Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
ExxonMobil reportedly paid groups to discredit global warming
news.yahoo.com — ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming
thatleoguy- 1165 diggs
- digg it
- melophobia07, on 10/12/2007, -34/+23***** Exxon. I wish someone would just bomb them. They are a plague on Earth.
- devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25This is my surprised face.
- xarc13, on 10/12/2007, -20/+2"They are a plague on Earth."
Not if you were smart enough to become a shareholder. - masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44Awww.. I think we should give them another 2 billion tax break. Good ol' GOP.
- treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"ExxonMobil reportedly paid groups to discredit global warming"
Why am I not surprised? - nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -19/+15I . . . I hate to be a pain, but isn't it kind of odd that the group critical of Exxon donating to "ideological" groups is itself an ideological group? I know the article calls the "union of concerned scientists" a "science-based nonprofit advocacy group" but since when is "tobacco-industry tactics" a scientific term. Also, included in their list of "ideological groups" is:
Africa Fighting Malaria
Arizona State University, Office of Climatology
Congress of Racial Equality
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Weidenbaum Center, Washington University
Universities? Please! . . . and their "scientific-based" study is called "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air" . . . apparently they are in competition with Exxon to see who can produce the most phony research. Their full paper is here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf - Jaq524, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Haha masgrada "Good old grand old party" that doesn't really work...
Anyway, about the story, this shouldn't really surprise anyone. The same thing was done years ago by tobacco companies to try to distance themselves from lung cancer. - soupyc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I am Jacks inflamed sense of rejection.
- TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Neoconservatism (Scum of the Earth) in bed with big OIL...................
Say it ant so god......Please......... - FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I knew about it of course, I just never thought about it from the right angle.
So does anyone know if Exxon could be sued for anything, like the tobacco companies were? Sweet, I'd love to see that. - djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hate to abuse first post reply, but DUPE.
submitter CLEARLY disregarded dupecheck for:
http://digg.com/general_sciences/How_ExxonMobil_paid_to_deceive_the_public_through_science_ideology#c4560439
the worst part is that both are from associated press and are nearly word for word duplicates. i swear, comment pages should show dupecheck results so we can out these assholes faster.
it doesn't matter that this was frontpaged before the other one... the other was submitted 6 hrs earlier. - jimmajamma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Read the article. Some group, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" asserted that this was the case. This is not a report of fact.
Has anyone here noticed that even the name of this group sounds like it has its own bias?
The title of this post is not factually accurate and is misleading. Notice that the source article's title starts with "Group:" indicating that this is the opinion of someone, not a fact.
If you folks would read instead of just using the cliff's notes, and then actually do some thinking, you might actually realize that you were the ones that were manipulated, and for free at that.
- aahpandasrun, on 10/12/2007, -16/+11Well, that sucks. But guess what, we still have to buy gas.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15True but you can also drive less by cycling or walking. Or try being more politically active and vote for people who will build bike paths or change zoning laws so that you don't have to travel by car. Only a small percentage of Americans vote, yet everyone seems to have a rant. The beautiful thing about democracy is that you don't have to just rant. You can do something about it.
The Dutch, in all their genius, are already doing 1/3 of their trips on bikes. The rest of Europe is doing something similar. At the very least walking and cycling are good for your health. Fatalism and/or apathy never solve problems. We can all comment about our outrage and do nothing or we can try doing something about it. - pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@Comatose51
Bike paths, are you serious?
There are very few countries like the United States, which spreads such a huge distance. If you are truly worried about being a burden on Earth, then MOVE closer to your job. Walk, bike, whatever, but you'll be closer and thus have a smaller impact on the Earth. We're not land locked by a bunch of tiny roads in highly compacted cities like much of Europe where houses are rarer compared to appartments (or "flats"), which are generally located inside the city and thus closer to your job making the bike trek a lot more acceptable.
I bet a lot less of the Dutch would be making such treks if they had to bike 20 miles to work.
The real problem with the US, and this is not really its own fault, just a problem with spreading the entire width of North America, is that it is too large, which lets us all have nice big houses in nice remote places where ever we want to have them.
Ironically, the short drives are worse for your car than long drives, but hey, we give and we take.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15True but you can also drive less by cycling or walking. Or try being more politically active and vote for people who will build bike paths or change zoning laws so that you don't have to travel by car. Only a small percentage of Americans vote, yet everyone seems to have a rant. The beautiful thing about democracy is that you don't have to just rant. You can do something about it.
- dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Man, I'll totally tell everyone that global warming is a myth for a piece of that cash action.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8ya, id use it to buy a server farm and then conduct simulations to prove them wrong.
- hammydude, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12my family (outside my immediate family) are all idiots and do not believe in global warming... They say it will never effect them in their lifetimes and is not even real... I try to argue and convince them otherwise but they spew out garbage like we are just in a warming period or humans are not making the co2 or one volcano eruption has 1000s of years of total human c02 combined output.
- pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8@hammydude
You're right, that explains all those ice ages and the global "cooling" phenom back in the 1960's. Oh wait, it doesn't.
A lot of people believe that humans are maybe effecting the Earth by pollution and not many people would rather have a giant gas eating SUV versus a hybrid car given a no-loss choice, but I am not too concerned that my children will be any better or any worse because I wasn't driving a Low Emission Vehicle to work every day versus an SUV (which I don't actually own, but that was an example--the only reason I don't own an SUV is because I do not need one and not because I am trying to help out the Earth).
The biggest problem with global warming is that these "scientists" expect me to believe that they understand what is happening to the climate many, many years in advance of the entire Earth when they cannot even predict if it's going to rain on a given day in a given city. Add to that they did not even know about El Nino and it's sister until what, the 1990's? - angryredplanet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@pickypg
"You're right, that explains all those ice ages and the global "cooling" phenom back in the 1960's."
Global "warming" has the potential to trigger a shift in global temperatures as extreme as an ice-age. It's happened naturally in the past, it would be foolish to think that it won't happen again, particularly if we are aiding that process. With more carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, methane and other particulates in the upper atmosphere, warming energy from the sun can no longer get through that layer, having a net cooling effect. Either way, we're manipulating something we shouldn't be as a side-effect of our lifestyles.
"A lot of people believe that humans are maybe effecting the Earth by pollution"
Individually, we leave footprints and that simply cannot be denied. We breathe, need to eat, crap, use lots of plastics that take 20 generations or so to degrade, generate power mostly through the use of hydrocarbon-based coal as well as use a lot of petrol (oil) powered cars. In 1997 it was estimated that 600 million cars were in use and it was projected that by 2030, 1.4 billion cars will be in use. On average, burning a gallon of petrol releases 22 pounds of CO2, not to mention a miriad of other chemicals. Collectively, we are a large fleet of D9 dozers.You should ditch the "maybe" (or rather "may be").
"but I am not too concerned that my children will be any better or any worse because I wasn't driving a Low Emission Vehicle to work every day versus an SUV (which I don't actually own, but that was an example--the only reason I don't own an SUV is because I do not need one and not because I am trying to help out the Earth)."
That's a rather selfish and a narcissistic viewpoint given that we're seeing the effects of this today. Simple logic dictates that if you continually take from something, sometime in the future you will have nothing left. You should try to help the Earth, it helped you produce children - some need a reminder.
"The biggest problem with global warming is that these "scientists" expect me to believe that they understand what is happening to the climate many, many years in advance of the entire Earth when they cannot even predict if it's going to rain on a given day in a given city. Add to that they did not even know about El Nino and it's sister until what, the 1990's?"
The direct effect of putting pollution into the atmosphere IS known. The side and flow-on effects of this is what is not known. What you contend is that we shouldn't care because scientists can't predict the weather? Because someone may have been wrong in the past doesn't mean they're wrong now. If anything, an accumulation of temporal data helps in determining the validity of a theory with more accuracy. In case you've never thought about it, meteorology is not an exact science.
We've know the effects of El Nino/La Nina, for some time now. The names were coined in the 1990's.
"These effects were first described in 1923 by Sir Gilbert Thomas Walker"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nino - pgoetz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@pickypg:
"The biggest problem with global warming is that these 'scientists' expect me to believe that they understand what is happening to the climate many, many years in advance of the entire Earth when they cannot even predict if it's going to rain on a given day in a given city."
This seems to be the new favorite argument against claims of global warming. You're confusing the ability to make macroscopic predictions (e.g. will large scale climactic instability occur?) with microscopic predictions (will it rain today in East Piggyville?). There is no connection between these, and large scale predictions are almost always easier to make. Imagine spilling your coffee cup on the rug. Given any particular fiber in the rug, it would be next to impossible to predict if that fiber will get coffee on it, but it's pretty safe bet that you're going to get coffee on your rug. Capisca?
- newyawker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32What a surprise.
I can't wait till the United States no longer needs oil to run. But that's gonna take a long time, and certainly won't happen when Bush & Cheney are in the white house.- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -35/+8Nice political attack.
It didn't happen under Slick, either. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9I would love to hear what it is you think that a Presidential administration has to do with A) what technologies exist and B) what technologies people choose to make use of. Did I miss somewhere laws that prevent you from doing what you like with regards to carbon emissions? Or laws that *prevent* companies from conducting research or developing products?
The way so many people expect all leadership to stem from government both baffles and enrages me. I am hard pressed to think of a worse way to achieve anything than to allow government to force politically motivated and bureaucratically administered measures on what is supposedly a free populace. It is both ineffective and an affront to the concept of liberty. - avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Wow pabster, you are completely unbiased with your republican logo icon!
- groo68, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10WhiteRaven
The thing the government can to is fund research and development of new technology. then once that is efficient enough the government can subsidize its production and help people move away from dependency on the old technology. The current administration doesn't want renewable fuel and will not push for/fund its production. a lot of people need leadership and the current leadership is bad, so that moves to people who like to be led. - ColinCampbell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@ WhiteRaven
The government handled air pollution with a quota system that handled the problem very well. The manufacturing business said this would be the end of them, not so. The government was also required the catalytic converter, which the auto industry claimed was going to put them out of business. Not so. Don't underestimate the role that government can and should play when it comes to environmental policy. The Administration is not directly responsible for the legislation that can push motions like these through Congress, but they can certainly help create and move legislation like this. - Ganchula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@ Whiteraven
Wow, your head is really in the sand if you believe that there isn't a very cozy relationship between the government and the oil & gas industry. Government in general has a huge influence on the profitability of various energy projects, and so indirectly affects what technologies are available to us. The relationship is complicated and interactions seem to happen at many levels but you can bet that oil has a big influence on government and vice-versa. Many people argue that the main reason we are all using gasoline autos instead of electric or something else today is because of huge subsidies to research and the oil & automobile industries that have made it difficult to compete.
Check these out for instace:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009.stm
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=526651
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil - nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0Why diggin down pabster? sure he's a repubocrat but what he's sayin is true. It's time the democracins took responsibility for there role in whats happened as well. or is it true that liberals are as close minded as conservatives?
- IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Would you idiots shut the ***** up with the insults? Why can't we just debate without the ***** "stupid republicans" and "***** democrats" thrown in here and there? It's ***** stupid!
God damn republicans starting flame wars! - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ groo68
Are you sure you want science to be politicized and run by bureaucrats? I know I don't. Your concerns are exactly why government should be kept out of science. Anyone who expects government to make good decisions doesn't pay attention to history or basic human psychology. You don't like how the Bush administration is doing things... that should be enough to convince you that governmental funding of science is a bad idea.
Rather than attempting to get a government to fund research, we the people should fund it directly. After all, that's where pretty mush all innovation occurs anyway. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ Ganchula
Read what I wrote more carefully. I said that there are no laws *preventing* us from doing what we want. That fact that we have foolishly allowed the government to subsidize things is an entirely different subject. Governmental subsidies are ALWAYS wrong... whether it's subsidizing "alternative power" or "big oil". - pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@groo68
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/31/news/economy/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm
I don't really think I need to explain it, but just make sure you understand the starting paragraph. Past that, I am assuming adding anything is hopeless.
@Most of the others
A lot of times subsidies are not bribes or kickbacks to your good fellows. Sometimes it is good will to try to prevent a huge industry from going under in 50 years time--you may even call that foresight, but I doubt you guys will.
True, I'm sure there is some fishy business going on in a lot of cases and I am sure a bunch of money is simply mismanaged (take that however you want), but that is the case with every single government operation. I don't honestly expect the politicians to be looking out for us by paying Exxon et al to research hydrogen (and they are definitely not the only industry doing so--even the nuclear industry is).
It's not big oil holding back hydrogen fueled economies (since there's a lot more to oil than just cars); it's the conversion efficiencies of energy sources to hydrogen, such as water. There is no point to using hydrogen when it costs you two barrels of something else (in some cases, something expensive) to make one barrel of it--it would be like replacing making the transition from diesel to gasoline--no major net gain because you'd be replacing one evil with another.
I'd guess that probably in 5 to 10 years that some engineer will have a break through and hydrogen or something similar WILL take off, but it's not going to come from big oil and not because they don't want it too because they would just as easily capitalize on the next big fuel, but because there are so many other people/industries looking at the problem.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -35/+8Nice political attack.
- Frank_the_Tank, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32Now, if Global Warming has nothing to do with the oil companies or is man made, then why would ExxonMobil do this? Sounds like they're more sure they're causing Global Warming than most of us are.
It's like the cigarette companies and cancer...- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Um... why would they do this? I imagine they would say "to get the truth out". You assume that anyone who claims innocence (which is metaphorically what is happening here) must be guilty? That's twisted. innocent people claim to be innocent too you know.
Look, why worry about this? If the claims made by these groups that Exxon is funding are so bogus, just deal with them directly. Point out their errors. This attempt to imply that they MUST be fraudulent just because Exxon is involved is both illogical and cowardly. - AssProphet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Exxon-Mobile is attacking a popular theory to protect their interests. You can't use their actions to lend credibility to the opposing side of the issue.
- 1greenthumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly check out this video from the CBC, it pretty much shows it all...
http://overheating.blogspot.com/2006/11/denial-machine.html - pickypg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Two words: public image.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Um... why would they do this? I imagine they would say "to get the truth out". You assume that anyone who claims innocence (which is metaphorically what is happening here) must be guilty? That's twisted. innocent people claim to be innocent too you know.
- rcran, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4No *****, sherlock.
- kenvsryu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14With a $9.9 billion profit in a quarter they can discredit gravity and probably win.
Do not buy Exxon Mobil products.- blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Good luck with THAT boycott, Timmy.
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't buy their gas, but my car gets Mobil1 synthetic.
When there's a better alternative, I'll do it. - jcounterman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just so you realize....gas is traded as a commodity in pipelines. All the oil companies sell gas "credits" when the put it into the pipeline, and purchase "credits" when they take some out....the gas you buy from Chevron, BP, Exxon, Volero....it all funds the major oil companies equally. Not buying Exxon gas will not hurt them one bit, as they don't make any money off it at the pump.
As for convenience items at Exxon stations - those are all franchised and Exxon sees none of the profits, so you're basically only hurting your local business owner when you refuse to buy Exxon...or any other brand, for that matter.
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7this just reminded me, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing an oil executive. god said so
- FunnyStuffff, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3Big Suprise,
i bet they also pay people to block laws for oil tax.
I bet they also stop people from make cars that use less gas or no gas
Boycott ExonMobil Gas everyday. That boycott gas on Friday doesnt work cause the next day people still buy gas to make up for it.
-- Tony
-- http://www.FreewareCity.com- IMustBeEmo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Eat a dick.
- arcangelgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Reality is that which, no matter how much you deny it's existence, continues to bite you in the ass.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Imagine that. Big business paying to spread FUD...
Quit being so self-absorbed. ExxonMobil is hardly the first, nor will it be the last.
16 million almost seems like a joke. That's lunch money for those guys.- blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Doing some quick math which is probably wrong, $16 million is APPROXIMATELY one TENTH of what they made during one business day during a 9 billion dollar quarter.
***** the environment. Where do I sign up? - Totalchaos02, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yes that makes it ok! Its been done before so everyone can do it now!
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The fact that others did it, do it and will do it doesn't make it right or insignificant.
Can I kill you because someone has done it before (even legally)?
- blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Doing some quick math which is probably wrong, $16 million is APPROXIMATELY one TENTH of what they made during one business day during a 9 billion dollar quarter.
- Wolfie351, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8What next, 4 out of 5 dentist actually do NOT recommend Trident gum?
- AgentOrn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3How about giving that 16mil to help stop global warming, I think Exxon is a little counter productive in the environmental department.
This reminds me of a song I know,
*cues music*
What do you do with a drunken sailor, put him in charge of an Exxon tanker.- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+016 million to stop global warming? I don't think humans are that powerful.
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0742551172/ref=s9_asin_title_1/105-1574294-7931622
- jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+016 million to stop global warming? I don't think humans are that powerful.
- moowa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Punish the companies involved, release the names of the people whose bank account was directly effected.
- Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4..okay, grab 'im, boys! ...hey Jed, git a rope!
no seriously, it's just about to that point. - biggums, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I bet now they want to pay to shut up people on this website
- TheN0id, on 10/12/2007, -15/+9I have absolutely no problem with Exxon paying people to dissuade public opinion on Global Warming. It's called P.R. Seriously people stop forming your opinions on what you hear from other people and the media and do some research of your own.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Ironically, there's only a debate about global warming because of Exxon's "P.R."
I think I'll take your advice and do some research of my own. After I book my third expedition to Anarctica, I'll just run some computer models on the mainframe I have out back, call up my contact at NASA for the latest word on CO2 levels, and coordinate with my team of 100 scientists around the world to measure temperature changes for the past 18 months. After all, if I did any less than that, I'd just be taking someone else's word for it. - Ganchula, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13It's not just PR when they lie about science and intentionally mislead people.
Consider this - the tobacco industry for a long time asserted that there wasn't any danger to smoking tobacco, and funded scientifically questionable studies to back up their statements. Now we know that is BS of course, tobacco causes lung cancer and people die from it. Is that just PR?
Same thing here - phony research from people with a vested interest in a certain outcome. And If global warming is real, it could be far more dangerous than tobacco.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Ironically, there's only a debate about global warming because of Exxon's "P.R."
- seanrbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Three relevant points here (beyond all of the 'no *****' responses), brought up in another digg about the same story:
1.) This is getting mainstream press coverage.
2.) The $16 million is what the authors felt they could prove in a libel suit without having had the ability to subpoena records or otherwise coerce Exxon's cooperation. It may be assumed to be a drop in the bucket of what they found evidence of, and what would be found if fully investigated.
3.) This report is being released the day before the new Congress is sworn in. Brilliant timing, really... err, I mean, what a coincidence! - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7This article would be much better if it would give an example of a falsehood put forward by one of the groups Exxon funded.
- ck01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This can't be especially with a company as ethically responsible as Exxon. The next time an oil tanker decides to crash and cause one of the largest man made disasters to the US, we should only hope it is piloted by another drunk Exxon captain.
- macweirdo42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wow, $16 million, that's peanuts. Guess it paid off, though, judging from the general distrust of the global warming issue in this country. It's okay, though, because in a few years, they'll be put out of business when we all have to start swimming to work.
- masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Them's some big nuts.
- Pic0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3this isnt helping my stock value...
- wing05, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Let's throw Monsanto into the evil corporation club too.
Don't forget the Roundup ready wheat lawsuit against the farmer whose field of wheat ended up cross pollinated.
And the BGH (bovine growth hormone) vs organic milk labeling and producers controversy. - xarc13, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I think Global Warming's good--it can galvanize us to colonize space. As for Africa and other poor affected nations...***** em'.
- minusonebit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They could have paid me off for alot less than that.
- scratched, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Penn and Teller came to mind as soon as I read this headline.
Their show is owned by an organization backed by ExxonMobil. - extracrunchy23, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Not surprising that anyone in the US care about global warming, that's called corporate propaganda. I hope this will be a big scandal to put such things in the light, I'll follow the media stock, for the moment it's not rising: http://www.trendio.com/word.php?wordid=2147&language=en
- extracrunchy23, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Not surprising that nobody in the US cares about global warming, that's called corporate propaganda. I hope this will be a big scandal to put such things in the light, I'll follow the media stock, for the moment it's not rising: http://www.trendio.com/word.php?wordid=2147&language=en
- StantheBat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9It's enough to shake a guy's faith in the honesty and integrity of oil companies.
- michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I never buy Exxon/Mobile gas because of this and how they havn't paid the local fisherman in Valdez their court ordered, ***** what you ***** up, payments.
I know I still buy gas but if everyone would boycott the same company it would send a prettt clear message.
Screw the "no gas on monday" or "boycott all oil companies for a week."
Just hit one of them hard. they will all fall in line then.- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exxon is the largest corporation in America. Their profits dwarf any and every other industry in the US. Boycotting them would take a while to take effect; what is needed is a systematic and pervasive replacement for petroleum based fuel. That's the toughest obstacle to defeating Exxon/Mobile.
- MaximusIGN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Just more proof that Republicans lead by Bush and Cheney are vigorously blocking all evidence of global warming at the risk of all of us to line their pockets.
I hope for all our sakes that Bush's dreams of a legacy featuring a peaceful, prosperous and healthy world comes true, because frankly right now it looks like he'll be responsible for a disaster much worse than Vietnam, a treasury on the brink of bankruptcy and the turning point of climate change.- Bartboy919, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5LETS BURN THE BUSH!
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah, because we all know no Democrats are invested in ExxonMobil.
Get your head outta the ***** sand. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+299% of all politicians are slobbing big oil's knob. Quit kidding yourself.
- zekt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's simple folks... if it has not been peer reviewed, it ain't provable science (though that maxim is certainly not infallible either).
- mochzr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've given up.
Why are those who have the least knowledge of the subject the same people who are the loudest? - ishmael5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes, but even Peer reviewed journals are heavily swayed. As an upper level geology student(senior), I think a lot of peer reviewed articles get published solely based upon who is writing them. I mean, heaven forbid we refuse to publish a carbonate paper by folk or bathurst, but if some professor froma college no one has ever heard of publishes something that is obvious, but flies in the face of what certain "key" members in a field of study believe, then it goes unpublished. What's right about that?
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ishmael5
When the body of substantiated evidence is large enough to support the theory to the exclusion of the prevailing theory, then it will be given its due heed.
e.g.
The theory of continental drift was proposed by Alfred Wegener and widely discredited for decades, but is now a validated fact.
- mochzr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've given up.
- grokinator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6And yet nobody questions how much money has been raised and given to the "other side" to prove scientifically that Global Warming is more than just tripe for you to chew on.
If it was reported tomorrow that the Sierra Club/Green Peace/Earth First/etc. donated 32 million to "prove"/influence viewpoints that Global Warming was more than just another rallying point it would be praised for such a noble use of that money and would probably get people to give them even more.
Oh my gawd, the trees! Oh my gawd, the rain forests! Oh my gawd, Global Warming!
Oh my gawd, ________- PrettyMuchBryce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The difference being exxonmobile is trying to sell you something and their claims directly support their money hungry agenda. Greenpeace is an independent environmental organization aimed at helping the environment.
But ***** it, who needs the environment anyways? We can pump gas in space just fine.
- PrettyMuchBryce, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The difference being exxonmobile is trying to sell you something and their claims directly support their money hungry agenda. Greenpeace is an independent environmental organization aimed at helping the environment.
- kevinHaney, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
- Garageband, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Watch 'An inconvient Truth'. After you see that, there is no way that you can doubt that global warming is occurring at a rapid rate as we speak. And not to spark a political debate but I find it hard NOT to believe that the Middle Easts' major oil reserves didn't play a major role in our decision to become involved there. And I find it shocking how they blatantly admitted to bribing scientists. We only have one planet to live on! We don't get a second chance. It is so appalling to see what some people (tobacco, oil, firearm) companies will do for money.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I have seen "An Inconvienent Truth". Al's arguments are specious at best and downright false at worst. The entire movie is a sham designed to convince weak minded fools that they actually understand the science, when they do not.
No, I do not believe in global warming. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Otto, Al Gore didn't just make arguments in a vacuum; he showed plain evidence for what he was showing.
Please consider this video also:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&q=denial+machine&hl=en
What part of global warming are you denying? It usually goes in stages:
1) The world is not warming up. (Long since refuted. There is not even a reasonable doubt anymore that the globe is warming up.)
2) Okay, so it's warming up, but it's a cyclical thing. (This too has been refuted soundly; the current trend far exceeds anything cyclical warming cycles have ever produced, and it not only statistically significant, but overwhelmingly deviant.)
3) Okay, so it's warming up and out of whack, but it's not our fault. (This too has been refuted; the composition of our atmosphere correlates to the warming very tightly, and beyond mere correlation, this correlation has known causation behind it--namely, that the gasses that we have put into our atmosphere through our industry, primarily carbon dioxide that has long been out of the carbon cycle, absorb infra red radiation and re-radiate it, keeping much of the heat imparted on our atmosphere from radiating back out into space as effectively.)
You may be an honest doubter, but the people who have misled you in order to protect their businesses (with no consideration to the long term global harm they may do) are worse than liars; they have blood on their hands for the destruction radical climate change has done.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I have seen "An Inconvienent Truth". Al's arguments are specious at best and downright false at worst. The entire movie is a sham designed to convince weak minded fools that they actually understand the science, when they do not.
- daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6what a pathetic low life animal have you to be to accept payment to produce propaganda against the environment.
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The same pathetic lowlives who denied that cigarettes cause cancer:
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. documentary on the systematic and artificial illusion of scientific dissent on this issue:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&q=denial+machine&hl=en
- Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The same pathetic lowlives who denied that cigarettes cause cancer:
- Jack9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2In other news, social networking sites give free publicity to organizations that support emo kid groupthinks. Page 2, "The Man" wants you to get a job.
- Darkmoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope Exxon executives love their children too.
- PrettyMuchBryce, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1You're all conspiracy theorists. I watch ***** with penn and teller and if you did you would know that anything that hurts you is *****. Alot of crazy conspiracy theorists or what the wackos call them; "Scientists", might try to convince you that theres all this "evidence" that seems to point to global emissions directly affecting the atmosphere and ocean currents but if you know anything you would know its all *****!
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Penn was payed by Exxon to do that episode of *****!
Wikipedia is your friend.
Thank you for playing. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sir, Penn and Teller's episode on this matter was extremely poorly done.
Please consider this Canadian documentary on Exxon's scientists-for-hire: (And indeed, the leading deniers of global warming are the same scientists who were the deniers who said cigarettes are not addictive nor cancer-causing.)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=denial+machine - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Oops. The prior link was to the search. Here's the specific video I'm talking about. Please watch it and consider what the implications are:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811&q=denial+machine&hl=en - masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3cuz, y'know, penn and teller are indisputable references. unimpeachable experts on every topic they discuss. certainly. who wouldn't recognize that two guys who make a living fooling people constitute the very font of truth and knowledge in the english speaking world. certainly they should be believed over, say, the preponderance of climate scientists.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Penn was payed by Exxon to do that episode of *****!
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It would be much better if there was no descent on the global warming issue, and all people believed in the same science. This type of thinking would have prevented terrible things like the discovery of the alignment of the solar system, the discovery of the "New World" and practically every other new invention of our times. Damn Exxon for trying to support a group with a different viewpoint that also helps keep them in business. They should be ashamed.
- masterofNone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The oil companies are just following the example of the tobacco companies. They're simply creating FUD. Fear. Uncertainty. and Doubt. Microsft has used it for decades as their primary weapon against new competitors. The problem with this strategy is when fear of the alternative becomes greater your company looks evil.... which, in fact, your company probably is.
- Frenicks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Greenpeace have been telling you this for years...
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/climatecriminals/esso/
(Esso is Exxon's UK brand) - dirtkahuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All I want is an electric car and an affordable wind turbine. I could do all of my commuting without using oil.
- BufordT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except for the oil that is burned somewhere along the line, then placed onto the electrical grid that ends up at your house as electricity. Maybe not your house specifically, but that would be the case for millions who think electric cars are the "clean" alternative.
- dirtkahuna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Like I said, a wind turbine could provide most if not all of my energy needs. There is always wind blowing on my property.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@BufordT
Centralized electricity generation is cleaner than individual power generation where fossil fuels are concerned due to efficiencies of scale. It is much easier to clean the emissions from one coal, or natural gas, powered plant than it is to clean the emissions from 100,000 vehicles of various models & ages.
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2NASA alone gets funding for global warming that is over $200 million every year. The money spent by exxon ($16 million over 7 years) is peanuts compared to the pro-global warming funding.
This is why you see scientists saying that SNOW IN THE SUMMERTIME in Australia is proof of global warming.- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any references to that occurring would be appreciated. I didn't find any with a cursory search.
Global warming doesn't mean a uniform increase in temperature across the entire globe. It means an increase in the average temperature - i.e. more energy in the system. This additional energy results in disrupted weather patterns. This is why "global climate change" is synonymous with "global warming". - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vikingcoder - Google for NASA funding and then look at the climate-related satellites and other projects. The total is over $200 million per year.
I'm not against detailing Exxon's funding practice, but I am against hiding the funding of of other global related activities. The funding for the research should be transparent, regardless of the content of the report.
As to your comments on global warming, I'd ask you to consider the idea that global warming cannot be falsified. Snow in the summertime supports global warming. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yay for strawmen!
The climatological theories that predict "snow in the summertime" can be falsified or validated by experimental data. Your lack of knowledge & comprehension does not refute anything.
You've got your facts mixed up about NASA too. The $200 million project was a shelved satellite mission that was designed to measure soil moisture -- a key factor in helping scientists understand the impact of global warming and predict droughts and floods.
``NASA has canceled, scaled back, or delayed all of the planned earth observing missions,"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/09/nasa_shelves_climate_satellites/
I'd ask you to consider using facts, instead of vapid anecdotes, to support your points. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vikingcoder That is a press release, not a funding report for NASA. Look up the funding report, total up the climate-related activities.
Also, please provide a list of events that could occur that would falsify global warming theories. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NASA 2007 Budget Proposal
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf
(in millions)
Total: 10,524.4
=> Science: 5,330.0
=> Earth-Sun System: 2,210.6 million
=> Earth Systematic Missions: 301.7 million
The Earth Systematic Missions contribute to President Bush's Climate Change Research Initiative.
http://www.climatescience.gov/about/ccri.htm
Please explain how NASA following its mandate is in any way relevant to Exxon funding FUD in a coordinated effort to discredit the science behind global warming. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The point is that all of these scientists are 100% dependent upon funding. If the funding goes away, their livelihood goes away. If they were to say there is no global warming, their funding would go away. This is why you end up with an unfalsifiable theory where snow in the summertime "proves" the world is heating up.
To counter this, testable predictions need to be made and checked. Scientific data, reports, and computer models need to be made available to the public so they can make informed decisions. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Again with the strawmen! All scientists are dependent on funding. Climatologists are no different.
Insisting that climatologists must be falsifing their data because "they would lose their funding otherwise" is pure sophistry. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I didn't say they were falsifying their data. They don't need to do that. The theory of global warming cannot be shown wrong, no matter what happens. Here are just a few examples:
* Global warming scientists say that global warming will cause snowfall in the interior of antartica to increase. No such increase was found. Does this show global warming to be wrong? No.
* Global warming scientists say that global warming will cause England to get colder. England just had they're hottest year ever. Does this show global warming to be wrong? No.
* Global warming scientists say that global warming will the arctic to heat up as CO2 is added to the air. 2006 was one of the coolest years in the arctic in the last 20 years. Does this show global warming to be wrong? No.
* Parts of Australia have a drought, showing that global warming is happening.
* Parts of Australia have higher than usual rains, showing that global warming is happening.
* When you look at the majority of the predictions regarding global warming they occure 40 or more years into the future, which is after the scientists making the predictions will have retired.
* It snows in the summertime, and this proves global warming.
Again, the way you get around these problems is to demand these scientists make testable predictions and make their data, reports, and computer models available to the public. This is not being done. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Your ignorance, lack of comprehension, and outright cherry-picking of data disprove nothing.
I did find the news reports of snow during summer in Australia for anybody else interested.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/summer-let-it-snow-let-it-blow-let-it-glow/2006/12/25/1166895241031.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/12/26/australia.weather/index.html - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Asking scientists to make predictions that can falsify their theory is not "cherry picking". It's standard scientific practice. Global warming scientists haven't made any such predictions, and therefore they are not practicing science. It's as simple as that.
And if global warming is truely the threat they claim it is, there is nothing at all wrong with asking that their data and computer models be made available to the public. In fact, keeping it from the public is unethical.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Any references to that occurring would be appreciated. I didn't find any with a cursory search.
- JShope, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My gripe with global warming is that nobody can produce the scientifically valid results. STOP telling me I cannot understand the science. Show me the science, and let me tell you if I can understand it. The fact is, the scientists have to place so many caveats into their work, that there are no proofs of concept. In addition, there is little time devoted to the science when so much time is spent in fundraising and shouting down the other side.
I have researched global warming, and all I find are 'he said, she said' arguments on both sides. Examples are given as if they prove theories, but they are useless.
GW - "The Island of Vanautu is sinking as ocean levels rise."
Response - "The island is disappearing because it has been mined of its minerals for too long."
GW - "The Antarctic Ice Shelf is disappearing. A chunk the size of Manhattan broke off recently."
Response - "Chunks break off all of the time; some smaller, some larger. The ice cap is actually growing thicker."
Kyoto is as worthless as the paper it is printed on. This is becoming ever more obvious, as we watch how Russia and India respond to the treaty that THEY RATIFIED. Even a quick review of the Kyoto Protocol on wikipedia shows how each country twists the meanings of what the treaty requires to fit into the mold they already are in.
The most detrimental argument for Global Warming is that all the money spent, opportunities lost, and actions taken will only SLOW DOWN the rate of Global Warming. Essentially, the cost / benefit ratio is negative. You will never win over the unbrainwashed masses until you can show how actions taken today will actually IMPROVE things in the future.- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ignore the popular media and people (alarmist & denier alike) who only offer reference-less sound bites and sophistry. Local phenomena do not prove or disprove a global trend. Look at the science, not the anecdotal spin.
The Kyoto Protocol is worthless. It is only nominally about controlling emissions and primarily about syphoning money from Annex 1 countries to non-Annex 1 countries. The Annex 1 countries will use all manner of spin to avoid sending their money abroad.
A decrease in future hardships & calamities is not worth working for? Should medical personnel not provide any help to those who won't make a full recovery? - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No wonder you are confused. You are having trouble keeping distinguishing between events in the Arctic and events in the Antarctic. In the Arctic, an ice shelf broke off recently (actually over a year ago, but only reported recently). Glaciers calve all the time warming or no warming - but this ice shelf has been dated to be at least 3,000 years old and had been shrinking for quite some time. Dated by driftwood frozen in the shelf, in case you were wondering. The Arctic sea ice is both decreasing in area _and_ getting thinner. Meanwhile, at the other pole, much of Antarctica is very cold and very dry so an increase in snowfall can cause an ice gain in the interior of Antarctica (same for Greenland). That slows down the sea level rise somewhat, but is not at all incompatible with Global Warming. GW does not mean everything melts everywhere at once (or even warming everywhere all at once).
".. and actions taken will only SLOW DOWN the rate of Global Warming."
That could be very valuable. Pushing off the proverbial "tipping point" can buy time to develop and deploy new technologies. Would you rather have 20 years or 50 years to research and deploy (for example) safer fission power? - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vikingcoder - I'm speaking for JShope, so I may not be rflecting his views correctly, but I think what he's saying is this:
1) There is very little scientific evidence made available to the public regarding global warming. Contray to many folks apparent belief, press releases are not science. This is not a minor point. Scientific studies are often very different from the press releases about those studies. And it's only by reading the actual scientific reports that you discover things like 70% margins of error in measurements, measurements not even being taken, and calls for funding to projects run by the reports' author(s).
2) Even if you blindly accept everything the global warming folks say as true, part of what they're saying is that global warming will continue no matter what we do. If it's actually true that all the polar bears are going to die because of global warming then they're going to die because, according to the global warming folks, we can't stop global warming, only slow it down. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Arrhenius - I'd encourage you to read the latest report from NOAA regarding arctic ice. They believe the ice will start getting larger, thicker, and older now.
Also, regarding ice thickness, when I speak of studies with margins of error as high as 70%, I am specifically refering to ice thickness measurements. The truth of the matter is that when margins of error are taken into consideration, we don't know if the ice is getting thicker or thinner. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@magicjava
They believe the ice will start getting older? Wow! That is an impressive bit of logic on their part to assume that something will get older as time passes, or a pathetic example of reading comprehension on your part.
Please stop with the anecdotal references. If you do indeed have specific reports that you are referring to, please provide cites to them. If not, you are no better than the "gloom & doom" alarmists.
NOAA State of the Arctic report (Oct. 2006)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/soa2006/
(Sea Ice Cover)
>>
During 2005, each month except May showed a record minimum sea ice extent in the northern hemisphere for the period 1979-2005.
[...]
The trends in the extent and thickness of the cover are consistent with observations of a significant loss of older, thicker ice out of the Arctic via Fram Strait in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
>>
(Summary)
>>
The observations highlighted in this report indicate that many of the trends documented in the ACIA report (2004, 2005) continued during 2000-2005 and suggest a sustained period of warming in the Arctic region. Convincing evidence includes the continued reduction in sea ice extent, observed at both the winter maximum and summer minimum, and widespread changes in Arctic vegetation, with the tundra experiencing an increase in greenness and the boreal forest regions showing a decrease in greenness.
>> - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1vikingcoder - Older ice is more resitant to climate change than younger ice. Over the past few years, arctic ice has been getting both smaller and younger. Arctic Oscillations (AOs) have, in the past, had a major influence on the extent, thickness, and age of the ice. Positive AOs have resulted in smaller extents of younger ice that are less thick (as far as we can measure thickness). In the past neutral AOs have lead to older, larger, thicker ice. We are now entering a period of neutral AOs.
All of this is covered in that report. - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@vikingcoder
Yeah, that's the report he's talking about.
@magicjava
From the report summary -
"Since then [1995], the annual averaged AO index has been exhibiting more neutral conditions, which should support a reversal or, at least, a deceleration in the overall rate of reduction in the extent of the ice cover. Instead, 2002-2005 has been characterized by an unprecedented series of extreme ice extent minima."
In other words - the AO has been neutral since 1995 and the sea ice keeps getting worse. Elsewhere in the details of report we find that the AO index is actually slightly negative and the sea ice keeps getting worse in _spite_ of the negative AO index.
But go ahead and disregard it all. After all, the authors didn't do the work for free! They can't possibly be motivated by anything other than hunger for the next grant. By the way, that excuse is a handy way of ignoring any medical advice you don't like - check out the size of the NIH budget someday. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@magicjava
Rather than cherry-picking from the report, how about taking it as a whole?
>>
There are indications that some components of the physical system [AOs] may be recovering and returning to the recent climatological norms observed from 1950 to 1980. [...] While some of the monitored sites show a slightly increasing trend in the thickness of the active layer, most do not.
There also appears to be a destabilization of several known relationships between climate indices and Arctic physical system characteristics.
>>
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/rich2952/rich2952.pdf
pg. 28 - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Arrhenius - The ice loss is due to temp anomolies, not as part of an ongoing trend, see page 4:
Anomalies
in spring (March–June) for the last 6 years for these coastal areas are near
3–4◦C. The ocean north of eastern Siberia is also a main region for loss of sea
ice cover over the last decade (discussed later).
vikingcoder - I haven't cherry picked the report, I've summerized is best I know how. - Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@magicjava
"The ice loss is due to temp anomolies, not as part of an ongoing trend"
That is a "does not compute" statement. It appears that you do not know what the word "anomaly" means in this context. Its means different from some local average or baseline. That's it. It does _not_ mean strange, unusual, and due to change soon. For example, in a temperature anomaly map, 0.0 is a common value - the temp is at its local average value. Its done this way due to difficulties in comparing temperatures from different locations. Whats warm in Moscow and whats warm in Miami are different things so you compare them by looking at localized anomalies.
Thus the ice loss is due to temperature anomalies - very much a part of a two decade long trend. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Arrhenius - Good catch. I _was_ misunderstanding the meaning. But it works out the same anyway as the anomoly over Russia disappeared in 2006 (and it was a 6 year trend, not 20 ;) ).
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ignore the popular media and people (alarmist & denier alike) who only offer reference-less sound bites and sophistry. Local phenomena do not prove or disprove a global trend. Look at the science, not the anecdotal spin.
- pirotess, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not a big deal. Everyone does this.
- cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not a big deal, unless your government is basically FUNDED by said companies 'doing this'...
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*edited for wrong location *
- hanapbuhay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1More references:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html?print=t
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/04/news/climate.php - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1* edited for error in location *
- atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good then maybe some people will be able to understand the truth about global warming. The polar ice cap is melting because we are at the end of this ice-age. At one point, the glacier went all the way to St. Louis. When the dinosaurs were around, there were no ice caps. If the argument is that we are quickening the earth's natural processes, then who ***** cares its going to happen anyway and we have very little influence...
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by