news.moneycentral.msn.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, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.
Jan 3, 2007 View in Crawl 4
anachronautJan 4, 2007
@ GabrielSAre you replying to the wrong comment? Did you even read what BullTaco wrote? One is left to wonder...He wrote, "If the US did not have access to that oil then it is very likely that you or many people you know would be out of a job for an extended period." (I can't speak for BullTaco here, but does it really sound like he's saying that is a good thing?)You responded, "Oil doesn't provide any good to Americans? You're nuts. Of course it does. We may not like where the oil comes from, but to argue that oil hasn't benefited Americans is insane."Seriously, go back and read his statements again (or for the first time, whatever), and then re-read yours to see how positively ridiculous your accusation is.
doyadiggJan 4, 2007
Right on! There have been several high profile nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. These were the product of old technology and most importantly, human error. As for coal, there are trace amounts of uranium in coal and after years and years of burning lots and lots of dirty coal, scientists believe more radioactive material has been put into the atmosphere from coal than nuclear accidents. And modern pebble bed reactors don't have the same problems as the Chernobyl style reactors. People hate to hear this, but it's the environuts and their misinformed protests that have made it so difficult to build nuclear power plants in this country and it's partially their fault that we burn so much coal.
omaryakJan 4, 2007
ExxonMobil doesn't invest in alternative energy either, so they have a business interest to pour all that extra loot into making people think global warming doesn't exist so they can go on happily buying their carbon-based products.
omaryakJan 4, 2007
"thats easy considering these companies have made our country completly reliant on their product."<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy</a>
plumcrazyJan 4, 2007
Climatologists say global warming is going to destroy the ecosystem of the planet if we don't do something NOW. The only technology in existence today that can make a dent in our CO2 emissions is nuclear. You reject that reality and you keep on talking about technologies that scientists admit will not even make a dent in our consumption of electricity.That is what we call a political tactic, not a scientific one. In the world of science, you weigh the risks associated with nuclear power against the certainty of the coming global catastrophe and you make a choice. In politics you ignore the obvious solution so you can continue using the issue as a source of power and financial gain.
jimmajammaJan 5, 2007
@dvfreelancer"As long as we're so easily swayed by PR inspired ad campaigns, then we're going to keep getting skewed news and keep putting people like Bush in the White House. Wake the f**k up already."You are the one buying a PR campaign. One from a clearly biased "Union of Concerned Scientists." If you read the piece and did some thinking you'd realize that there is no story. Its one guy, at one biased organization asserting that there is some manipulation going on. The few facts in the source article make no solid link to justify the "mislead" representation. If you did some reading you might have figured that out. I assert that it is people like you who are screwing up the system. Too lazy or too ignorant - which is it?
lojackJan 5, 2007
If you have a family to feed, & you happen to work for EXXon or one of the other multi-nationals, what are you going to do? What can you do? We're basically being used by them giant corporations who are really the ones that rule the world. No, they actually own the world.What to do?
rubicanteJan 5, 2007
@PLUMCRAZY: France now derives 85% of its production from nuclear power plants. Pretty amazing, huh? At current levels nuclear power is cheaper than gas and almost as cheap as coal (see IEA). Also, uranium comes from stable countries such as Canada and Australia. The main problem is the initial construction cost -- fuel and operating costs are relatively low. This is where government needs to buffer the risk of investment. I don't think nuclear power is _the_ answer though, I think energy diversification is (like in California!).
pleasejustdieJan 5, 2007
Even with proof it can still be just a theory. Hell gravity is still a theory and last I checked there was a lot of documentation to say its true.