No Way wrote:
Kiju wrote:Why? Are you unable to use Google? I don't understand your refusal to accept that legitimate counterarguments exist.
I can honestly say that I will read and contemplate whatever you end up finding and posting. I love reading and learning so I hope you find something good.
Me too, but if he had such easy to find links he would have posted them rather than saying it was too hard to do on his phone.
Maybe he got busy. I'll bump this thread in case he forgot.
Maybe you should go to class.
Dean Moriarty1 wrote:
From the washington post:
https://goo. gl/HijHek
thoughts?
Sure--I think you're a troll. Seems pretty obvious.
Still, gotta give you 4/10. Looks like this one has legs.
SquirrelOf course climate has changed. The point is that when scientists today refer to Climate Change, they're referring (largely) to anthropogenic climate change. Yet, the "argument" remains that "well, climate has changed before, ergo, 'climate change' isn't anthropogenic.There is absolutely ZERO support for the idea that the end of the paleolithic era occurred for the same reasons that we're seeing climate changes today.
But yes, in your example, since "people have been dying for thousands of years", we would acknowledge that humans smoking isn't the main cause of cancer, yes? That is the difference that you fanatics won't acknowledge. Thank you for proving my point.
^This takes a special form of stupid.
The answer is not "yes". The answer is "it would depend on the rate of cancer caused by smoking versus other rates of cancer". Smoking may WELL be the main cause of cancer. Yet clowns like you would automatically deny that because cancer existed before smoking did.
The fact that climate change occurred in the past is no evidence, whatsoever, that current climate science theory is incorrect.
The ignorance in your post is ample evidence to support the theory that you have no idea of what you're talking about.
Red squirrel wrote:
wtfunny wrote:This has to be possibly be one of the stupidest arguments so routinely bandied around by the deniers .. and that's a darn big deal, because they bandy about some pretty f**kin stupid arguments.
This one is like suggesting smoking doesn't cause cancer because people were dying of cancer for thousands of years before William Morris came along.
It's not like that at all. The fact that you don't see the difference is "the big deal." Youre looking at that example backwards.
Smoking causing cancer in the lungs (direct inhalation from a cigarette to the lungs) is a faaaaaaar more simple (exponentially) system to diagnose than the constantly changing climate on planet Earth. But yes, in your example, since "people have been dying for thousands of years", we would acknowledge that humans smoking isn't the main cause of cancer, yes? That is the difference that you fanatics won't acknowledge. Thank you for proving my point.
Anyway, you don't feel that a large portion of the northern hemisphere being covered in ice/glaciers, which then melted down to just the North Pole long before the ICE was even invented, isn't relevant? You don't think showing receding glaciers in GW propaganda videos is a touch disingenuous? Just a tad? That literally happened for thousands of years on a much, much larger scale... It continues to happen... And now we're to blame (which of course you Libs twist into just "Conservatives are to blame")?
Grow up, man.
Kiju wrote:
No Way wrote:Such a huge scientific accomplishment would surely win the Nobel Prize. Debunking climate change would be huge.
The reason my comment may have been condescending is because people like you keep claiming there is this body of evidence that flies completely in the face of everything that has been published, but can never back it up. Meanwhile, someone who doesn't know any better may hear/read what you say and actually believe there is a bunch of evidence disproving climate change.
If there is so much evidence, people should be climbing over each other to present it so that their name can be associated with one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever.
That's no excuse for being condescending.
"People like me" have backed it up. "People like you" for some reason ignore this.
Every time you post, you make no sense. Why would countering the idea of manmade climate change be one of the greatest scientific discoveries ever? That's not a scientific discovery. I'm not sure you really have a solid understanding of the Nobel Prize system, science, science as an occupation, or what a great scientific discovery is.
For example, you say "...flies completely in the face of everything that has been published". That's not true at all. Everything that has been published does not support the idea of man-made climate change. So yes, there is a bunch of evidence against the idea of climate change, and someone who "might not know better" should be aware of that instead of turning into a condescending brainwashed person like you.
I'll post some refutations later (I'm not doing a serious search on a small phone). But you really shouldn't need me to do this.
1) you have Google
2) climate change is not universally accepted by scientists so that should indicate to you that this is a debatable topic. How is this not obvious?
Still looking?
No oil company that rejects climate change would get any government contracts. Nor would it get any young employees. That doesn't mean the oil top brass believe climate change is real. Far from it.
Heck, did you oil haters suddenly start believing what oil companies say?
Managers,
As you may be aware, ExxonMobil has recently been the target of a coordinated misinformation campaign by InsideClimate News and the Columbia University School of Journalism (working in collaboration with the Los Angeles Times).
In addition, the state attorney general of New York has subpoenaed material related to ExxonMobil’s climate research over time.
If you have not yet read the articles or allegations, they claim that ExxonMobil knew everything there is to know about climate change back in the late 1970s, that we then proceeded to suspend our climate research, and subsequently suppressed iÂÂÂÂÂÂt to sow scientific disinformation in the policy arena.
On each and every one of these three points, the activist-journalists are deceptive and wrong.
This note is intended to provide managers with some helpful background and context.
The story of our company on climate change is, in fact, the story of scientists and engineers at work on an immensely complex problem.
It is a story of honest inquiry and scientific humility. And the historical timeline of our efforts shows our company doing its part to be a good corporate citizen on many fronts to improve understanding in the scientific community, academia, government, and business.
Our climate research work began in the 1970s with engineers and scientists asking fundamental questions and seeking solutions on a host of issues related to operating in an environmentally responsible way. In the course of that work, we investigated theories about the “greenhouse effect†and how carbon emissions from humanity’s energy use could affect climate.
This work led our scientists and engineers to look at various theories and scenarios. It led them to look closely at the work of other experts to learn more. It led us to do some of the first climate modeling. And it led us to scientific discussions which emphasized openness, professional respect, and the balanced presentation of a range of differing opinions on a multitude of complex scientific questions.
The conclusion we came to at that time was in harmony with what other scientists saw in the 1970s: We did not know enough about the complex interactions between the many atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial forces influencing climate.
In the best traditions of science, we recognized more and better study was needed. At no point, did we ever declare that we knew everything there is to know about climate science. And no responsible scientist would make that claim today.
Therefore, we continued our work throughout the 1980s with sustained financing and ongoing efforts to build understanding. For instance, we clearly defined further areas for inquiry (such as “model validation†and “monitoring and early detection strategiesâ€).
At the end of the 1980s, one of our lead scientists made a presentation to the Management Committee discussing what we thought had been learned and what was still critically unknown and therefore required more scientific study. This presentation also outlined the need for sound policymaking because of the importance fossil fuels had for global development and economic opportunity. The Management Committee endorsed his recommendations, which lead to two tracks of action – action on the scientific front and on the policy front.
On the scientific front, we set out to help international academic and institutional efforts to improve the research, models, and scientific understanding. Just one example of this was our founding involvement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
These scientific relationships and collaboration continue to this day. As a result, we have produced hundreds of publicly available papers, including more than 50 peer-reviewed publications. Such peer-reviewed work must meet the highest standards of scientific rigor and accountability.
This commitment also led us to forge research relationships and provide funding to some of the world’s leading universities, such as MIT, Stanford, and Princeton. We have worked to improve climate modeling, interdisciplinary cooperation, exploration of fundamental science on energy, and the search for lower-carbon sources of energy.
On the policy front, we sought to build understanding about the policy options for enabling innovation, promoting efficiency, and reducing emissions. Part of this commitment meant that we would speak out when we believed public policies were unsound and could lead to unintended consequences, unanticipated costs, or undermine opportunity in developing economies.
Our engagement efforts in the 1990s in the U.S. included outreach to members of both political parties and work with numerous trade associations and public policy organizations across the economy. During this period, we advocated for market-based policies that would enable investment in the research and development of new technologies. We also identified poorly thought out public policies – such as the Kyoto Protocol – which we believed would fail to achieve our shared aspirations for energy and the environment. We were part of a broad coalition from American industry which was eventually joined by the U.S. Senate voting 95-0 against Kyoto.
In the 2000s, ExxonMobil chose to withdraw funding from some of the organizations active in the public policy arena. We grew concerned that the growing political partisanship in general was distracting from our long-term commitment to build scientific understanding and cooperative policymaking.
ExxonMobil believes that the risks of climate change are serious and warrant thoughtful action.
Over the past four decades, we have done our part to take action to mitigate those risks.
We have pioneered nearly 300 patents for new technologies to reduce emissions, increase efficiencies, and improve environmental performance. Our innovations have reached beyond the energy sector to the industrial and transportation sectors and to help individual consumers use energy more wisely.
We continue to press forward new energy innovations, including carbon capture and sequestration, advanced biofuels, and, most significantly, expanding the availability of cleaner burning natural gas.
We can be proud that ExxonMobil seeks each day to be a responsible participant in the discussions on climate change – and we will continue to pursue integrated solutions.
We will continue to research this issue with integrity, support energy efficiency at every link in the energy chain, work to reduce emissions in our operations, pursue evolutionary and revolutionary breakthroughs, and advocate for effective, efficient market-based policy approaches.
In short, throughout our history, ExxonMobil has been open and transparent about our role in researching the complex issue of human-induced climate change.
We will continue to be dedicated supporters of building scientific understanding as well as principled supporters of putting in place sound policies that will help the world achieve its shared aspirations for meeting energy demand in a safe, secure, and responsible way.
Ken Cohen
Vice President, Public & Government Affairs