Obviously oil is valuable even if you exclude burning it for energy. This despite the fact that government policy, by NOT having a carbon tax, grossly & horrendously distorts the market.<quoted text>
Actually those laws that you think they are against would make them more profitable. After all, what is going to replace oil. Wind and solar are at the mercy of the weather and cannot supply the energy needed to run the modern world. Lets not forget the host of chemicals produced from oil. Some of which there are no subsititues. When pointing out that eight of the twelve largest companies are oil companies you failed to point out why they are the largest.
As for the magazines mention, who do you think the editors are, not scientist but journalism majors. They all need to sell subscription and who better to part from their money than the foolish. After all, others would realize that they could find the same information for free online.
Something else people like you seem to deny is that climate change has been happening as long as the earth has had a climate. It has been warmer and cooler in the past. The planet has had multiple ice ages and the earth had periods in between when it warmed. Periods when man or even mammels did not exist. How many of those same magazine that were around in the seventies were publishing articles about an approaching ice age or Mathus's Population Bomb theory. They publish what people are interested in enough to purchase a magazine. The same reason why Playboy and Penthouse publishes air brushed pictures of women for with the same ethics.
And NASA has made more than a few mistakes and those mistakes had nothing to do with RW spin. In some cases it was nothing more than NASA playing the political game to procure a larger slice of the pie. With looming cuts and a nasty budget battle in the future they are not the only government agency looking to stave off budget cuts.
Far too many of us suffer from the psychotic delusion that it is "free" to dump carbon into the atmosphere. It is NOT free. Until that cost is included in the price of oil & other fossil fuels, the market can NEVER be free, or reflect reality.
If you think science journals are published by journalists, you don't understand science. Science must produce results that can be verified by others. A scientist simply CAN'T lie or distort (as a rule), because if other scientists can't reproduce the same results, then any subterfuge or deception will be discovered. If a scientist is found to have been deliberately deceptive, that scientist's academic career is generally over. So scientists don't lie, & the ONLY thing they care about is being right. When they're pvoven to be right (e.g. before or after they die) doesn't matter nearly as much.
If general science journals just wanted to sell copy, they could hype plenty of other stories, from the Yellowstone supervolcano to the nonsense about cycle 25 that you hear from deniers. If they hype AGW/CC theory, it's because it's proven fact.
Yes, we've had climate change for billions of years. It's been warmer & colder than it is now. That is 100.0000000000% irrelevant to the danger now. The ONLY reason it matters is that these variations have helped us understand the influences on climate.
Human civilization was developed with HOLOCENE climate & with HOLOCENE sea levels. Sure, the dinosaurs did fine when it was a lot warmer, but sea level was ~70 meters higher.
Our agriculture would collapse during dinosaurian conditions. We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure within a few meters of sea level. Of COURSE we could tolerate higher temps, but it would be unimaginably expensive & deadly to change.
Again, if you think NASA has "made mistakes," post the link. If it's the nonsense you posted before about Roy Spencer, it means nothing.