil could just “LIE, and LIE….”.
I’m used to shabby, self-serving arguments from the CO2 climate catastrophists, so it seems wise to try and avoid unecessary back and forth; ‘prophylactically’ slapping down potential stupid or thoughtless arguments, you might say.
And another thing! I only use GMO free, organic milk!!
Fat Al Gore drives cars and produces carbon dioxide. That is wrong.
Metamars just hasn’t seen the grim humor of the situation although the joke seems inescapable at this point.
Exxon-Mobile can’t “refute” the science of climate change, although they spend what is pocket change to them in order to keep metamars and co. muddled, but that inability to change scientific fact won’t stop them from profiting immensely from the ongoing catastrophe that their deliberate policies have helped create.
metamars should, perhaps, stop thinking “new world order” and start thinking “same ol’ same ol’ world order.”
You are actually partly correct. Metamars has known, via second hand account, since he was 17 that auto companies will suppress energy saving technology. metamars has also known, via first hand account, from 30 years ago, that rich oilmen (in particular Armand Hammer, who did oil business with the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war) can help suppress extremely promising solar cell technology (80% efficiency vs. the still piddling 20%+ efficiency still obtained) and break the law with impunity. metamars has also been told, via a former colleague (i.e. 1st hand account), of being followed around by men in a black sedan after beginning his investigation of a ‘miracle’, patented, alternative energy technology.
There is not only the control factor, but also the profit factor, by established players, that ‘naturally’ tends to suppression of disruptive alternatives to the status quo.
Dichotomous thinking is immature thinking. Or, as I often put it, I believe in “walking and chewing gum, at the same time”.
Your plausible sounding theory of Exxon acquiescence to what you call “scientific fact” does not impress on 2 counts.
First of all, as metamars has pointed out numerous times, a carbon tax in the West will not stop CO2 catastrophism, as Chinese and 3rd world increase in CO2 emissions have been easily outstripping CO2 mitigation efforts of the West. Thus, for CO2 catastrophists, our fate is sealed, anyway (but notice how nobody wants to talk about this – that might, after all, lead sheeple down the pathway of zero carbon seduction scenarios of China, but luminaries like Bill McKibben and Al Gore seem curiously incurious about fusion, LENR’s, etc.). So, we are going to cook ourselves, anyway, (as per CO2 catastrophists), so Exxon Mobil will go down in history as the Bayer/IG Farben (=Zyklon B manufacturers of the Nazi ovens) of Planet Earth anyway.
Are there going to be Nazi war crime like trials for Exxon-Mobil senior management, when the earth “tips”, any year now? Will the CEO be hanged? Stay tuned!
Surely one way for Exxon-Mobil senior management to escape potentially very nasty consequences of what you blandly refer to as “the science” is to pre-emptively do a very public mea-culpa, and promise to do everything in it’s power to transition to a carbon free energy company, ASAP. IMO, that means money for fusion research, not just trying to bump up solar cell technology from 23% to 24% efficiency. But, I’m not going to hold my breath….
Second of all, the science is hardly settled, no matter how many times Al Gore blathers otherwise. Solar amplification factors have been known about for a while (see Nir Shaviv’s blog, with references to his own peer-reviewed publications), yet ‘somehow’ IPCC headlines do not reflect this, and as per the leaked draft that this diary is alerting you to, the upcoming IPCC report will almost surely be sanitized of solar amplification factors (well, at least the executive summary). You talked blandly about “the science” – sorta kinda gee whiz implying a consensus, but any notion of consensus is an irrational dream, at this point. See Judith Curry: Applicability of “consensus” on climate change causation depends on whether the scientific problem is ‘tame’ or a ‘mess’
This very recent presentation by Luning (former believer in CO2 catastrophism; now, co-author of “The Cold Sun”, with 800 or so scientific references, refuting CO2 climate catastrophism), has pointed out that the UV component of sunlight can vary by 70% (unlike total solar irradiance, which only varies by .1%), and models have only recently appeared that have reflected this.
Thus, Exxon Mobil doesn’t even need to lie, lie, LIE – they can tell scientific truths. And, indeed, point out some of the fraud and gross cherry picking of the CO2 climate catastrophists, and let people draw their own conclusions.
Quite frankly, they have it within their reach to crush public support for CO2 catastrophism, but the fact that they make no moves in this direction makes them ‘The Exxon-Mobil Dog That Didn’t Bark’.
BTW, what’s your informed opinion of the Medieval Warm Period? Was it confined to Europe, or not? And what do you base your belief on? Surely, part of “the science” of global warming concerns the Medieval Warm Period.
I can’t decide what’s funnier: The pointless “points” of this diary or metamars referring to himself in the third person.
JIMMY’S DOWN!!!
I will say this again. Any pseudo-market mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade are dead because the industry and the GOP did not support such “market-based” solutions when offered the serious chance to do so.
But I don’t expect metamars to notice or figure out that progressives no longer are big supporters of those concessions to a “free market” economy. It mars his narrative too much. But then these repetitive diaries have little point about them.
The most effective way to deal with pollutants in regulation. The sort of political will required to implement a real tax-based system or cap-and-trade system doesn’t exist. And even with regulations, there is the danger that the regulatory agency gets captured by the industries it regulates.
You should tell the people on Capitol Hill (that are, says Senator Vitter) holding secret negotiations on this. Then again, is it possible that they don’t care about your opinion as to what is dead, and what is not?
Whether or not particular progressives are supporters of a carbon tax, or not, doesn’t mean that a) we all won’t be getting such a tax, anyway, whether particular progressives like it, or not and b) progressives will get anything environmentally significant (on par with what they claim is the severity of the problem) out of something that their gullibility helped bring about. You know, like more funding for zero carbon fusion. Stuff like that. That would be a plus that would make carbon taxes more justified.
I’m not really up on what the Aussie government is doing with their carbon tax boodle. If anybody knows that they are spending even 1 cent more on fusion or LENR’s, feel free to enlighten me.
Given the global, collusive nature of the CO2 catastrophism scare, I’d be willing to wager that the use of the Aussie carbon boodle will be about how use of US carbon boodle will go down.
‘Zat so? And how do you propose that US regulators reign in Chinese CO2 production?
Trusting in US regulation to stop what we are told are planet-killing CO2 emissions is just as stupid as trusting in US carbon taxes to reign in planet-killing CO2 emissions. That’s because, in either case, the main drivers of changing CO2 emissions do not lie in the US.
There might be minor spinoffs of extra US regulation, like new technology that burns oil more efficiently, which eventually makes its way to China from the US. Are you counting on this to make more than a hiccup in global CO2 production?
I’m still not seeing either a Plan A nor a Plan B that makes any sense, given the CO2 catastrophist POV, whether or not you believe that a US carbon tax is dead, or not. Given that life as we know it, on planet earth, is supposed to be at stake, that seems a little irresponsible.
The idea is to have international agreements, and put pressure on those countries which refuse to cooperate.
And what is the plan to put pressure on China? A link would be nice (if you want to be believed, that is).
And what are the expectations of success for this plan?
If expectations are 100%, then not having a Plan B makes sense, although I’d question the sanity of anybody believing they have a 100% probability of getting China to cap their CO2.
There are various ways that we can put pressure on China, if we want to do so—what I find hard to believe is that you actually need proof of this fact. Of course, given who I’m dealing with, perhaps I should not be surprised that I need to prove all sorts of things: while I’m at it, would you also like proof that the Earth is round? :-D
And, you might also consider that China may ultimately work to reduce CO2 emissions for the same reasons we will, which (to most of us here at FDL) means that they don’t want to suffer the impacts of global warming. However, if you like, you can tell yourself a different story, based on your ideas of a “scientific conspiracy,” just find out what the Chinese version of Exxon is, and learn how to say “the ___________ (insert name of Chinese Exxon here) dog isn’t barking.”
Nice duck. IOW, you know of no such plan.
Why are you wasting our time? Isn’t it a function of the Veal Pen to not actually fix any problems? But instead to bamboozle progressive into thinking that their good will and $$ are being organized to fix a problem?
Well golly gee, if we can’t rein in the whole enchilada how about not reining in anything at all.
BTW, I don’t consider Diaper Dave a reliable source of what is going on in Congress. The little oil puppet is like the folks telling the gunnuts that Obama is gonna take away your guns. Riling up the folks to serve his favorite industry.
Failure to plan is to plan to fail.
If progressives are generally dumb enough to both believe that >350 ppm is catastrophic and that meaningless acts like alluding to Mexican food suffices instead of a respectable plan for dealing with the Chinese and developing world’s tsunami of CO2, then, in a sense, they deserve to get fleeced by the CO2 scam artists – who are ultimately plutocrats.
Yes, it is very nice duck! And, since you mentioned China, let us say: peking duck!
That is the obvious end goal of the various CO2 reduction ideas. Having the US limit its CO2 emissions is just a first step.
Right, right. It is not irresponsible to deny what 99% of accredited climatological scientists say about global climate change and place your bets entirely on your own cockamamie conspiracy theories which, just by the sheerest of coincidences, align perfectly with the Koch sociopaths’ plan of inaction. Now THAT is a plan to fail.
There must be a lot of employees that register here just to hit “recommend” on these loony pieces of tripe that the person who refers to his or her self in the third person, keeps vomiting up.
This crock full of bull is at the top of the list.
Do “99% of accredited climatological scientists say” that us regulating CO2 and/or getting a carbon tax, while per capita Chinese CO2 goes up 9% in a single year, is going to make a bit of difference, if CO2 catastrophism is valid?
Do “99% of accredited climatological scientists say” that fusion is a CO2 free technology, or not? If they can’t even answer that simple question, I suggest you ignore them. If they can answer that question, honestly, then the question becomes “What the hell are true believers in CO2 climate catastrophism – both laymen and “accredited climatological scientists” – doing about their catastrophism beliefs? What is their plan to ratchet down Chinese CO2 production?”
Besides smear honest scientists who don’t share their CO2 pessimism, of course.