Global Warming Total Fraud

[Guest]

b.s. we can't. whatever reason is. we wont fix anything, look around, we never have.

That is a choice - not inevitable.

I sicken of people accepting the folly of human ignorance, we are capable of far better.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

Growth is the cause of the ecological crisis. Both socialism and capitalism relies on growth to work so both are direct causes of the climate crisis. Until we develop a steady state economic system we cannot solve the economic crisis - and almost no one is asking the right questions to change the economy away from the growth paradigm.

Br Cornelius

Without growth we don't solve poverty and a myriad other problems. What we need is self-sustaining growth that does not impinge on the environment nor use itself up. There are visionaries out there who perceive this well enough and are working at it.

[aztek]

I sicken of people thinking they are capable of more than they really are. get a relity check, hopefuly your med insurance covers it.

if we were, we'd see it happen. but we don't, so we are not. every evidence proves you wrong.

we got millions of GW believers, rich and poor. millions believers like you so WhyTF don't you do anything?? only talk (reminds me of yes we can, b.s. campain). is it your choice or you aren't capable??

if you think you can, do it and prove me wrong

Edited August 28, 2013 by aztek

[Guest]

I sicken of people thinking they are capable of more than they really are. get a relity check, hopefuly your med insurance covers it.

if we were, we'd see it happen. but we don't, so we are not. every evidence proves you wrong.

we got millions of GW believers, rich and poor. millions believers like you so WhyTF don't you do anything?? only talk (reminds me of yes we can, b.s. campain). is it your choice or you aren't capable??

if you think you can, do it and prove me wrong

I have done significant things to reduce my carbon footprint. I guarantee that my efforts mean that I am a significantly lower carbon emitter than yourself. Your apathy and negativity on the possibility of change is why we cannot change. Only by personal efforts and societal efforts can we get to a sustainable future. Until the likes of yourself take that message onboard and demand better of themselves and their government can we ever expect things to get to a better place.

I am not just talking - I am walking the walk every single day of my life. Stop winging you miserable MF.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 28, 2013 by Guest

[aztek]

does al gore do anything about it?? or he also just moves air?? the guy is a millioner.

[aztek]

I have done significant things to reduce my carbon footprint. I guarantee that my efforts mean that I am a significantly lower carbon emitter than yourself. You apathy and negativity on the possibility of change is why we cannot change. Only be personal efforts and societal efforts can we get to a sustainable future. Until the like of yourself take that message onboard and demand better of themselves and their government can we ever expect things to get to a better place.

i am not just talking - I am walking the walk every single day of my life. Stop winging you miserable MF.

Br Cornelius

yet what you do has absolutely no effect. and btw, talk is cheap, if you think i believe anything you say here, lol.

also you have no frigging idea how big or small my carbon emmision is.

and also if you think carbon is ALL THERE IS TO IT, you are one dumb miserable MF

actually ppl like me get things done, ppl like you talk and blame everone around. and consider themselves better for some reason.

guess what, ppl like me do things, and ppl lilke you tallk **** and nothing more.; and you and likes of you prove it every single day.

Edited August 28, 2013 by aztek

[Guest]

does al gore do anything about it?? or he also just moves air?? the guy is a millioner.

Al gore is your demon, he is not mine. Get over blaming a single person for the failures of America to make effective change.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

yet what you do has absolutely no effect. and btw, talk is cheap, if you think i believe anything you say here, lol.

If everyone thought like you then no it would make no effect - but the world is made up of individuals and every individual's efforts effect a change in the world.

Take responsibility for yourself. Get off your **** and do something to change the world.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

The most diminishing resource that people actually see and feel is time. And while they still have time, they feel entitled to the other finite resources that come along for the ride. Government subsidizes oil to the moon and then we run to the government to dictate limits on our consumption of fossil fuels? I also suggest hiring the coyote to mind the chicken coop if we're interested in such results.

[questionmark]

The most diminishing resource that people actually see and feel is time. And while they still have time, they feel entitled to the other finite resources that come along for the ride. Government subsidizes oil to the moon and then we run to the government to dictate limits on our consumption of fossil fuels? I also suggest hiring the coyote to mind the chicken coop if we're interested in such results.

Then again, consuming less fossil fuels starts at home. It is not really something the government can mandate as [it is] unenforceable. Best it can do is pass out incentives so you don't.

Edited August 28, 2013 by questionmark

[+DieChecker]

I sicken of people thinking they are capable of more than they really are.

Why do you believe we are so limited?

Are you one of those guys that thinks building the Great Pyramid is impossible?

Look at WW2. The US built giant battleships in the hundreds.

We flew to the Moon.

We killed smallpox.

We built enough nuclear weapons to kill everything on Earth.

We are capable of way more then happens each day. It is only the limitation of finances that holds humanity from doing just about anything we want to.

[RavenHawk]

To stop you from whining more about it, I’m just cleaning up what I have and post it. Like I said, this will probably have at least three trains of thought woven throughout, but I think this is still coherent.

Ward finally gets to the science part and in his opening statement, he calls Carter as giving misleading statements. With Gore’s alarmist and melodramatic presentation on that cherry-picker (appropriate symbolism?) in “An Inconvenient Truth”, don’t talk about misleading statements of the available scientific evidence. I don’t think Ward or any AGW proponent has the right to claim the other side is making misleading statements.

Ward continues and points out that the period between 2000 and 2009 was the warmest decade since 1850. There are several things that must be noted here. Prior to 1850, the only record of things like temp. and CO2 levels come from proxies. That’s stuff like ice cores and tree rings. But also, the number of worldwide recording units has increased greatly since 1850 as well (i.e. recording stations are not static). So as a new science, we really only have a short period of world accuracy, definitely not enough to make any real predictions such as AGW proponents are. The other thing is that we are in a warming trend coming out of the Mini Ice Age. So of course, any prediction of temp using the existing chart is going to go up. That’s all we know in recent memory. There is nothing to change that except the proxy record going back into time. Plus, if you are at the (local) peak of a graph which we appear to be at, most of the points around that peak *ARE* going to be the warmest on record. The chart in Ward’s fig. 1 shows that peak. Of course at this point, there is no telling which way it is going to go. Current charts showing 2009 to 2013 are showing a trend downward. But if you follow Gore’s prediction, it should be around 0.8° by now.

The Mini Ice age is part of a cycle. Global cooling had been occurring for about 400 years (until 1850). What kind of leeway do we have with these cycles? We know that at some point, it will level off and then go down. Those that think that it will just continue to go up are those caught up in the political agenda. So making one estimate, the perigee of this warm period would put it at 2050 (at the earliest). That’s 40 years from now. So I’ll predict that we will see a non exponential increase until then and then we will begin a decline. Using the current chart, we may see another 0.6 degree increase. That will be 1.4 degree change in the past century (1950-2050) which is within the 1.5 change that Carter established as the century average using the historical record. But I think it will actually be less than that. This is as solid as any *expert*.

At this point I was going to go into Parker and Brohan as one train of thought was leading but decided to keep it short for your sake and continue with the following…

Carter’s opening chart:

Greenland Ice Cores (~min 3:00 – 5:30) years to present:

From 16,000 : 1) Warming

From 10,000 : 2) Cooling (Holocene)

From 2,000: 3) Cooling

From 700: 4) Stasis (Mini Ice Age)

From 100: 5) Warming

From 8: 6) Stasis

This is not cherry picking. He’s picking logical and reasonable points to compare. Is warming occurring? It depends. He comes to the conclusion that lines 5 & 6 are too short to predict what climate is going to do which is scientifically accurate. But the more important thing to note is that climate change has been going on longer than Modern Man has existed. So right off the bat, this disproves AGW.

His next graph, he focuses in on the last 5,000 years. We see 6 warming periods, all comparable to one another, fluctuating between warm and cold at basically the same rates. His point is that there is nothing out of the ordinary with the climate today (which is one of those warming periods). In fact, using that chart, we should start to see a cooling within the next few decades.

The next chart shows the last 400,000 years of the Vostok Ice Core. It reveals that 90% of that time has been cooler than today and that warm periods like the one we are in do not last very long. It will get colder. It’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’.

Now we get into his field of deep ocean cores in this next chart showing magnitude going back 6 million years. This is where the geologist has an advantage over the climatologist. This chart shows that it has been warmer and even colder by several degrees in the past 6 million years than it is today and life flourished through that whole time.

Then he goes into rate. This next chart shows the last 50,000 years. Over that time, the average rate of change is 2.5 degrees per century.

The next chart shows the global average of the lower troposphere between 1979 and 2005 and the average rate is 1.5. That is of course a smaller rate than what it was in the last Ice Age. He also shows that what cause the typical fluctuations are El Ninos (which weren’t really understood until very recently) and Volcanoes. Not Man.

His conclusion is that neither magnitude nor rate is changing in any alarming way. So there is no science that legitimately leads to the notion that CO2 levels will rise indefinitely in an exponential manner.

I also seem to recall a report that came out earlier this year that CO2 lags behind temperature by anywhere between 200 and 1500 years. If AGW exists, shouldn’t this be the other way around?

Finally, I want to finish with some observations of fig.1 from Ward. I was thinking, what major activities of Man would cause an increase in temperature. Wars came to mind, so I looked on that graph to see what popped out. Although, there were very few years in this period that had less than 2 or 3 conflicts going on, I selected some of the bigger ones.

^ - up / v – down / - - stasis

1861 – 1865 US Civil War ^

1870 – 1871 Franco – Prussian War -

1898 Spanish American War v

1904 – 1905 Russo-Japanese War ^

1914 – 1918 WWI v

1939 – 1945 WWII -

1950 – 1953 Korean War ^

1965 – 1975 Vietnam War ^

1990 – 1991 Persian Gulf War v

2003 – 2011 Iraq War -

Wars don’t seem to affect it at all and one would think that would be the main cause. But one thing you notice is that in 1945, there is a spike. Is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Around 1946 to 1947 there is another spike. Is this Able and Baker of Crossroads? But why isn’t it larger than 1945? Perhaps Gaia responds to Man?? 1945 was a shock to her system but after that, she adapted to it. Between 1946 and 1990, the US set off about 1000 nukes and Russia did almost 800, with 1962 being the most active. There is a spike in 1962 but one would think that that being the peak of nuclear activity, that would cause a more definite spike. And looking at two major volcanic eruptions, Krakatau in 1883 and Mt. St. Helena’s in 1980, there is no significant change. After 1950 the fluctuations become more active. Perhaps this is the effect Man has on climate by deforestation, but even that has not been beyond what Carter considered normal.

So with the correlation between CO2 and temperature in question and from Carter’s analysis of temperature change, there is no real, non political proof of AGW.

[Frank Merton]

I would say there are four limits on mankind: resources and resource productivity, population and population productivity.

[RavenHawk]

Look at WW2. The US built giant battleships in the hundreds.

Just a little nit-pick. We really only built about 10 WWII era battleships that entered service.

[RavenHawk]

I would say there are four limits on mankind: resources and resource productivity, population and population productivity.

I would go with Raw Resources, Manufacturing, Population, and Man Hours.

[Zaphod222]

I have done significant things to reduce my carbon footprint.

Have you also done significant things to reduce your methane footprint? Remember, according to the UN, cow farts are a bigger "danger" to our climate than CO2. And human farts are not really different from cow farts.

So be a responsible citicen and put a balloon for recycling you-know-where.

[Guest]

Ravenhawk, I will make one comment before looking at your post in detail. All of yours and Carters comments assume that CO2 has no effect on temperature which is empirically demonstrably untrue. A simple lab experiment can show that CO2 effects the transmissivity of the atmosphere and hence temperature.

You may think its clever to dismiss this basic fact of physics, but it really shows the fundamental flaw in your whole position - the historic record shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature - but only in the current era has man been the main driver of this change.

Its also quite convenient that the skeptics much vaunted cooling is always just a decade away, just far enough into the future to allow deniability and for it to delay any effective action for another 10 profitable years. All based on "what goes up must come down" as it always has. All of this glosses over the obvious upward trend of over a 100 years which has shown no sign of going into reverse on any meaningful time scale (30 years statistically meaningful period).

Br Cornelius

Edited August 30, 2013 by Guest

[Zaphod222]

Ravenhawk, I will make one comment before looking at your post in detail. All of yours and Carters comments assume that CO2 has no effect on temperature which is empirically demonstrably untrue. A simple lab experiment can show that CO2 effects the transmissivity of the atmosphere and hence temperature.

Can you explain the lab experiment and the quantities used?

By the way, nobody doubts that CO2, and thousands of other chemicals have some influence on other things, including transmissivity.

Among them, cow farts, which the UN already said have a bigger effect than CO2.

The insanity comes when moving to "man made" and the phantastic claim that we can regulate the planetary climate like an airconditioner.

[Guest]

Have you also done significant things to reduce your methane footprint? Remember, according to the UN, cow farts are a bigger "danger" to our climate than CO2. And human farts are not really different from cow farts.

So be a responsible citicen and put a balloon for recycling you-know-where.

Source please, maybe when we can look at where you are getting the notion that cows farts are the main cause of climate change - we can put it to rest when its shown to be a fantasy.

[Guest]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - basic physics.

Br Cornelius

[dmurdock36]

you are failing to see the cause and effect of the co2 argument, co2 levels rise as temperatures rise not the other way around, when temperatures increase more co2 is released into the atmosphere when it is cooler less is released, Therefore co2 is an effect not a cause of warming.

[RavenHawk]

Ravenhawk, I will make one comment before looking at your post in detail. All of yours and Carters comments assume that CO2 has no effect on temperature which is empirically demonstrably untrue.

No, that is not what we are claiming. Carter is disproving AGW. That’s two different things. Because you are unwilling to see the political implications, you can’t see the truth and even now, still stating things that aren’t. You didn’t think I had a counter so you boasted about it, now that I’ve presented solid science and you are making excuses. Or scurrying about trying to. I can’t wait to see your other excuses.

A simple lab experiment can show that CO2 effects the transmissivity of the atmosphere and hence temperature.

Yes, that is a very simple experiment and no one is refuting that. But how representative is that in the real world? Is the heat source in relation to the bottles equivalent to a Jupiter sized planet 1 million miles from a super red giant? How does the ratio of the difference in temperature in the bottles relate to the difference on Planet Earth? There are also other greenhouse gases, like methane, water vapor, and ozone. How do they relate? How ‘bout other gases? Obviously non greenhouse gases won’t react the same, but what would be the readings if you put other gasses in the bottles? My guess is that temperature will go up too. And then how does the common non greenhouse gasses (oxygen & nitrogen) *cut* the effects? And then there is the concept of circulation that occurs on the planet that doesn’t occur in the bottles. Then you have to consider the quality of the CO2 produced from Wal Mart Alkaseltzer. In the final analysis, this is just a parlor trick to play on people’s fears. The experiment is science but the purpose is pseudo science.

You may think its clever to dismiss this basic fact of physics, but it really shows the fundamental flaw in your whole position - the historic record shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature - but only in the current era has man been the main driver of this change.

No one is dismissing basic facts of physics. No one is denying the correlation between CO2 and temperature but they are questioning the conclusion. It’s the AGW proponent that is denying reality. They are politically motivated to isolate one *law* of physics and ignore how everything else relates. The current cycles have been going on for 10,000 years (Holocene). The planetary system seeks equilibrium. Temperature is going up as it has many times in the past. Is Man causing this? Absolutely not! Is Man affecting the temperature rise? That is a definite possibility. The existence of Man may be speeding up the rate increase, but it is still constrained by cyclic processes. What caused the temperature to drop when Man wasn’t here? What was that trigger? Can Man stop this rise? Probably not. And all the money in the world will not do it. Can we clean up our environment? Yes. Can we learn to adapt to change? Absolutely! We need to focus on the real problem and not something artificial.

Its also quite convenient that the skeptics much vaunted cooling is always just a decade away, just far enough into the future

Like anything to do with weather and climate, the best indictor is still sticking your head out of the window. AGW proponents have been stating year after year that this year will see one massive hurricane after the other. We’re not seeing that. With the natural rise in temperature, we do see an increase in the intensity of some storms, but they aren’t lining up one after the other as predicted. And then what do AGW proponents claim? They backpedal and say that there’s this cycle going on and right now, it’s just a lull, but next year it will be different. How convenient!

to allow deniability and for it to delay any effective action for another 10 profitable years.

Ah, so the Socialist agenda rears its head. The one thing wrong with your evil corporations are not the corporations but the consumers reneging on their responsibilities. It would be far more cost effective and much less fear mongering to champion the mindset of Capitalism than spend trillions in trying to stop something we have no power to control primarily because it doesn’t exist. And to clarify that, it is not global warming that does not exist, but AGW that does not exist.

All based on "what goes up must come down" as it always has. All of this glosses over the obvious upward trend of over a 100 years which has shown no sign of going into reverse on any meaningful time scale (30 years statistically meaningful period).

And you are so blind. This is the basic mechanics. This isn’t a fantasy world. What you are glossing over is that we *ARE* in an upward trend in the past 150 years. And there are signs of going down. It has receded since about 2009. At this point, no one can say if the next few years it will go up or down but it is more likely for equilibrium to occur and not some exponential rise.

[Guest]

you are failing to see the cause and effect of the co2 argument, co2 levels rise as temperatures rise not the other way around, when temperatures increase more co2 is released into the atmosphere when it is cooler less is released, Therefore co2 is an effect not a cause of warming.

Thats called a feedback loop which is accounted for in climate science, it doesn't diminish the effects of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This is the primary reason why adding CO2 to the atmosphere artifically will always cause more increase in CO2 in the long run.

In natural systems driven by external forcings such as the Sun or orbital changes the CO2 lags the temperature by up to 400 years.

In man made global warming the CO2 leads the temperature.

Volcanoes of significant magnitude are more complex since they cause immediate cooling due to sulphates and particulates which cause cooling, if this cooling is large enough then more ice can form which effects the planets albedo and can cause a cooling feedback. If this doesn't happen - they can cause warming, but only if there were a long series of contiguous eruptions which caused a sustained elevation of CO2 levels. Such an event happened at the end of the Jurassic and lead to a mass extinction of the dinosaurs.

Facts don't have to be mutually exclusive to be true.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 30, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

No, that is not what we are claiming. Carter is disproving AGW. That’s two different things. Because you are unwilling to see the political implications, you can’t see the truth and even now, still stating things that aren’t. You didn’t think I had a counter so you boasted about it, now that I’ve presented solid science and you are making excuses. Or scurrying about trying to. I can’t wait to see your other excuses.

If you acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then you must acknowledge that adding more of it to the atmosphere will effect the temperature of the atmosphere. this is the basic principle of climate science. It is illogical to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and then dismiss the effect of mans input of that gas to the system.

Like anything to do with weather and climate, the best indictor is still sticking your head out of the window. AGW proponents have been stating year after year that this year will see one massive hurricane after the other. We’re not seeing that. With the natural rise in temperature, we do see an increase in the intensity of some storms, but they aren’t lining up one after the other as predicted. And then what do AGW proponents claim? They backpedal and say that there’s this cycle going on and right now, it’s just a lull, but next year it will be different. How convenient!

Climate scientists have made one primary prediction - that over a statistically meaningful period of 30 years the climate will warm. That claim has never failed to be true since they made it. Climate science is highly predictive and has been almost 100% correct in its predictions so far. As time goes on and the climate system becomes more energetic as it accumulates more heat, it becomes progressively more difficult to predict the future - since complex systems reach threshholds where meta-state changes occur. That has not yet happened and the predictions remain true so far. What is demonstrably true from statistics is that extreme precipitation and extreme heatwaves have increased in frequency and intensity in those areas where the data is capable of showing a trend (Northern Europe and North America predominantly).

Ah, so the Socialist agenda rears its head. The one thing wrong with your evil corporations are not the corporations but the consumers reneging on their responsibilities. It would be far more cost effective and much less fear mongering to champion the mindset of Capitalism than spend trillions in trying to stop something we have no power to control primarily because it doesn’t exist. And to clarify that, it is not global warming that does not exist, but AGW that does not exist.

I will forgive your little political rant and pass over it. we all know where your coming from here.

Yes, that is a very simple experiment and no one is refuting that. But how representative is that in the real world? Is the heat source in relation to the bottles equivalent to a Jupiter sized planet 1 million miles from a super red giant? How does the ratio of the difference in temperature in the bottles relate to the difference on Planet Earth? There are also other greenhouse gases, like methane, water vapor, and ozone. How do they relate? How ‘bout other gases? Obviously non greenhouse gases won’t react the same, but what would be the readings if you put other gasses in the bottles? My guess is that temperature will go up too. And then how does the common non greenhouse gasses (oxygen & nitrogen) *cut* the effects? And then there is the concept of circulation that occurs on the planet that doesn’t occur in the bottles. Then you have to consider the quality of the CO2 produced from Wal Mart Alkaseltzer. In the final analysis, this is just a parlor trick to play on people’s fears. The experiment is science but the purpose is pseudo science.

Once you have empirically discovered the effect of adding a certain concentration of CO2 to the atmosphere you can easily scale it up to the effect on the bulk atmosphere. The physics remains the same.

CO2 is CO2 whatever its source (alkacelca included), there is no such thing as man made CO2 molecules or natural CO2 molecules - their basic chemical structure is exactly the same - the only difference is where they came from. This is basic chemistry that even a high school kid could tell you. The only difference between the two bottles was the addition of more CO2 to the one which retained more heat. All the other gas constituents were exactly the same which was dictated by the atmospheric concentration in the room. You are correct in saying that other gases have varying greenhouse effects, but the climate scientists understand this better than you or I, they know their quantified effects and model them along with CO2. They know that man has contributed significant quantities of NOx, CFC's and Methane which are also greenhouse gases and this is well accounted for in their overall calculations. This is basic climate science and you should know this if you had done even the most cursory reading on the subject. Again you are right in saying that the exact effects are complicated by mixing in the atmosphere - but the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases must be having warming effects due to their basic physical properties. The science of climate is quantifying these effects within the overall climate system - but to deny they exist is just illogical at best.

And you are so blind. This is the basic mechanics. This isn’t a fantasy world. What you are glossing over is that we *ARE* in an upward trend in the past 150 years. And there are signs of going down. It has receded since about 2009. At this point, no one can say if the next few years it will go up or down but it is more likely for equilibrium to occur and not some exponential rise.

There are no signs of a natural upward trend and no natural external cause which can account for the last 150 years of temperature increase. The sun cannot account for it, no internal mechanism can account for it, no orbital effect can account for it. Every change in temperature on the planet has a cause (basic cause and effect) and the only cause which accounts for the current rise, after natural variability such as the sun is accounted for, is the greenhouse gases we have added.

There is no sign in the data that we are entering a new cooling phase, temperature have continued to rise over the last decade and we have recorded the four warmest years since records began. The system as a whole has continued to accumulate heat energy at an increasing pace, and this will cause a significant spike in temperatures when the current El-Nino La Nina cycle reverse. That is a prediction which is supported by the fact that this years global temperature will be high on the back of a neutral El-Nino La Nina. In summery - there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we will see a sudden and dramatic reversal of global average temperature or return to an equilibrium state comparable to pre-industrial levels as you predict.

I will get to you other comments in detail, when I have the time and patience to wade through them.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 30, 2013 by Guest

[Guest]

Shells position on climate change;

Climate change

Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO₂ emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO₂, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO₂, encouraging the use of all CO₂-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

Chevrons position on climate change;

Q. What is Chevron's view on climate change?

A. At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change and the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs). There is a widespread view that the increase in GHGs is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

GHGs come from a variety of sources: power generation, transportation, agriculture and land use, manufacturing, and other activities. Fossil fuels—coal, crude oil and natural gas—release carbon dioxide during production and consumption. Fossil fuels are also the primary source of energy for the global economy, which is in the midst of a prolonged expansion that is contributing to a rising quality of life in many parts of the world, particularly in developing countries. According to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, global energy demand will be at least one-third higher in 2035 than it was in 2011, depending on future government policies. The majority of that energy will be provided by fossil fuels, even as lower-carbon alternatives continue to emerge.

As we work to reduce GHGs, our collective challenge is to create solutions that protect the environment without undermining the growth of the global economy.

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/faq/#q1

What do they know that you don't Ravenhawk ?

Br Cornelius