Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday September 17 2021, @02:17AM   Printer-friendly

Vermont sues oil companies for allegedly falsifying climate info:

Vermont on Tuesday became the latest state to sue some of the country's top fossil fuel companies by alleging they misled the public about the impact their products have on climate change.

The state wants the companies to tell consumers that the use of fossil fuel products harms the environment, Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan said after the lawsuit was filed in Vermont Superior Court in Burlington.

The warnings could be similar to those noting the danger of tobacco products or food products that include nutritional and calorie information, he said.

Donovan, speaking outside the Chittenden County courthouse in downtown Burlington where the lawsuit was filed, said they are not trying to prevent the companies from selling their products in the state and that Vermonters will continue to be able to use fossil fuels.

"What we are saying is that Vermonters have the right to know," Donovan said. "Give Vermonters accurate information. Put a label on the product and let Vermonters decide."

The suit names ExxonMobil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, Sunoco LP, CITGO Petroleum Corporation and other corporations.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:24AM (19 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @02:24AM (#1178473)

    I'm a big fluffy libby greenie, but it seems retarded going after the companies for this. They didn't burn the gas. If they didn't get the gas for us to burn, you really think we'd all be riding bicycles instead? No, somebody else would get the gas. Probably Chinese, and we'd blame them for all the toxic mining they do (while consuming the product nom nom nom).

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:29AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:29AM (#1178510)

      Always believe the person telling you up front "who they are"

      Why did the energy sector fund scientists to downplay their affect on the clinate?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:52AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:52AM (#1178521)

        Why don't you tell us. Also tell us who burnt the gas.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @07:11AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @07:11AM (#1178542)

          Maybe it means that a real libby greenie would know what the oil companies have done to downplay their environmental destruction and not play interference for them. Maybe if we all collectively stopped eating avocado toast . . . GENIUS!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:31PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:31PM (#1178658)

            Maybe you could fucking tell us instead of running around in circles hoping we cave in to your ad homo attacks? Put up or fuck off.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @06:53PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @06:53PM (#1178768)

              Whatever you say homophobe! Try dealing with those feelings instead of running around like an evangelical with a fit of the devilry.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @12:11PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @12:11PM (#1178595) Journal

        Why did the energy sector fund scientists to downplay their affect on the clinate?

        Funny how I keep hearing that accusation over and over again with zero evidence. Said energy sector can afford to throw tens of billions of dollars per year at said downplaying. So where is it?

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 17 2021, @05:29PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 17 2021, @05:29PM (#1178720) Journal

          The evidence will be presented at the various trials.

          But if you want a sneak peak at what they will be presenting start here:

          Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago - A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation [scientificamerican.com]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:09AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:09AM (#1179043) Journal

            The evidence will be presented at the various trials.

            Why hasn't "the evidence" been presented yet?

            But if you want a sneak peak at what they will be presenting start here:

            What's telling is how flimsy that story is. Starting with:

            Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

            Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

            Notice the incredibly weaselly phrase "aware of climate change". I, for example, am similarly aware of climate change today. But I'm also aware of the huge hysteria and grossly distorted narratives surrounding climate change as well. Does that mean that my awareness should be actionable in some future Nuremberg-style trial?

            What's missing from the breathless narrative is a lack of reason that Exxon's awareness of climate change should have translated into some sort of due diligence issue. They didn't find much when they looked. Basically, it reduced to the conclusion that climate change could be a big problem in the future - pretty much the same as what climate researchers have discovered through today.

            Pay attention to the next paragraph:

            In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.

            Until you get to the "time window of five to 10 years", you have absolutely nothing actionable. And when you do get to that last part, well, it turned out very wrong. There was no such window. We still aren't near any such window! Exxon didn't need to act, contrary to the narrative. Basically, this whole case is being made on ridiculously flimsy grounds, including a hysterical warning that expired more than 30 years ago!

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday September 17 2021, @06:29AM (5 children)

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday September 17 2021, @06:29AM (#1178527)

      while it is true that the Oil companies didn't burn the fuel directly they did;

      fail to release, and in most cases suppressed, reports that they themselves had conducted the showed that Global climate change was being caused by using their product and warned about future harm to the public.

      fund public relations campaigns undermining accredited and peer reviewed studies citing the changes in the climate and burning fossil fuels as its cause and to discredit and smear anyone who sought to warn the world about global warming. The fact that there is still any argument about AGW today is a testament to their actions.

      actively lobbied against California's zero emission law back in the mid 1990's and continues to lobby against any measures to limit or reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

      purchase controlling interest in the leading Lithium Ion battery company of the time and then discontinued their research into better batteries for cars setting the electric car back by a decade at least, possibly two. (watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" for more info on this part and the one above)

      and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

      So yeah, the oil companies are in part responsible for the current mess. The thing to remember about Civil suits is they are not binary, guilty/not guilty, yes/no, black/white. They are about degrees of responsibility. Ford got into a lot of trouble when it was revealed that an internal company report warned of the Pinto's tendency to explode when rear ended. Ford made the choice to bury the report with the board of directors deciding that a few lawsuits would be cheaper than a recall. They were wrong.

      The oil companies have carried out actions that resulted in harm to the environment, both directly and indirectly. Now it will be up to a judge and/or Jury to decide how much of the total blame can be put at the door step of the oils companies and what price to put on that harm.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @12:49PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @12:49PM (#1178598) Journal

        fail to release, and in most cases suppressed, reports that they themselves had conducted the showed that Global climate change was being caused by using their product and warned about future harm to the public.

        What harm and what climate change? Last I heard, that research (by Exxon right?) boiled down to finding that there was some measurable global warming and it was considered likely that fossil fuel use had contributed to it. No real harm was found at the time and nothing was found that warranted a warning, contrary to narrative.

        fund public relations campaigns undermining accredited and peer reviewed studies citing the changes in the climate and burning fossil fuels as its cause and to discredit and smear anyone who sought to warn the world about global warming. The fact that there is still any argument about AGW today is a testament to their actions.

        You have a real world example?

        There is argument about AGW IMHO because there is a great deal of dishonesty and terrible reasoning among the proponents for mitigation. For a glaring example, there is the false certainty about what should be done even though climate sensitivity remains unknown to a huge degree and harm from global warming is greatly exaggerated. Adaptation in particular is studiously ignored. Another related example is deciding that a mere 1.5 C increase in global temperature is so bad that we have to do a hard stop to greenhouse gases emissions right now (within a few decades). Well, where's the evidence for that?

        actively lobbied against California's zero emission law back in the mid 1990's and continues to lobby against any measures to limit or reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

        Why shouldn't oil companies lobby against that zero emission law? Let us note that California has demonstrated time and again, that they don't have a clue about energy policy - such as halting the construction of new (and safer/less polluting) refineries and most energy generation for decades (as well as multiple resource crises). This law is just more of the same. I think that lobbying against bad law shouldn't inherently be considered immoral or illegal.

        purchase controlling interest in the leading Lithium Ion battery company of the time and then discontinued their research into better batteries for cars setting the electric car back by a decade at least, possibly two. (watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" for more info on this part and the one above)

        Last I heard, Exxon, the company that actually did this, gave it an honest try, and just didn't come up with a viable product.

        and those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head.

        There just isn't much to this story, is there? It's 1984-style garbage. Rather than come up with a sound argument for why climate change is bad and we should do a particular something about it, the narrative is rooting out imaginary Emanuel Goldsteins and doing two minute hates. That gets me back to the key problem here. So much of the climate change argument relies on decades of anti-intellectual garbage - the worst sort of fallacies and propaganda, and strange blinkered thinking (like 1.5 C of warming is so bad that we can't think about how to live in such a world).

        My take is that we've already past peak climate change. They had decades to prove their stuff and to scare the rubes. There aren't any more willing converts. Now, they're reduced to theatrical witch hunts and other bizarre acts of irrationality. My proposed solution? Come back to grown up discourse. They failed, they need to do the honest, rational route now.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:22PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:22PM (#1178654)

          For a glaring example, there is the false certainty about what should be done even though climate sensitivity remains unknown to a huge degree and harm from global warming is greatly exaggerated. Adaptation in particular is studiously ignored.

          That is a lie. There's plenty of research about how to adapt to various levels of warming. It just doesn't fit your narrative.

          Besides, there are plenty of studies showing that mitigation is actually much cheaper than adaptation, particularly as the warming becomes more severe. Why should we have to spend far more money in the long term just so we can protect the business model of oil companies in the short term?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @05:23PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @05:23PM (#1178716) Journal
            I think this warrants a longer reply than I presently have time for. A key problem here is that you're arguing quantity not quality. "Plenty of" is not evidence.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:02AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:02AM (#1179006) Journal

            That is a lie. There's plenty of research about how to adapt to various levels of warming. It just doesn't fit your narrative.

            What's missing from your accusation is that there's plenty of evidence outside of that plenty of research that indicates otherwise. For example, key costs are simply moving out of harms way or to better land. The US, for example, has a lot of experience with moving people around. Last I checked, the US moving industry moves enough people that they move the population of the US every eight years. Even if we completely ignoring the corresponding moving industries of the rest of the world, that means the US alone has the infrastructure, already in place, to routinely move the entire world every 200 or so years. That would be more than ample enough to move affected populations over the long times of climate change.

            Another piece of evidence that there’s something wrong with your narrative is the valuation of damage from sea level rise. Basically, that “plenty of research” values existing real estate at its present value plus some growth in value. Harm is thus the land that would be flooded by the claimed amount of sea level rise plus whatever is now threatened by storm surges and such.

            Well, the problem with that is twofold. First, real estate is a depreciating asset and requires considerable resources just to maintain or replace (with maintenance costs increasing as the property ages). If it gets flooded out, then that cost is no longer paid. Second, as noted above people move and the average person or organization will move several times before climate change-related sea level rise is a serious threat to existing real estate. Some real estate would become near valueless due to sea level rise, but higher level land becomes more valuable. The alleged harm from destruction of real estate is thus greatly exaggerated since most of the value of real estate shifts rather than is destroyed.

            Then there’s the narrative of degrading farmland, again a greatly exaggerated danger. With proper management of top soil, water, and other resources it’s a non-issue (you won’t be able to fix agriculture without doing something about the bigger problems than climate change!). Just grow what grows well a few hundred kilometers closer to the equator.

            Ocean warming and acidification? Help reefs and organisms adapt. I’d start with the bigger problems than climate change first, such as overfishing.

            The big thing to remember with all that “plenty of research” is that the mistakes made are always in the same direction, in favor of the same ideology. And when corrections are made, the narrative never changes. That’s not science, that’s not sound environmental policy. It’s hysteria and it’s a shame you’re part of it.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bussdriver on Friday September 17 2021, @05:05PM

        by bussdriver (6876) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @05:05PM (#1178706)

        They also bought into NiMH battery tech and then prohibited patents they owned from being used in anything larger than a toy... Electric cars could have begun before Lithium Ions took off... and the demand could have fueled progress; pun intended.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by shazam on Friday September 17 2021, @03:19PM (2 children)

      by shazam (15376) on Friday September 17 2021, @03:19PM (#1178651)

      We burned the gas. All of us. We are responsible. We benefitted from unlocking the energy in fossil fuels. And now we need to pay the debt. During the 20th century civilization made tremendous advancements, and almost everything you own would not exist without fossil fuels. This website wouldn't exist. For the last 30 years, almost everyone has known what the cost of their lifestyle is. There is a collective blame. Stomp your feet and point fingers if you want, but realistically speaking, we either pay our debt and clean up this mess, or its all over.

      By all means, sue away. Sue the oil companies and raise the cost of fossil fuels. We have alternatives now. But understand, the developed nations of the world are going to need to clean this shit up.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:34PM (#1178661)

        Next up we can sue the gun manufacturers for all wars. Those bastards knew guns kill people and did nothing to make them safer. *INDIGNANT*

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:11AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:11AM (#1179045) Journal

        And now we need to pay the debt.

        I've been paying for many decades by making the world a better place. What are you doing?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 17 2021, @05:36PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 17 2021, @05:36PM (#1178724) Journal

      They didn't burn the gas.

      We're going after them for FRAUD, not for burning the gas. Lying about the product you are selling is illegal all by itself.

      Not sure why some Joe Schmoe driving a car to work means they get to commit fraud.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:14PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:14PM (#1179184) Journal

        We're going after them for FRAUD, not for burning the gas. Lying about the product you are selling is illegal all by itself.

        Notice the dogmatic viewpoint of this narrative. Exxon performed a study, thus, they must be hiding the Terrible Things We Know about climate change, but not from any real world study we did either. This narrative breaks down when we actually look [soylentnews.org] at the evidence rather than merely assume that anyone who does climate research will automagically come to the same hysterical conclusions as the narrative.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:20AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:20AM (#1178486)

    This could be like California and their "Everything causes Cancer!" warnings.

    Drive a car? -> bad for the environment.
    Drive an electric car? -> causes some energy that would have been reflected back to space to be saved on earth, bad for the environment.
    Uses plastic? -> result of the fossil-fuel industry, bad for the environment.
    You farted? -> methane is bad for the environment.

    Another California in the making..

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:46AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:46AM (#1178493)

      WTF are you talking about?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:05AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:05AM (#1178500)

        Breathing causes brain cancer. He did it for too long.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday September 17 2021, @04:23PM (3 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @04:23PM (#1178680) Journal

          Not very many SN articles back, wasn't breathing pure pressurized oxygen a treatment for Alzheimers? I can't remember.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday September 17 2021, @05:01PM (2 children)

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Friday September 17 2021, @05:01PM (#1178703) Homepage Journal

            I don't remember that. but I do remember that pure oxygen will cure a hangover.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday September 17 2021, @05:31PM (1 child)

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @05:31PM (#1178721) Journal

              Maybe it's the effects of programming in Java kicking in.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:13AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:13AM (#1179014)

                If you keep at it long enough, your brain will turn into a stack machine. Just imagine what fun that will be!

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:13AM (#1178505)

      This could be like California and their ...

      Los Angeles County votes to phase out oil and gas drilling [apnews.com]

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday September 17 2021, @07:36AM (5 children)

      by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday September 17 2021, @07:36AM (#1178546)

      maybe if the oil companies hadn't undermined California's zero emissions laws back in the mid 1990's the electric car would have been 20 years ahead of where it is today.

      And since CA tend to be the leader in the environmental protection laws with other states follow their lead the USA wouldn't be complaining about meeting the Paris Climate Accords, they would have already met them 10 years ago.

      CA might seem like a bunch of wacky tree huggers but its thanks to those emission regulations that they passed over the years that there is less smog in all US cities.

      They do tend to take things to the extreme from time to time though.

      --
      "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @09:16AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @09:16AM (#1178555)

        Oh right, electric cars with lead batteries. Sure.

        • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday September 17 2021, @10:59PM

          by deimtee (3272) on Friday September 17 2021, @10:59PM (#1178948) Journal

          Not lead. Commuter vehicles with NiCad or NiMH were a real possibility that they stamped on pretty heavily.

          --
          If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:37PM (#1178664)

        So.... the evil fuel companies can't force us to breathe smog, but they can force us to turn the earth into a greenhouse. You see the bent logic here? WE fixed the smog problem by voting and by politics. WE need to fix CO2 emissions the same way.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday September 17 2021, @04:26PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @04:26PM (#1178683) Journal

        other states follow their lead the USA wouldn't be complaining about meeting the Paris Climate Accords, they would have already met them 10 years ago.

        If we didn't have Trump we would be four years further ahead on Paris Climate Accords.

        Just sayin'

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:16PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:16PM (#1179185) Journal

        maybe if the oil companies hadn't undermined California's zero emissions laws back in the mid 1990's the electric car would have been 20 years ahead of where it is today.

        More likely would be that California would be a few years closer to its eventual bankruptcy. Zero emission laws remain stupid today.

  • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:07AM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:07AM (#1178502)

    Let them explain to the jury how cold weather is not climate but hot weather totally is; how CO2 is a greenhouse gas but H2O totally isn't; how all the past warmings had been totally manmade, retroactively; how bad fossil fuel turns nice and green when pumped into billionaire's private jet; and so on and so forth.
    If the companies choose to fight back in such a way, this could become the shitshow of the century.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:51AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:51AM (#1178575)

      Of course H2O isn't a greenhoouse gass.... it is a Liquid you uninformed FUD sliging troll

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:11PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:11PM (#1178911)

        ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        You made my day greenie!

        You totally need be put into a museum as a reference specimen of new parasitic species Homo unsapient

        For you, with many thanks for the hilarity: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20 2021, @03:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20 2021, @03:17PM (#1179685)

        I'm going to assume that you posted this in ignorance. So let me help you.

        When you watch a weather report, and the presenter talks about humidity, that refers to the amount of water vapour in the air. The dewpoint is the temperature at which the air's capacity to carry all that water is reduced to less than the amount actually present, and the water starts to precipitate out (as dew, rain, clouds and so on).

        Basically, all air in the troposphere (and a bunch more above it) contains water, and that water is actually quite significant as a greenhouse gas. (When it precipitates as clouds, that has additional, more complex effects depending on questions like day/night, latitude, altitude, density and so on.)

        So yeah, sorry to rain on your parade. H2O is quite a significant greenhouse gas.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:07PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @03:07PM (#1178643)

      One can hope Vermont's lawsuit reveals how much money oil companies are paying shills like you to spread misinformation.

      1) There are far more record highs being set than record lows. Global average temperatures set record highs year after year. We don't talk much about record lows because they're rather infrequent these days.

      2) CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere on the order of a century. H2O has a residence time of a few days. H2O may have a role in positive feedbacks, but we talk about CO2 and CH4 because they have much longer residence times than H2O.

      3) No shit, climate has changed in the past without human activity. That does nothing to disprove that humans are causing the warming over the past few decades. It's a non-sequitur.

      4) If anything, there has been discussion that professional conferences about climate change should be virtual because of the impact air travel has on the environment. The hypocrisy of the ultra-rich does not disprove the science.

      In science, we test hypotheses to either support or refute theories. Do you have any evidence from experiments to share that would disprove that humans are causing the Earth to warm? You haven't done so yet.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:06PM (#1178907)

        Do you not fear that information on who hires the shills like YOU through what intermediary will be unearthed instead? Do you pay taxes from your 30 shekels?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:21PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @01:21PM (#1179186) Journal

        The hypocrisy of the ultra-rich does not disprove the science.

        Except to exclude them as evidence for conclusions that go beyond science. If you're making a case for AGW, that's on pretty firm ground. If you're making a case for drastic fossil fuel use in the near future, then that's some mix of an economics and moral argument, not just a scientific one. And people are notorious for saying false things. Hypocrisy such as this can illuminate such cases.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20 2021, @03:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20 2021, @03:22PM (#1179686)

        "In science, we test hypotheses to either support or refute theories. Do you have any evidence from experiments to share that would disprove that humans are causing the Earth to warm? You haven't done so yet."

        While we're asking questions, let me ask a few more.

        What is the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide content and the forcing induced by it? Strictly linear? If it's not linear, what are the incremental costs involved in adhering to particular goals, both in terms of atmospheric concentration and forcing factors? What degree of heating justifies what degree of avoidance of fossil fuels, and how do you reach that equation? How can you compel compliance from other nations, and what happens if they refuse to comply?

        I have more questions, but these would be a fine start.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:07AM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:07AM (#1178503)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:12AM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:12AM (#1178504)

      It is somewhat of a prerequisite... unless you want them to give you gas to burn in your vehicle out of the goodness of their hearts?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:16AM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:16AM (#1178506)

        What in the "guaranteed profit" you fail to understand? Maybe the "guaranteed" part is creating troubles for your intellect?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:22AM (13 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:22AM (#1178508)

          So you're saying people aren't really buying gas for their SUVs? It's a payola scam. I see. (NURSE!!!)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:29AM (12 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:29AM (#1178511)

            So are you saying the goverments ought to give them money and make them more profitable than they already are?

            • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:37AM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @04:37AM (#1178512)

              Now that government printed some $trillions and gave them to Big Data, Big Pharma and Big Finance, what are your reasons why Big Oil should be left out?

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:02AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:02AM (#1178515)

                Whatabout whataboutism?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:15PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:15PM (#1178914)

                  What about the bills and the prices?

                  I quite doubt your employer will be raising your shill pay to beat the accelerating inflation. You are not protected from this, even if now you delude yourself that you are.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:15AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:15AM (#1178516)

                Unless you think it's normal, letting all out needs to start somewhere. Why not with them?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:20PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @10:20PM (#1178919)

                  They are the real economy. You and I are surviving because of them.

                  WHEN the heating and the eating shoots up say 100%, will your righteousness be sellable, to compensate for that?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 19 2021, @03:55AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 19 2021, @03:55AM (#1179353) Journal

                Now that government printed some $trillions and gave them to Big Data, Big Pharma and Big Finance, what are your reasons why Big Oil should be left out?

                Because the others should be left out too. I'm fine with not a one of them getting a public dime. You have to start somewhere. I see a further complaint below:

                They are the real economy. You and I are surviving because of them.

                WHEN the heating and the eating shoots up say 100%, will your righteousness be sellable, to compensate for that?

                Or well, people could just pay 100% more for heating and eating. Assuming that actually is something that could happen. I think you make a poor case for that being a real problem.

                My experience has been that it works oppositely with these sums of money actually making things more expensive rather than less. Just look at US education and health care for glaring examples of that.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:57AM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @05:57AM (#1178522)

              > So are you saying the goverments ought to give them money and make them more profitable than they already are?

              Fair point. Do you think We The People are ready to see the true cost of burning a billion years' worth of trees in 100 years?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:13AM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @03:13AM (#1179047) Journal

                Do you think We The People are ready to see the true cost of burning a billion years' worth of trees in 100 years?

                Absolutely yes. The real question here: are you ready to see the true value of improving peoples' lives for a whole century?

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 19 2021, @03:20AM (3 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday September 19 2021, @03:20AM (#1179346) Journal

                  Way to completely miss the point: it's not sustainable and the crash that will follow it if we don't have renewables up and running is going to be of Biblical proportions.

                  This seems to be your golden idol, this little narrativium nugget of yours. It's also divorced from reality and consequences, and is not making the point you think it's making. You've also broken cover a few too many times as to what your actual beliefs are...

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday September 19 2021, @03:47AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 19 2021, @03:47AM (#1179350) Journal

                    Way to completely miss the point: it's not sustainable and the crash that will follow it if we don't have renewables up and running is going to be of Biblical proportions.

                    We're already partway through the "crash". Yet another way the world doesn't suck as much as you want it to.

                    This seems to be your golden idol, this little narrativium nugget of yours. It's also divorced from reality and consequences, and is not making the point you think it's making. You've also broken cover a few too many times as to what your actual beliefs are...

                    The key weasel word is "seems". Since your narrative has no basis in reality, it doesn't matter what things "seem" like to your narrative. And I find it telling how after all this time, you're still looking for "broken cover" rather than discussing these subjects in adult terms.

                    Truth remains an absolute defense against imaginary hypocrisy.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 19 2021, @08:43PM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 19 2021, @08:43PM (#1179516)

                      Still spouting pro-oil propaganda khallow? Awesome, you're my rock bro never change!

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 20 2021, @12:11AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 20 2021, @12:11AM (#1179544) Journal
                        Propaganda eh?

                        Way to completely miss the point: it's not sustainable and the crash that will follow it if we don't have renewables up and running is going to be of Biblical proportions.

                        We're already partway through the "crash".

                        So where does that fit in pro-oil propaganda? Or is merely everything you disagree with oil propaganda?

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Friday September 17 2021, @05:41AM (5 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday September 17 2021, @05:41AM (#1178520) Journal

    Shut the fuck up, khallow!

    Oh, he's not here, yet? Well, in anticipation, then.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @12:52PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @12:52PM (#1178600) Journal
      Hi! Too bad I missed your advice before posting several thoughtful replies elsewhere (I grant that this post isn't one of them). Well, better luck next time!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @06:58PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @06:58PM (#1178775)

        Yes I saw your classic apoligia, sickening but expected. Looks like thoughtful doesn't necessarily mean useful.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 17 2021, @08:03PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 17 2021, @08:03PM (#1178826) Journal
          Unfortunately, truth remains an absolute defense against sickened readers. Maybe some day emotion will triumph over reality. Until then, my words will continue to leave that sting.
          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday September 18 2021, @12:16AM (1 child)

            by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday September 18 2021, @12:16AM (#1178977) Journal

            Lies do not become you, khallow! Come back to the Light Side! Leave your dark master! Congressional hearing are being convened.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:55AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 18 2021, @02:55AM (#1179037) Journal

              Lies do not become you, khallow!

              Physician, heal thyself [soylentnews.org]. As I've said before, if you ever wish to engage in honest, thoughtful discussion, I'll be here for you.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 17 2021, @11:39AM (#1178584)

    Until you shut down factory of Zionists Ben & Jerry, you can't complain about inaccurate information.

(1)