What is Digg?80 Comments
- fober, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20They just posted a 30 kajillion dollar profit and all they've got to offer is $10,000?
Go ***** yourself Exxon. - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20this does not suprise me, considering their product that they see is a contributer to greenhouse gases...
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16If I was a scientist, I would find that figure plain insulting. You'd need at least 6 figures to compromise my professional integrity..
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11There's a huge difference between "here's some grant money- see what you can find out", and "here's some money to publish a paper that supports our views, and our profit margin", and you should know it.
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11links between think tank & Bush -seems they thought of the 'surge' in Iraq
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/02/a_bush_in_the_hand_is_priceless_for_aei.html
ps
global village...
http://www.miniature-earth.com/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Shame on them. Same for Monsanto with their transgenetic crap, argh...
- Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7That's precisely what I thought. An international corporation with all that money, and they don't have a department that knows how to make a ***** *bribe*?!
- etnu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9CO2 is "life", in the sense that it's necessary for plants to survive. The problem comes around when there's an excessive amount of CO2 in the environment. Unfortunately, we're burning the candle at both ends because we're simultaneously destroying CO2 consuming plants while also producing ever increasing amounts of the stuff.
- mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Get away with what? What laws are they breaking?
- Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Won't help that much. That profit isn't EBITDA, it's after taxes. Consider how tax alone, ignoring direct "political contributions", greases the pockets of the government. You'll see why a particular party will have very little impact on such a corporation.
- multitude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not incredibly surprised about this, given Exxon-Mobile's history. Somehow, though, it still turns my stomach that a corporation would strive so hard to put profit ahead of human concerns. If the company really cared about humanity, they would support research no matter what the conclusion. This is appalling.
It's a small step, but I will boycott Exxon-Mobile's gas because of this and other reasons. - phantomcrawl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well first I hear they get all this profit.
now i hear they are responsible for an oil spill
anyone want to take bets? are they responsible enough to clean it or a bunch of asshats? - honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How much did the Sierra Club pay out last year?
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@vikingcoder What difference does it make where the report is hosted? None. What difference does it make what type of article it is? None. My bad on the CNN/WP thing. I had what was basically the same article from the WP open in my browser.
Providing links allows the reader to verify the accuracy of the article, to place it in context, and to do further research. It allows you to answer questions such as:
* What portion of Exxon funding is dedicated to climate research? (Answer: very little)
* What portion of the AEI's budget comes from Exxon? (Answer: very little)
* What portion of the AEI's or Exxon's reports have been scientifically invalidated? (Answer: none that I can see) - Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That government is accountable to its people is a widely accepted myth. The reality is that they are not. Politicians have stacked the decks against anyone who wishes to move away from the status quo, and if any upstanding person gets elected, he quickly gets frustrated that there's nothing he can do, and pretty soon gets hopeless or corrupted.
The difference between a company and a government is that a company can not legally use force on people to achieve its ends. If they want to make profit, they will have to provide a product people are willing to voluntarily pay for. Centralized governments can bring whole civilizations down to poverty, famine and treachery in no time.
Besides, you didn't address the point that government can pollute with impunity (with your tax dollars). - BriSoFli, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What an idiotic comment. You are right consensus isn't science. But, science is science. Scientists are using science to understand data that indicates that global warming is caused by human activity. That they happen to agree with each other doesn't do anything to discredit the science behind the agreement. Scientific consensus isn't the same as the consensus that the earth was flat or that the sun orbited the earth. You just don't have a good point. Your comment is so lame I have a hard time caring enough to produce a good argument to refute it.
- diggless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A company is beholden to the shareholders, a government is beholden to the people. This is the distinction your lacking
you can claim the people aren't doing an adequate job electing officials that will execute their will, but you cant argue that the corporation has no incentive to see a study claim its product is responsible for the destabilization of the climate. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who funds what does not matter. The only valid question to ask is; what claims are factually valid. True scientists welcome all scrutiny. Talking about where the funding comes from amounts to an ad hominem attack.
- TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7According to NASA's latest data the polar ice cap has seen significent thawing in past 10 years and within the recent 5 years the thaw has accelerated alarmingly.
Its estimated that within 10 years there will be no northern polar ice and the glaciers of Greenland will be pretty much history. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In other news, Exxon Mobil made $39.5 billion last year.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-exxonprofit_02bus.ART0.State.Edition1.1cbd69e.html
Does this come as a surprise to anyone? - quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not surprising considering these earlier reports on Exxon's funding of front groups to support their polluting ways. They've decided it's cheaper to confuse the public than to clean up their act.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Who cares. Thier stock is kicking a$$ and I'm cashing in."
@hungryhermit
Stop pretending this is good. It's theft and you're probably at a net loss with the extra money you spend on gas. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Both "none" points are actually very significant. There is a major difference between the transcript from an online live discussion and a syndicated article. One is only available from that specific media outlet, the other is created for potentially world-wide distribution across many diverse outlets. A locally hosted file linked from an article cannot be syndicated while a referential cite can be easily done.
There is a direct example of local vs. syndicated here. "I had what was basically the same article from the WP open in my browser" is a syndicated article. The "live discussion" transcript is a local article not fit for syndication. The IPCC PDF file is equivalent to any image file in ease of syndication.
> Providing links allows the reader to verify the accuracy
Of which you have provided none.
AEI is not asking for research reports. They are asking for opinion articles similar to Lindzen's WP editorial and Monckton's Guardian piece. Opinion articles are nothing more than sophistic pieces packed with half truths, outright myths and politicized spin. - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, scientists who endorse that view, like 95% of climate scientists. There are a few -- just a few -- dissenters. Their job is to convert the rest of scientists to their point of view, then the consensus will change. See, science is like that. Not, evidently, corporate rapists, or PR campaigns, or the AEI, which is one of the prime dispensers of conservative welfare.
- quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You must be mad or incredibly naive. Money doesn't matter? Money doesn't influence outcomes and opinions? What planet are you from?
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An informative answer for an ignorant retort.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/194 - thoand, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It is time to throw out our governments.
WHO IS WITH ME? - pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey what are you guys worried about? We'll kill ourselves off, some plants and animals survive, the planet recovers and evolution will take care of the rest.
/Sarcasm - spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sorry to repost this from other threads, but the basic facts remain unchallenged and relevant, so....
The reality is that virtually all of the climatologists in the world agree that global warming is real and primarily caused by human activity. The scientific consensus on this as a general process borders on unanimity: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html
In no other field* would people argue that we need to "teach the controversy" in the face of such overwhelming consensus. Do we need to "teach the debate" over whether the earth is flat? The germ theory of disease? The reason for this is simple: There are large industries with a vested interest in the status quo, and they invest lots of money in FUD to ensure that the fake debate stays alive: http://digg.com/politics/CBC_documentary_on_Global_Warming_Deniers_The_Denial_Machine
* OK, wait, I forgot: we do have the evolution/creation debate, and the stem cell debate, both of which feature the same political/cultural players arrayed against the normal process of science, but from which the industrial interests are notably absent.
The claim that scientists are "in it for the money" is funny. Generally, climate scientists are not asking for more money to study the issue; they are asking for action on the problem. More at these: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html, http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2006/02/cost-of-climate-research.html
There is honest disagreement on impacts and their "schedule"; while the theory is generally accepted, the science is not advanced enough to give a specific schedule on the responses of the planet's climate, which is a large, chaotic system. Layering human civilization on top of this makes accurate and detailed predictions (how many people will be displaced, how much will these change affect agriculture, etc.) difficult if not impossible: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
That said, what we're doing now if vaguely similar to poking a lion with a stick; whatever the result, it's not likely to be good. I base this on the physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and human activities have roughly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png, http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p9.htm, http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
There are also potential climate "tipping points" that could accelerate this process dramatically; one example is the possible release of vast amounts of methane (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) from permafrost in the far north. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm Another is a release of ice from Antarctica or Greenland; while it has been generally believed that these sheets are too large to decompose rapidly, recent findings have been unnerving: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html
Previous large emissions of methane have been Bad for living things on the planet: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/earth_wobble_burps.html?1992005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031218074548.htm
There really isn't much convincing data to argue against this; you can see the standard arguments refuted here: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Bottom line: The global climate is warming, and this is largely due to human activity. The resulting climate changes are likely to be seriously disruptive to human civilization. Reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases would reduce these impacts. These are simple facts; specific remedies launch us into the realm of policy, which is much more messy than the underlying science. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They provide such links when they wish to, as this article from the same papers shows (see 3rd paragraph):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/02/02/DI2007020200882.html - freeb26, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No laws have been broken but do you not think they crossing some ethical lines?
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's a hosted "live discussion", not a syndicated article. There is a difference. Notice also that the file is locally hosted and not linked to the IPCC site. No referential cite was provided.
> this article from the same papers
CNN is not the same as the Washington Post. CNN is owned by Time Warner. The WP is self-owned.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php
http://www.washpostco.com/company-profile.htm - betasp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Their margins are much less than Microsoft and other companies like GE.
- Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well the government takes your money by force and gives it to people who will join the consensus. Is that ethical?
- xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By "get away with this" you mean bringing people a product they need. I would like the oil companies shut down for a month, and then everybody will see how much they need oil and that 3 bucks a gallon is not a bad deal.
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I replied to this in the original thread, above.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a mainstream press news article. When do they ever provide referential cites?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
Try reading the article once in a while.
"According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004." - BigFoot48, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exxon and Mobil didn't merge until the late 1990's, so your father's letter was from one or the other, but not ExxonMobil.
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you for the letter vikingcoder. Here's a quote from it where the AEI indicates what they are looking for:
Quote - "In particular we are looking for an author who can write a well supported but accessible discussion of which elements of a climate model have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy relevant and which elements of a climate model have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in climate policy."
In other words, they're looking for exactly the kind of info you'd expect from a policy think tank.
The thing that gets me about all of this is the AEI is _not_ argueing against CO2 global warming. For an example this, see this PDF where two of their members are recommending a carbon tax: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25481/pub_detail.asp - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@quakerorts
Funding source is irrelevant. The science stands on its own or it doesn't. Your ignorance of the scientific method does not disprove anything. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1P.S. This is why you want to see the original info rather than believing the article. More times than not what's in the article and what's in the original are not the same.
In this case not only is the AEI _not_ calling for an "opinion piece", some of their members are calling for taxes on carbon emissions. - magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sorry vikingcoder, but I can't make heads or tails of your reasoning here. My original point that the article contains no links to backup information still stands.
P.S. Here's a link for you. It's to Exxon's 2005 grants.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/giving05_policy.pdf - spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Teething: If by "biased" you mean "mostly peer-reviewed", then I agree with you.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because that makes no sense.
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1NOTE: The article contains no link to a report detailing AEI's funding sources.
NOTE: The article contains no link to a report detailing Exxon's funding practices.
NOTE: The article contains no link to a report detailing which, if any, reports by either the AEI or Exxon where found to be scientifically inaccurate. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is one of letters that AEI sent out last year.
http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf
They are specifically proposing a compensated opinion piece. - Gendolookin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thats what i try to tell people man...but they just don't beleive me... If you do the research, its no where near as big a problem as everyone says it is. The real problem, that i see is on a local scale. For instance air pollution in your city, I live in Louisville, Kentucky, and because we are in a valley, the air pollution just ,kinda hangs around for a while. The whole hooplah about carbon dioxide is freaking SILLY!!!.. Carbon Dioxide is only like 3-4% of the atmosphere, its about 70% water, 20% clouds(water droplets) and that leave 10 percent for all the other trace gases in the atmosphere. so to think that just carbon dioxide alone has had this much effect is kinda dumb. And why people think scientist can predict what the weather will be like in 40 years is beyond me. they can't even figure out what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, much less next week. so to think they can really predict that without knowing all the other natural occurances that might take place is beyond me. people are gullible i guess, and like the old saying goes. "if you say it loud enough, and long enough, people will start to beleive it" 23 years (my age) and counting, and fortunatly i still don't really beleive it. ;)
- DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Quite a lot. they had to reinforce the Thames barrier in London and the dikes in Holland.
oh and they forgot to reinforce the one in new orleans. - wuru05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry I meant Exxon before they merged.
IF you do some research you will be quite interested in this companies history.
They not a environmentally friendly company at all.
Peter Birkle - Teething, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why do I not believe you when all your quotes and "facts" come from biased sources.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is