Oil companies declare that CO2 is green

Some stupidity is just too good not to share. You only need half a second with this new US television advert to guess who’s behind it.

The Guardian has a great article on the video, who’s behind it and why it is so ripe for a spoof. I’m tempted to do one myself!

In a slick attempt to undermine the US Environmental Protection Agency’s recent ruling that CO2 should now be classified as a pollutant because rising levels of the gas in the atmosphere will “endanger public health or welfare”, a former oil industry executive has stumped up some of his cash to pay for these adverts to be shown in Montana and New Mexico. The ultimate aim of the advert, though, is to derail the forthcoming vote in the Senate on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which now appears as if it might even impact on vital UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December.

In not so plain English? It’s a simple case of political brinksmanship.

Dear Big oil,

If you kill our climate change bill, we’ll act on the EPA’s declaration of CO2 as a pollutant and achieve the same aims of the ETS through regulation.



Dear Barack,

We’ve got more money than you.


Big oil

I look forward to the outcome of this particular battle. Rumour has it that the Senate version of the climate bill is even tougher than the one that went through the House. We’ll find out over night.

30 Comments Posted

  1. bjchip,

    Re your link to that Guardian piece by Steven Rahmstorf.

    Rahmstorf’s claims (and all the credulous headlines that automatically go with them) are based on his attempts at statistical analysis, for which he appears to have no qualifications whatsover (yes, like Mann’s Hockeystick.)

    – “The only plausible reason that I can come up with for binning the 120 data points into 24 bins is because the resulting 24 points looked like they could conceivably be fit to a line without failing the laugh test…The full set of 120 data points also make it clear that when the temperature remains constant the sea level rise rate drops, in direct contradiction of one of Rahmstorf’s own working assumptions…I believe that Rahmstorf deliberately presented his data in a way calculated to deceive”

    “When asked by UC (a highly competent academic statistician) where the file could be located, Rahmstorf, following GARP procedures, broke off communications……The “new” method had extracted a bigger uptick at the end than they had got using Mannian smoothing. No wonder Rahmstorf grabbed the method. Looking at the details of the caption, the uptick almost certainly arises simply from a difference in filter length.”

    He just doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing, statistically. So why should we pay any attention to his headline-grabbing claims?

  2. I have seen the claciers recede. What more can I say?

    Perhaps start by saying where the water went. Sea levels haven’t risen, as judged by the high water mark on the local boat ramp in the Manukau Harbour.

  3. Well said Bj:Just to expand on what I have observed mysalf about global warming; From my lounge window in Lake Coleridge I have a view of the alps including the main divide.

    I have seen the claciers recede. What more can I say?

  4. Increased atmospheric CO2 leads to increased ocean CO2 and acidification, which is definitely not good for coral reefs and other marine life.


  5. I am getting sick of all this back and forth political crap. It seems to me that no one really wants to dig down and determine the actual impact of CO2. The video posted here is just silly. Increasing levels of CO2 whether they are contributing to Global Warming/Climate Change or not they are surely not good for animals. You can make an argument that higher levels of CO2 would benefit plant life, but at the rate of the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere it will soon be closing in on bringing the percentage to a level that would be undoubtably bad for animals.

  6. I don’t know for certain what is going on with Briffa, but I do know that if you are trying choose a proxy, you choose one that actually matches the data you have during the periods you actually have measurements for. That much has nothing to do with lying or fraud. Moreover, MacIntyre explicitly includes proxies that do NOT match the period we know of and can measure. This is… not good science. Good statistics, bad science.

    The fact that MacIntyre et.al. and Mann et.al. have been almost unbelievably rude to each other may have something to do with it at this point. I don’t know where it started, but it has been personal between them for years. I doubt that either would be willing to bury the hatchet, except in the other’s skull.

    I also know that the only thing that this realistically affects is the ability to work out how warm the medieval warm period managed to get, and the only thing that ALL of the smoke and heat can do is put a larger bunch of error bars on this information.

    So I don’t get real excited about any of it. The kids are fighting on the playground again. They’ve been hitting each other with tree stumps for years now, and the problem is that proxies like that respond to all manner of things, not just temperature.

    I basically just do not worry myself about it. The MWP was IMHO, warm. Might even have been warmer than it was yesterday…or not.

    What we do know is that whatever its causes several things ARE true.

    The first is that there isn’t a cause other than CO2 in evidence at present.

    The sun hasn’t gotten significantly hotter.

    There’s no evidence of changes in cosmic rays or insolation.

    The CO2 presents a theoretical requirement for a certain amount of warming,

    The CO2 is rising 50 times faster than it evidently has EVER risen in any measured core.

    The CO2 is higher now than it has been in several million years.

    I could go on… enough is enough.


    So we can be pretty sure that whatever DID warm things up in the MWP, it wasn’t the same thing as is warming things up now.

    Whether Briffa did something odd with his selection or not I can’t say. I am pretty confident that MacIntyre has made some real contributions to the accuracy of this particular set of studies… and some UNQUESTIONABLE contributions to the tone of incivility that attends the debate.

    He seems to forget sometimes, that the goal is to accurately figure out what happened, not to make sure all the trees get counted. That there are other things besides warming affecting the trees.

    Nobody in this play respects one another anymore. Makes me rather unhappy to see it, but Wat and GWD are perfect examples of the insulting way MacIntyre treats with the scientists… and it is not surprising if the cooperation with him has deteriorated under the strain of that incessant bombardment of insult.

    For my part I don’t think it is just MacIntyre. I think Mann et.al. have gotten their own knickers in a twist about this stuff, and though they are relatively polite in public, they’re just plain p!ssed. Just as MacIntyre is.

    ….and it is all about a tiny tiny piece of the puzzle. Not relevant in the grand scheme of things.

    A pox on both their houses.


  7. I have been looking at some of the blogs that Wat has posted and there may very well be a few cheats fiddling the data maybe on both sides of the debate.

    Granted the British met office should have shared the data with Mc Intyre to check Mr. Briffa’s data.

    BUT one fact is so glaringly obvious that ships can navigate the North West Passage without any problems with icebergs. In 1978 the NW passage was unnavigatable.
    The ice in the polar reageons are melting at an alarming rate and the Ross ice shelf has been breaking off into the sea at an unprecedented rate.

    These are obvious laymans observations, like the little boy who notices that the king has no cloths

  8. – Dog registration would be optional, but sadistic treatment of animals would be a crime.

    I thought for Libs animals had no rights? Why would sadistic treatment be a crime?

  9. LOL

    I have to laugh, because it’s laughable.

    It’s a shame there will be so many people who don’t understand the back story and seriously contact their Senator.

  10. Only in America!!
    Hey they also just allowed people with a carry permit for a concealed weapon to go to bars and drink in Arizona!!

  11. One quick one for LibertyScott.

    This move IS clearly a political one, in terms of making sure that there is a way for the Executive branch to overcome possible minority obstructions in the Senate.

    It has nothing to do with the actual science. The OP was very clear about this.

    I don’t think half the people who claim to be Libertarians actually have a clue about what they are claiming. Glad to see YOU… ‘Cept I really really have to go for a while.


  12. I see that since I don’t have the time to respond to any of this cr@p right now the trolls are having a field day.

    I have to hit and run.

    IF you seriously think that tree-rings are the whole basis of the science of AGW you are not thinking at all.

    I’ll be back in a day or two, workload permitting.


  13. You are right it would be laughable if there werent some people who actually believe or force themselves to believe this crap. Scary World we live in.

  14. SPC I haven’t been conditioned to think anything. I’ve only met libertarianism through guest appearances such as yours. Thanks for making things so clear. What does the post script mean?

  15. CO2 is no more a pollutant than water. It is essential for life, but too much is toxic. It may be an agent for climate change, but that does not mean the substance itself is a pollutant.

    Galeandra: SPC is no libertarian from my observations. It’s a bit off topic, but maybe before you dismiss libertarians you might gain some very basic knowledge. Like how libertarians don’t believe in anarchy, do believe in private property rights and criminal law. Most of the strawmen you put up are easily dismissed.
    – Carless days are unnecessary, the price of commodities should rise according to scarcity. Persistently high fuel prices will see less driving and different fuels becoming viable. People will make their own choices about what they use, and opportunities they find to meet the needs of others. It happens every day on a grand scale;
    – Rubbish fires should be a matter of property rights, if you pollute your neighbour’s airspace, it is a trespass. If you seriously endangerk your neighbour’s property, steps can be taken to pre-empt that.
    – The side of the road people drive on should be up to the road owner. It isn’t anarchy.
    – Dog registration would be optional, but sadistic treatment of animals would be a crime.
    – Liberty is the right to do as you wish with your body and property without infringing upon the same right of others to do so. You can pollute your own property, but not that of others without their permission. You can consume what you wish, but you pay for it. By definition this does recognise the interests of others, because you cannot infringe upon their personal sovereignty, and you have to interact with others on a voluntary basis. You can fight poverty if you like, or not. Indeed you can fight fascism, or not. In other words your life does not exist in order to benefit others, your life has its own value. What you do with it, and how others interact with you, become your own choices. Why fear it?

  16. Galeandra I note you have been conditioned to attack those associated with the word libertarian. A little over-conditioned perhaps …

    PS Do not allow anyone to write the word on your mirror in the evening, you might not like yourself in the morning.

  17. So you’re a libertarian, SPC? I don’t really get what you’re on about, but I guess you wouldn’t accept carless days if fuel was critically short? Do you light rubbish fires in late summer or use sprinklers when they’re banned? Do you refuse to drive on the left? I hope you register your dog, but have you left off beating him?
    In a civilised world, SPC what is ‘liberty’? Freedom to pollute? To overconsume? To demand that you be allowed to ignore the interests of others who make up the community you so unfortunately find yourself to be part of?
    And of course, you wouldn’t want to be constrained to fight poverty? or fascism? or environmental degradation? You sound like the final whimper of an effete generation:one that Eliot wrote of in The Wasteland (how aptly titled!) Where’s your heroic generous and idealistic bang?

  18. Goldurn, Wat Dabney and GW denier, you’re on to ’em. Well done. It must be excruciating for you both thinking of all the restrictions around your future energy consumption, and all the extra taxes in train under ETS schemes etc when the whole time, a bunch of cynical cheats and academic jerks are fudging their data just so they can do deals on carbon and wreck the life of percipient guys like you. Shucks.

  19. As libertarian as a climate change denier. As much a climate change denier as a libertarian.

    There is of course no direct link between one and the other, but the link between being libertarian and opposing regulation, for whatever reason, is undeniable. Thus the resort to belief in whatever arguement, or whatever evidence which seems available at the time.

    Establishment interest needs either libertarian thought, or it’s end time religion partner which sees green politics as a false religion, to mobilise gullible foot soldiers in support of their continued unrestrained profit-making.

    The undeniable fact remains the worlds scarce (carbon and water etc) resources are being depleted and need to be used less wastefully. Whatever reason mobilises us to use renewable sources of energy as productively as possible is an ultimately valid one. Why should anyone oppose that?

  20. Keep a cache Wat of this topic, it may be deleted in realclimate ‘style’.
    We keep getting all of this confusing propaganda from the watermelons et al, but other simple things like actual tempertures & ice area at the arctic/antartic are all increasing from low levels from 2007 (Arctic). Antartic levels are above the 1979-2000 levels.

  21. Going to be a bit hard to try and ignore the exposure of this huge fraud. Even the mainstream media is picking it up. The Telegraph usually publishes the same old alarmist press releases verbatim…

    “How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie”
    “…What McIntyre discovered was that Professor Briffa had cherry picked his “tree data sets” in order to reach the conclusion he wanted to reach. When, however, McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples from exactly the same area, the results he got were startlingly different.”

  22. Incidentally, more details of the sordid fraud which is the global warming scam are emerging.
    After the Hockey Stick was shown to be a blend of incompetence and deliberate fraud, there was those here who maintained that, in any case, the hockey stick shape had in fact been replicated by other “independent” studies.

    Of course, the “scientists” who created these charts refused to release the data they used, so nobody could check their work. After many years, the data was finally obtained when they made the mistake of publishing their claims in a journal which doesn’t just pay lip-service to idea that others should be able to review the data and methods. They were forced to provide the data (although they still made it as incomprehensible and unuseable as possible.)

    Cutting to the chase, this key dataset which underpins numerous hockeystick-like charts (“Briffa 2000, Mann and Jones 2003, Mann et al (EOS 2003), Jones and Mann 2004, Osborn and Briffa 2006, D’Arrigo et al 2006, Hegerl et al 2007, Kaufman et al 2009 (and of course, Briffa et al 2008).”) was found to be a deliberate fraud from top to bottom.


    A plain-English version:


    And the thing is, nobody is surprised that the whole thing is a pack of lies. We have come to expect it from the alarmist “scientists.”

  23. I have heard of carbon monoxide being refered to as a pollutant but not CO2 necessarily.
    In low quantities CO2 is not a pollutant but the problem is that there is too much of it and too little vegitation to process it back into oxygen.

  24. In fact, the advert is spot on. CO2 is green. Calling it a pollutant is a political term, not a scientific one. According to the green lobby, babies’ breath is a pollutant. In fact, it is the ultimate positive externality.

  25. Seems around 8 studies used by IPCC have been debunked due to bad science. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
    In essence the hockey stick that has been used in so called peer reviewed journals were not peer reviewed at all.
    Also, one of your bible sites realclimate.com is deleting any reference to this as their authors are involved in this lie.
    Seems HadCrut at Uni of East Anglia cherry picked tree ring data in Russia. Another lie in the scam that is GW.

Comments are closed.