Conoco's Own Inconvenient Truth

So, How many other energy providing company's are getting on board with this.

Just because Conoco is sells hydrocarbon does not mean they are the responsible party in Global warming. The end user, and abusers are the ones to blame.

If no demand, no market, no profit and no more investment in drilling and development of fields.

Just my two cents.

So what youre saying is that they are innocent? The big bad populace demand fossil fuels and they have no way of stopping to produce it? I don't really see them taking the moral high road and closing shop entirely either. I lived next to a large fossil fuel production facility for a long time and I can tell you they can't ever be seen as innocents.

But I agree that the blame should be mutually divided between consumers and producers. At least this way they acknowledge the problem and can start working on cleaner fuels or production methods even if nothing else. There will always be demand for energy. Thats the way we live. We can only attempt not to destroy everything around us while staying alive.

You said it! Where do you draw the line? get all the car manufacturers to change the fuel requirements over night? Not easy.

Should we not also lay a significant portion of the blame on the Governments' door step? Have they not reaped an obscene amount of income through taxes from the sale of fossil fuel and the vehicles that consume that fossil fuels etc??

Amen. American politicians in particular chose to kill public transportation in favor of tax-subsidized roads, tax-subsidized road safety and driver training programs, tax-paid road police.

Government inherently removes options and applies force to situations in such a way to make rational, democratic choice impossible. After all, if we'd choose to do it en masse, we wouldn't need government to do it, right? Why would anybody leave a leather-lined Lexus to get elbow-to-elbow with the riff raff?

But I've not heard anybody yet interject some key perspective here.

Can you imagine the problems with methane, deforestation and sprawl if we were still using horses for transportation?!?!? ...Wow!

We'd be living in a hot purple haze of biostink.

And what is the real action here? Are we proposing that people stop moving around? Are we going to push, by regulation, all energy consumption and waste-dumping to third-world nations that don't care about environmental concerns?

What, other than WWIII, are we going to actually do? Don't say go back to horses!

As to who is to blame, when did consumers ever have a choice? We were "guided" into fossil fuel use by the multitude of uses for this extremely powerful and easy to use energy source. Inventions using this form of energy multiplied as the fastest growing segment of patent applications and brought about an unparralled industrial and agricultural revolution. Petroleum became the choice foundation for the world's economic development. Transportation, food production, medicine and a myriad of other prime sectors were launched into explosive development far beyond the imagination of even the most futuristic thinkers. Energy options are still available but all forms create some heat when used and that has us again contributing to global warming .

Er, apportioning blame is the domain of the legal profession, which makes its money out of clients' misery.

If they've been hiding information about danger they are guilty of covering up a crime . If they have not hidden information about danger they are guilty of aiding and abetting a crime. Jury retires to consider if danger exists . Verdict : guilty , but no executioner available because everybody else is on trial too (apart from those who can say 'I believed everything the oil Co's said' , but they may be wearing white jackets anyway ).

Don't know nuffin' milord.

'Silence Mr Blair ! you haven't been called yet.'

All of you are speaking as if global warming is a non-disputable fact....you are incorrect

Anyone posting on this thread should please give the relivant papers the person has written on the subject as well as what their expertise in the field of climatology.

You are all regirgitating propaganda..

We have all seen compelling "facts" from both camps...pro and con....

Global warming will be debated for years....

By then we might be in an ice age.....like they were screaming about in the 70's

Stop getting your panties in a knot..and actually study the topic.....pro and con

'All of you are speaking as if global warming is a non-disputable fact....'

Not at all, however I'm not burying my head in the sand either. Can you prove its not? Just because it doesn't suit you to consider it plausible, and judging by your tone, it doesn't, isn't going to alter the fact that it might be a fact. I think the evidence for global warming outbalances the evidence against. The causes are a lot less clear cut. I for one wont be bemoaning my fate when the sea is lapping at my door, I can at least say I tried to stop it, even if all I did was a small thing, at least I accepted the possibility, and the responsibility. What makes me angry is all the naysayers who can justify their denial, when I feel it's entirely selfish on there part to do so. All in all, I think a responsible out look environmentally can only be a good thing. Why would it not be? Why would you not care for the environment? Do you dump you're crap over the nearest hedge? It's that sort of thing, scaled up, that we are talking about.

You illustrate my point. Please enlighten us with the reading or discussions you have had with experts in the field ...both PRO and CON....

something tells me your list will be very short.....like, i, uh ..saw AL Gores movie...and it changed my life

you have not read one piece from the other side or watched any other points of view...

Have you read anything from the HEAD OF CLIMITOLOGY FROM "M.I.T".....after you read then make a statement

I just read the report or at least one of the reports. What I got out of it is there is some dispute and even some scientists that disagree with themselves at times. There is one that argues the temperature hasn't risen and that the Artic has actually gotten slightly colder, citing one report. That conclusion is contradicted by other information in the article.

The gist of it seems that there are two arguments.

1) Does global warming exist and more importantly is it increasing faster than it should be expected to?

2) Assuming it does exist, which seems pretty clear to me and most others, is the increase due to man's influence? Or is it just coincidence and we're pretty much out of luck?

Some authorities maintain that at current rates, the Earth's average surface temperature could climb from two to nine degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. A seven-degree warming nearly equals the temperature difference between the end of the last ice age and the present (Singer 20). In that case, however, nature had 10,000 years to slowly adjust to the climate changes.

Stephen Schneider, head of the Interdisciplinary Climate Systems Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, states that a climate change of several degrees in just a century is at least 10 times, and perhaps 100 times, more rapid than an average natural change (Global 144). Mr. Schneider warns that a change this rapid would cause an incredible disruption to natural ecological systems, human agriculture, and water supplies. In some areas, he says, warmer temperatures would increase the rate of evaporation, leading to more droughts. At the same time, the melting of the polar ice cap would cause the world's oceans to rise, flooding the Earth's coastal areas where more than half the world's population lives (145).

Actually, I haven't seen Al gores film, but you still don't get it. I don't care if global warming can be proven or not. I do care that people think it's OK to pollute the planet. At least I'm not posting anonymously, Who are you?

Sure there are arguments but the evidence is compelling to me and to many others. The depletion of the ozone layer is an example of a similar problem. Changes were made in Freon and aeresol propellants as a result. Was that a complete solution? No, but it was a signficant positive step. The primary reason it was able to happen so quickly was it didn't make or take a significant economic impact such that it required a major change in the world's energy production and distribution infrastructure. In other words, the momentum (or maybe mass) to effect a change in direction was much less.

And what articles/papers are you basing your position on? Seems to me all you have done is yelled, in effect, "All of you are wrong because you're all to lazy to find the truthc and too ignorant to know any better! I on the other hand...."

Anyone posting on this thread should please give the relevant papers the person has written on the subject as well as what their expertise in the field of climatology.

So where are your papers and credentials then ?

The oil companies are not to blame. As another post suggested, they can only be held accountable for covering something up. A perfect example would be the tobacco companies hiding the research results and boosting the addictive ingredients to make sure people got hooked and stayed that way. The world is dependent on combustible fuels simply because they were readily available and easy to use. This started with the discovery of fire and has just progressed. If there were a naturally occurring mineral that absorbed energy from the sun or wind or geothermal sources and released it on demand all in a somewhat efficient manner then that would have been what the world would have eventually discovered and used and then the energy source the industrial world would have been built on.

Governments (politicians) have a responsibility discover/recognize/acknowledge problems, look ahead beyond the next election, and then to steer their respective nations toward a better solution. The development of cleaner burning fuels and more efficient engines is the first steps in migrating toward an optimal final solution. It can't and won't happen overnight or even in 10 years. There is too much infrastructure out there for that to happen. Now if something like cold fusion became a reality, (think "Back to the Future II" Doc Brown's car powered by a Mr. Fusion) then if could begin very quickly. Also, the oil companies know that the world will run out of oil in a relatively short time. You can bet any one of them would love to develop an efficient and safe technology to utilize a renewable energy source. You can bet they are trying, too.

These new technologies and alternative solutions come at a price that "the people" need to recognize. The use off ethanol is finally being introduced. This is not new. I remember when it was a topic of discussion after the '70s oil crunch. Gas went all the way up from 50 to 60 cents a gallon to $1.25! At that time it was stated that for ethanol to be cost competitive (based on current technology) the price of oil would have to be around $2.50 a gallon or so, and cars would have to be modified to utilize it. Now that was 1977 dollars so guess what, here we are and look at what is happening.

It seems that everyone loves to make fun of Al Gore, every since the Internet comment, (which was taken somewhat out of context), but his PowerPoint presentation on global warming is very well done and based on real science. How it can be ignored is beyond me.

Okay, I'm done now. Speaking of efficiency, I've got to get some billable work completed or I will not have a renewable source of income!

As to Al Gore....on the last thread

Anyone can make a power point presentation..IT IS THE FACTS..or should I say propaganda that you use to illustrate a point or thesis....AL's problem is that he "knows" that global warming is a "fact" in his mind...now he must use JUST THE "FACTS" THAT BACK UP HIS POINT/.....wonder why he did not bring up relivant "facts" from the con side?

WHY has there not been an OPEN forum debate with the major players in one room for as long as it takes...Televised DEBATING..

WHY... I believe that it would be a stailmate...NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE

Well, why don't we just stick our head in the sand and wait 50 years and see who was right? Sounds like a good plan to me.

Actually, your saying he knows it is a fact and he is backing it up with unsubtantiated data. Have you got real, verifiable information about how he came to be involved and form his opinion?

How about this possibility. He has looked at the data, decided it is a fact, or at least a very strong possibility, and put together a PowerPoint to illustrate the situation and drive the discussion.

The paper I read included both sides and at least some of it was used by Al.

Global warming is one issue that appears to me as happening, but carbon dioxide as its cause is to me something else. Can anyone suggest a lab experiment to demonstrate that carbon dioxide can do anything other than put out some fires and add fizz to beverages? Is there really a carbon dioxide layer in the upper atmosphere that reflects infrared radiation? If so, then we should be able to transmit infrared beyond the horizon in the absence of water vapor (we already know that water vapor clouds trap heat escape, especially noticable at night). Why does atmospheric carbon dioxide trap infrared from escaping into the vast heat sink of outer space while allowing solar infrared of the same wavelength from the sun to strike the Earth (ignore the short wave to long wave conversion in this consideration)? Can a layer of pure carbon dioxide between double pane windows provide more heat insulation than normal air? If most of the air in hot air balloons is carbon dioxide from fossil fuel, why can't an infrared transparent balloon stay up in the sunlight? Why does a comforter filled with carbon dioxide conduct my body heat into the air while a down filled and mostly nitrogen comforter physically restrains that heat transfer?

Here we go again bias and propaganda. The very real problem is the vastly expanding population of man kind. We are consuming greater amounts of energy, and putting ever more of the earths surface under tarmac and concrete, in effect making a bigger storage heater. The CO2 theory was invented in the eighties. It was a political move to suppress an industrial dispute between the mining union and the government here in the UK in the eighties. It has now become an industry. So commercial monetary factors prevail. CO2 is a relatively weak factor in any global warming. Water vapour is the greatest problem but this is ignored. Co2 is an emotive issue that can be used to promote the myth and sow the seeds of discord amongst the masses who get all worked up over it. Far too many people think they know about atmospheric dynamics but they have been ill informed by new vested interests. Industries now rely on the promotion of the corrupt data so as to profit from their latest brainchild. As has been noted back in the seventies an ice age was the latest thing to be discussed, after all we had some very cold weather in the forties, fifties, sixties, early seventies and the mid eighties. 1947, 52, 57, 63, 74, 81.

So it is warmer now. Things happen. Debate.

We are consuming greater amounts of energy, and putting ever more of the earths surface under tarmac and concrete,

There isn't much tarmac and concrete on the sea (yes I did pause to think how many rigs block sunlight , but excuse me if I don't bother factoring it ) , so 2/3 of the planet isn't much affected . In the UK , roads cover at most a couple of % , and buildings a few % more . It's Saturday , so I'm not rushing for the stats. Let me go wild and call it 3% of 1/3 planet = 1% of planet . Not a very efficient storage heater.

If you'd started on deforestation ,I might be open to some persuasion. As to the NUM/Thatcher situation I don't remember CO2 being mentioned much . She didn't like the power base of a large Union . The focus should have been on why it cost more to get coal from pit-head to doorstep , than it did to get the stuff out of the ground.

I will look back here in a few days Brainwave to see the inevitable avalanche of opinion on your premise . I suspect it will be larger than the ole in the ozone layer.

M. Thatcher was given a paper (un-published) that postulated that CO2 would cause global warming in years to come. She had a hammer with which to beat the unions with. She saw that oil prices were going up like an express elevator, and was in favour of nuclear generation. So any excuse for promoting her own views. yes she hated the unions and would use what ever she could to break them up. I suffered from her narrow mindedness. The fact that as you see it the amount of land being over taken by development is "relatively small" shows that the effect is a very powerful one. (I have my tin hat on). Who do you represent Oil, or political interests?

Why is it that when I watch F1 racing the track temp is looked at so closely?

It changes up and down very quickly and can change by several deg's cent' in a matter of min's, just because of passing clouds. I know that our drive way (Tarmac) stores loads of heat because I have to go out in the summer and cool it to prevent it adding to my discomfort at night. Go into any large city and note how much warmer it is even in winter. I could fill another several hours going on about it but you will know better.

The fact that as you see it the amount of land being over taken by development is "relatively small" shows that the effect is a very powerful one. (I have my tin hat on). Who do you represent Oil, or political interests?

I was really getting at the point that the amount of land concreted over etc is hard to determine. Lots of people with different agendas publish stats (to suit there own purpose ) , though I would say that a single digit figure is agreed on by all I've seen . Given that Europe is high density , the global figure is smaller (so I don't think the physical existence of roads etc is significant ) . Pollutants etc is a different matter.I don't accept that the UK coal industry fell because of co2 . It's death affected me directly too , so I'm no Thatcher fan (for a lot of other reasons too ). For the record , I represent nobody and I am pro nuclear ( as the least worse option for now ). I accept you opinion that cities hold heat as true, but that is not the complete picture of daily heat cycle. Dig deep enough and temperature is constant , buildings/roads acting as a thermal capacitor is not the issue with global warming.

Ok lets not fall out over this one. We agree to differ a bit but there again we agree on a lot/ All the very best and as for M. Thatcher the sooner we hear of her passing on the better. She caused my four redundancies. I expect come the passing of the next ten years or so we will look back and say it was good while it lasted as we clamber over the ice sheet.

I'll smile on that BrainWave (except I don't know which side of my house to build a dam - North for the ice or south for the for the impending flood that the Environment Agency keep mailing me about ). In 10 years I'll eat humble pie (frozen or fried ) if I have to .Your cool BW

I'm not to sure of your location I'm in the south west midlands SW of B'ham 18 miles approx. No cause for alarm with flooding not to sure about the ice.

Etherville is white cliffs area ( hence my bafflement about being warned of flooding by the EA . I know they use Postcodes , but seriously - how on earth ! Perhaps 'flooding' means my house will drop in the sea. Somebody low down is in trouble , because the government spent all the budget telling others who are safe to worry.

Two inconvenient truths for those who want to blame "global warming" on human activity:

(1) Greenland -research its history

(2) The Angles,Saxons and other tribes migrated to England in the Middle Ages to escape the rising sea levels in their native lands.

Get over it folks, in the geologic scheme of things, we ain't that mportant

Don't forget that there's at least a thirty year global warming trend on Mars too!

Despite the media hype (which, alone, should make you question whether this is really scientists' way), the science isn't so unequivocal.

I recently saw a very interesting British documentary (sorry I can't find the link) that raised some inconvenient truths about this whole flap.

I missed a documentary last night about global warming called 'global darkening' . A new phrase to me , but if you want to sell something , keep adjusting and re-naming

(as in win XX , win XX .........)

It was a Channel 4 production just a few weeks back 8th of March.

The Great Global Warming Swindle. How's that for a mine of interesting info.

It's a bit remiss of them not to say the one I missed was a repeat. Now I'm too late to do anything about it.. Good thing it wasn't a premium rate phone contest.

I don't have the answer to these questions but maybe someone here does. What is the saturation point of CO and CO₂ in the earths atmosphere and what were the highest levels found in Arctic ice? I think if these questions can be answered then we would have a point of reference to start from when talking about Global warming/cooling as it pertains to CO₂ .

I'll get back to you on those. My encyclopedia of knowledge is in full use right now.

What do you mean "saturation point?" There can't be an actual saturation point since this isn't like carbon dissolved in solution with possibility of precipitation or something.

But one thing that's sobering is to look at the actual fluctuations in the percentage of CO and CO2 in the atmosphere. The real numbers are actually tiny compared to the hysteria. Add to that the equivocal aspect...along with some research that indicates that higher levels of CO2 actually corresponded to Ice Ages... We're not all together on this.

Scientists are a careful, deep-breathing lot. They're not the ones who're blabbing and shouting and making policies based on the drop of mouth-breathing sputum.

Remember, it wasn't so long ago that many of the same actors were warning of the coming Ice Age, along with all the terrors that would bring.

Then again, I remember when Democrats were asking for extra taxes on gasoline to make USA prices comparable to those in Europe...and when prices did start to rise, some of the very same people wanted to tap the strategic oil reserves to help people out with the terrible injustice of high gasoline prices.

I hate politics.

What do you mean "saturation point?" There can't be an actual saturation point since this isn't like carbon dissolved in solution with possibility of precipitation or something.

It was a term I heard used not too long ago by a climatologist on the Discovery channel in reference to CO₂ but I didn't catch the whole story.

It was a term I heard used not too long ago by a climatologist on the Discovery channel in reference to CO₂ but I didn't catch the whole story.

The sentence may be self explanatory. (discovery Chanel ≠ whole story )

True but then who has it? I doubt Al Gore's (a man that claims credit for the creation of the internet) inconvenient video is the whole truth.

Good point . With the internet , everybody can express their version of any given story - the facts get buried in deluge of opinion and 'truth' becomes some sort of majority opinion . Spooky . More is not better , perhaps (?). Being a cynic , Id say certain Corporations are much pleased about that - no need for expensive lobbyists , just seed the internet as they like.

An oil company with a guilty conscience that headline news but never made over here. Too many other guilty secrets coming out.

Sadly, here in the USA, or in any other nation with democratic election of leaders, there's nobody but voters to blame for anything.

Corporations are government entities (created to avoid free-market accountability and competition, and our founders warned us about this!), and lobbyists are actually dirt cheap as investments go...

If we want things to change, we need to change the way we vote. Democrats = Republicans = Big Government = Special Perks for Special People.

This inconvenient truth is essentiall human history as old as Adam.

Last thing I heard it was only the rich who bothered to vote the poor man just gets crapped on who ever gets in. Demorcrats or Republicans it's all about power for the few rich people who inturn exploit the poor to get even richer. To many of those at the bottom of the heap voting is a waste of time.

STUDY DETAILS DISTRIBUTION, IMPACTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE WORLD OCEANS Linked to NOAA research paper.