Tobacco and Global Warming
Posted 9 weeks 5 days ago byThis is a news report concerning a Union of Concerned Scientists report on Exxon's disinformation campaign. Not that i expect anybody to pay attention. After all, Al Gore is the one who is making money off of global warming, not our buddies at Exxon.
Surely they have no interest in denying that fossil fuels are messing with the atmosphere.
"Al Gore evil, Exxon good." Remember that when you are treading water in downtown Houston. "It's all natural," is another good morale builder, as well as "God Wills It."
Carry on.
January 3, 2007Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming ScienceOil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has
- raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
- funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
- attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
- used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming
ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.
Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.
"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."
ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming—under the guise of "sound science"—for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.
Thoughts
Evidence is showing
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by John 2000that warming precedes carbon increase.
just dumb?
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by rom12921I have not denied rising global temperatures. The data is indisputable. Drawing conclusions from the data is something entirely different, much like evolution.
I have carefully considered multitudes of evidence and come to my own conclusions. I deny evolution because it is not scientific (measurable,testable,repeatable), it's racist and self-refuting.
If thinking for myself and coming to my own conclusions is dumb, then your insult is warranted.
Really? Ever read Science
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by wishnevskyReally? Ever read Science fiction or fantasy?
As for Greenland, there was a minor warming trend at the tile the Vikings landed there, perhaps due to deforestation in Europe. Eric the Red or his daddy gave Greenland that name to attract settlers.
And for the ninetieth time, i am pretty damn sure that rising C02 levels are man made. There is a ton of good science to prove that.
However, what ever is causing climate change, it is happening, denial is close to a crime, whereas denying evolution is just dumb.
Whatever. Do go on.
Condescender
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by rom12921Actually the Bible mentions a "leviathan" and "behemoth" which descriptions don't match any living animal. The biblical book "Job" containing the "behemoth" reference is believed to have been written 3000-4000 years before the word "dinosaur" was invented. An author would not use a word that had not been invented.
Yep, Greenland is good data to prove rising temperatures, but not human causation. It has occurred to me the name Greenland may indicate a warmer past for the sub-continent which would disprove the current assumption. You are certainly free to believe the assumption that human activity contributes in a significant way to rising temperatures, but it is still an assumption.
I do not believe in Intelligent Design.
I have treated you with respect. What you seem to be saying is it is OK to be disrespectful to people who disagree with you occaisonally and pointed out flaw in your argument.
Talking to me? I have not
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by wishnevskyTalking to me? I have not had a drink for a long time, buddy. Generations of dogs have grown old an died since i had a drink.
Evolution. I have seen a
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by wishnevskyEvolution. I have seen a bunch of dinosaurs, They were dead. They are not mentioned in the bible, but nether are bicycles. I do not have to take my bicycle on faith. I take it for rides.
Global warming. When somebody tells me that they have been to Greenland, personally have investigated 100,000 years of CO2 bubbles and say that the levels now are higher then they have ever been, and that OMG BTW, the ice is melting, i will take their word for it, assuming they have credentials, or the society that produced the document on this person has reputable credentials.
And now that you remind me you are one of the Intelligent Design people, i will treat your posts with the respect they deserve.
I didn't respond to comment
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by rom12921I didn't respond to comment Rockefellers due to relevancy, just like "for arguments sake".
"You and your people keep saying that..." My people? I came to that conclusion after reading the book, applying my limited knowledge of statistics and basic reasoning. It is my independent opinion that the Al Gore's book is fraudulent due to invalid comparisons and data manipulation. See for yourself.
"...right wing has the monopoly on morality" you mean like Gingrich, Foley, Abramoff?
"And how is it an insult to lump paid global warming skeptics in with other reality deniers?" Yes your comment "...holocaust deniers, the flat earthers, the Intelligent designers" With regard to the holocaust and flat-eathers. There are photographs and interviews with eyewitnesses in the holocaust. The Earth is known to be spherical and has been taught as such for thousands of years. It is absurd, insulting and patronizing to compare the unproven Global Warming w/flat-earth and holocaust deniers.
Intelligent design/ Evolution would be more comparable to Global warming in that there no documentation that is conclusive.
Why do you accept Evolution and Global warming on faith?
Not to shange the supject
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by John 2000... but have you been drinking again, my friend?
This is not an 'ad hominem' attack, merely a direct, open, and honest question.
In your current state, your method of argumentation makes it rather impossible to see the forest for the trees. I know you can do better. I have seen it.
Shanging Supjects
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by wishnevskyYou didn't comment on the Rockefeller family trying to make the company responsive to changing conditions now, did you?
Pandering politicians? Who you gonna vote for? Cheney is not running this year.
And so on. Blither and obfuscation. "Kyoto is unenforceable" It was unenforceable once we didn't sign it.
And the capper is "Al Gore is a fraud" You and your people keep saying that, just like they would take away his Nobel, if you slander him long enough.
It is usually expressed as "Al Gore is only in it for the money." However, his father was a Senator, Gore has at least two government pensions, one as VP, one as Senator, he fulfilled his Draft obligation by serving in Vietnam, while many of his peers including Bush and Cheney managed to stay at home. Yes i do remember that Bill Clinton ducked the draft too.
It is my understanding that he donated his share of the Nobel to his organization, and serves pro bono.
He made a lot of money in corporate work, and is as public spirited an American as can be found in these decedent days.
I have a moral question for you, seeing as the right wing has the monopoly on morality.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that there is some man-made climate change, an ice sheet breaks loose, the sea level goes up a mere five feet. In that case, what is the moral position of one who argues against the concept of global warming, slandered Al Gore and other visionaries, and let a few million people drown because "Hysterical warnings might cause panic?"
And how is it an insult to lump paid global warming skeptics in with other reality deniers?
False accuser
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by rom12921I don't own XOM and usually don't attribute deity to businesses, I find that odd. Kyoto treaty was badly written and unenforceable.
"...never answered my point about the Nobel, did you?","...never answered my point about McCain's speech on "mandatory curbs on carbon emissions" did you?" don't recall you asking.
Majority of nations, a Governor and 3 pandering Presidential candidates is exactly what I said -the logical fallacy of argumentum ad popularum? (Latin is always tough). Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is correct.
"you and the hard core holocaust deniers, the flat earthers, the Intelligent designers..." Why would you hurl insults that, again, have nothing to do with the subject at hand?
You seem intellectually capable of debating a point. Changing the subject, hurling insults, (next is usually running away) is for people who cannot support their ideas because they do not have the capacity or will.
read my edited post. Just
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by wishnevskyread my edited post. Just because you own stock in Exxon does not make them god, or you their prophet.
Remember the Kyoto Treaty? There was a clearly expressed opinion on global warming by a large majority of the nations of earth.
George "Oil-Man" Bush changed the subject very well, didn't he?
You still never answered my point about the Nobel, did you? You never answered my point about McCain's speech on "mandatory curbs on carbon emissions" did you?
Must be getting a little lonely out there, now that all three presidential candidates are dumb enough to believe in what Al Gore says, not counting Gov, Ahhhnold.
That's OK, you and the hard core holocaust deniers, the flat earthers, the Intelligent designers can all have a big convention and recharge your batteries. BanglaDesh is nice this time of year.
Subject changer
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by rom12921"Now tell me i am changing the subject?" OK
Standard Oil 1880's - changing the subject
"and i like you referring to Exxon by it's stock ticker acronym." -changing the subject
"Seems like you are in a higher income bracket than i." -changing the subject
"I am so poor" - changing the subject
"i wanted to vote for Hillary."-changing the subject
What does this have to do with research on Global Warming that doesn't support the popular version? BTW consensus/popular doesn't mean it is correct.
So, regardless of what XOM does, Al Gore's work is fraudulent.
Let's see.. Standard Oil
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by wishnevskyLet's see.. Standard Oil made a monopoly out of supplying kerosene and wagon grease to the Union Army in the Civil war, major mover in the great Trust movement of the 1880-90's, prime example of Teddy Roosevelt's Trust-Busting campaign, made to break up into Standard oil of New York, New Jersey, yadda yadda in 1911 by the Supreme Court, major mover in Aramco, Exxon brand formed out of Esso, Enco and Humble in 1973, under the beneficent gaze of the Nixon Administration, More Yadda yadda.
Famous for still fighting the Valdez oil spill which is in the Supreme court as i write this.
Still getting Government Subsidies even with oil prices at an all time high.
And you expect me to believe poor widdle exxon is uninterested in fighting Global Warming?
C'mon. Several of the other majors have seen the writing on the wall and Shell and BP are at least making PR moves acknowledging climate change, but Exxon finds it much cheaper to fight and influence politicians than change.
Even some of the family are fed up with this obfuscation.
"Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Rockefeller family pushing for Exxon Mobil changes
Dallas Business Journal
A majority of the Rockefeller family members are putting the squeeze on Exxon Mobil Corp. to require that an independent chairman lead its board of directors, particularly someone with an eye to pursuing evolving energy markets.
The family members, who are the oldest continuous shareholders in Irving-based Exxon (NYSE: XOM), want other shareholders to support a resolution requiring the change.
The reason: An independent chairman can maximize long-term shareholder value by pursuing new energy renewables and alternative fuels like its competitors Shell, Chevron, BP, Total and Petrobras."
You see that "A majority of the Rockefeller Family..."
here is the url
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/storie...
Now tell me i am changing the subject?
and i like you referring to Exxon by it's stock ticker acronym. Seems like you are in a higher income bracket than i. I am so poor, i wanted to vote for Hillary.
XOM
Submitted on May 14th, 2008 by rom12921"Al Gore evil, Exxon good." is just as ridiculous as this cut and paste piece. If Exxon does it, it must be corrupt seems to be your conclusion (Exxon bad).
Why can't you come to your own conclusion on the issue? Whatever XOM does doesn't make the human causation of rising temperatures true. Changing the subject usually means you are losing the argument.
Hilarious. This is satire
Submitted on May 13th, 2008 by wishnevskyHilarious. This is satire right? Just like 4.00 a gallon doesn't hurt my family finances?
The funniest thing is how an old Goldwater Republican line me is considered a liberal by you modern types.
Rave on.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling
Submitted on May 13th, 2008 by Minuteman CAAnother round of blame big oil, everyone! Woohoo!
So, let me guess how your world works:
1. A representative of Democrats For Bigger Government(let's say, Al Gore) speaks.."the sky is falling, the sky is falling."
2. The people become frightened and vote in more yahoos who cling to the party line.
3. The yahoos (let's say Billary Clinton or B. Hussein Obama) push through legislation which will re-direct tax revenues to prevent the sky from falling, of course.
4. The taxpayers find themselves barely able to feed thier own family, but at least they can feel good about being forced to financially support the rantings of chicken little and gang.
Don't forget to Blame Canada and not big oil. It makes about just as much sense, doesn't it?
brought to you by
http://sanitystrikesback.blogspot.com/
THE END