Excellent post. As are your others in this thread. Gigo’s game is to disparage anyone who does not share his fervor on the issue. If you question any aspect of what he’s concluded—or the cut and paste sites he so eagerly and graciously supplies—you are the enemy > denier > anti-science. And, of course, his go-to: ignorant.
And in this thread more than one person is trying to make use of emotional labels, like “denialist” and “anti-science”. There seems to be zero tolerance for positions that are in any way nuanced. For instance, one can fully accept AGW, but not agree on what should be done about it. Leafan makes a good point in this thread about what one can realistically expect oil companies to do, given that the world will still need them to supply their product for decades.
And that brings me to Tom. Tom, I have to say that I see you doing something here I rarely have seen you do, and that is allowing your moderation and your position to on the subject to intertwine. I think you’ve made several questionable borderline calls that all go to support the side you’re obviously on. Just thought I’d bring that to your attention.
I think the OP did a stellar job of making his point. Not that it will matter. For some, this isn’t a topic, it’s a religion. Hell, simply questioning the degree to which fossil fuels contribute to climate change will usually result in that person being labeled a denialist or some other name. Yawn. Because it is of course impossible that someone can fully accept the general findings of the science and differ on what it means and what should—or could—be done about it.
The fact that you missing his total failure in using logic by assuming I was contradicting directly the declarations of the oil companies from the op only demonstrates that you did not read the thread, and doubling down on an ad Hominem only shows that once again, as usual, you do not know how do identity a good source from a bad one, as well as what posters to support.
When someone like Sen. James Inhofe states that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind”, or every single Republican presidential candidate basically claims that we don’t really know what causes climate change, “denialist” and “anti-science” are appropriate labels. They pretty much apply to most Republicans in Congress and many of the folks who put them there.
There is lots of nuance in the scientific findings on climate change. Most people don’t know what they are. Do you?
AGW is science, not a belief. It’s not something you choose to “accept”. You either understand the science – which includes an understanding of the consequences of climate change – or you don’t. You can’t decouple an understanding of the processes from an appreciation of the consequences. While there is certainly a divergence of opinion on specific mitigation strategies, I will suggest that anyone whose opinion about what should be done about climate change is basically “nothing” is someone who doesn’t understand it.
One thing we should realistically expect all companies to do is act like they are part of society and to have some semblance of integrity. This means, for example, not lying to us, and finding ways to align their profit goals with long-term sustainability.
So you say. All I see is that he’s participating in the discussion.
So you say. I personally think I did a fairly good job of showing that the OP didn’t have a point at all, and that it was both misleading and irrelevant. The oil and coal companies’ long and sordid history of climate change denial is a matter of record. As we see from Exxon’s continuing association with discreditable organizations like Heritage or coal magnate Robert Murray’s recent rants, it’s far from over.
:rolleyes: I’ll support posters who make the most sense. Obviously, YMV. And I’m not surprised that you think that for someone to disagree with you they must not have read the thread. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Ha! Are you really of the mind that there is both clarity and universal agreement on the consequences?
Bullshit. It’s one thing to understand/accept that AGW is real. It’s quite another to weigh what should—or even could—be done about it. But thanks for admitting this very thing in you paragraph that initially implies the opposite. I’ll ignore your last line as the increased global temperature has caused that particular strain of straw to go up in flames.
This is factually incorrect. He has moderated, as well. Maybe you should read the thread.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I’m glad for you that you think you did a good job. My opinion is that the OP did a good job of making his point.
It is obvious that he was wrong, so it is not my problem that you want to tell all others that you will not care who you support.
Because you did not, your reply once again depends on willfully ignoring what I replied to him already and what others like **wolfpup **remarked.
In any case, the reality remains that you are not dealing with the matter at hand, and you and the other posters you support are wrong still, the OP was referring to the posters in the dope, unless you are claiming that I’m not one that gets involved in discussions like this one you are already wrong in thinking the OP was correct, he was late and resorting to a straw man by claiming that we are not aware about what the oil companies are doing.
Mind you, the most likely effect that is agreed upon was the rise of the oceans, many researchers and studies pointed at 1 to 2 meters of the rise of the oceans by the end of the century, latest studies shows that the feared acceleration of the ice loss is happening thanks in large part to the warming of the ocean around the polar lands (that many contrarians declared it was invented to explain the so called pause of the warming in the atmosphere) so higher rises are now to be expected and the ones that proposed nothing was going to happen need to be dismissed.
Really? When I explicitly stateside the opposite. This is absurd for even you.
Oh, no! :eek: A charge of “ignorance” from you. I can’t tell you how little that matters to me. Really. There are no words to describe something so insignificant. Maybe if you didn’t use it a thousand times a day in every thread you’re in it might have a little more weight. But, friend, that ship has long ago sailed. And it will soon no doubt to run into the 30th floor of the Empire State Building should it find itself in NYC. You know with all the rising seas.
You are one of the people on this board. You are not all of them. Nor are you even the only one to discuss climate change. Sure, you probably hold the record for posts on the subject, but from what I’ve see, that’s really something that helps your case. Sorry, Green Crusader.
I suggest you read this. Then if you like we can discuss it in another thread. (ETA: Also this.)
More reading for you. What you’re spouting is the new Big Oil Pseudo-science, as per the OP. Namely: quietly admit that AGW is real and that fossil fuels are a major contributor, but emphasize the uncertainties, our alleged limited ability to do anything about it and the alleged economic costs of doing it, and we need oil anyway, so what are you gonna do? But as anyone can see from that second link, there are many solid mitigation strategies and some of them have little or no net cost. And they have secondary benefits like cleaner air that might kill a few thousand fewer people each year.
It’s no coincidence that climate scientists – the kind who contributed to reports like the ones I linked above – tend to be strong supporters of carbon mitigation. Because they understand the consequences of climate change better than most – better, I daresay, than you do.
Anyone that reads post #83 can not say that, you did not read the thread or you willfully ignored it. Your choice.
Not my problem, fine with me that you do not care, it is a nice thing for all others to have in mind when giving any weight to your say so’s.
Should then be easy to point at the ones here that are so simple as to be wrong by ignoring that big oil is no longer officially supporting denialism, but as I had pointed before in other discussions me and others were aware of that already, so so much for the OP, but you have to reach for very silly affirmations to ignore what was discussed before or here even.
Just the answer that is expected from the one that was demonstrated to be wrong on what most scientists agree, you go for the ad hominem and show all how you are fleeing from dealing with the cite; you know, I just smack my face when I’m grossly wrong about beer, and I said then that I learned the lesson and stopped making dumb declarations about Guinness coming originally from England. Not my problem if you will miss the point here and continue to make whoppers like the one you did on the post I replied to.
Missed your post earlier – thanks for that good example. To quote from the link:
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas are unprincipled crackpots and fraudsters who have become big names in climate denialism. One of their papers was so unscrupulously bad that the subsequent scandal forced the resignation of the entire editorial board of the journal Climate Research. Yet Willie Soon alone pulled in more than $1 million in coal and oil industry funding since 2001, from sources including Southern, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, and the Charles Koch Foundation. In return, he dutifully writes garbage papers and op-ed pieces claiming climate change is due to solar variations, that the 20th century was not exceptionally warm, ranting against the EPA and emissions regulations, and even arguing that mercury isn’t harmful. And this is just the tip of the iceberg – trying to infiltrate and distort real science is just a small part of the much bigger industry war to shape public opinion in the popular media.
Which is not actually germane to the point at hand. But to address it I think you’re dramatically overstating the scale of donations from CEOs of oil and gas companies to denialist think tanks and such. Do you have any evidence it is a significant portion of these group’s funding? What percentage of oil and gas CEOs divert personal funds to these groups? 90%? 5%? Specifically what about the CEOs of BP, Exxon, Chevron and Shell? Since they are some of the most prominent oil majors.
The attacks on GIGO’s posting style are bullshit. He makes claims and he backs them up with cites. That’s how you fight ignorance. If you want entertainment, there are plenty of cat vids on You-Tube.
The OP is sad-face, but it was pretty much immediately dismantled. Happy talk on websites is far less significant than lobbying efforts, which Exxon, to its shame, refuses to disclose to their shareholders. (Cite: ~2010 proxy recommendations by a Union. I’d happily lay 3:1 odds the directors opposed this shareholder proposal.)
I will provide one defense of Exxon. Most of what they do is legitimate work. Until we wean ourselves off fossil fuel, it makes sense to undertake these large, complicated projects in the most efficient manner possible. And Exxon has a reputation as a very disciplined company, one that doesn’t go wild during the booms and catatonic during the busts. It’s their managerial-driven lobbying efforts that I oppose: it’s not clear at all that they are in the interests of a hypothetical diversified shareholder.
There’s obviously a balance to be struck between cat-videos and people that barely post anything but links to other person’s arguments. This is a Great Debate forum, what would happen in an actual debate if you refused to answer questions and just told the moderators to read entries in the encyclopedia or read through some peer reviewed articles you brought with you? We are here to see posters use their own words and use some degree of evidence to back up factual assertions. Both are necessary–and GIGO frequently forgets part of the equation. GIGO is at his best when a true denialist is here stirring things up, but anyone who has any degree of nuance on their environmental position such that it isn’t 100% identical to GIGO’s is where he’s at his worst, and frequently just tries to bury people in mountains (often irrelevant to the main discussion at hand) of links.
But it’s interesting how quickly the SDMB just ignores what people says and attacks the argument they wish someone had made. You guys want LonghornDave to basically be this evil Exxon guy who hates the environment and denies global warming. But he’s not making those arguments, and he’s also not saying that the oil majors are this force of amazing good in the world in terms of environmental research. He’s just saying that they official accept that global warming is happening and is man made. You guys are just so embarrassing in that you can’t control the froth for even one thread in which evvvvilll corporations are mentioned and you’ve created all these false arguments to attack which were never made.
If you just genuinely find that the OP wasn’t broad enough for you then maybe you should have ignored it. But it’s bad play to broaden it for the OP and then attack the new material that OP never introduced.
Excellent points and I agree with all of them, including the defense of Exxon’s management style. Their ability to manage oil production is, however, not really pertinent to a discussion about their notorious history of denialist lobbying efforts, especially back in the Raymond days, but also much more recently, as per some of the info I’ve posted.
I guess you weren’t impressed by the Soon and Baliunas story in my previous post! Where would you expect anyone to get the specific evidence you’re asking for when so much of the funding is done through anonymous donor organizations – a trend that’s increasing? What we do have is aggregated information and estimates, such as the Brulle study I linked several times upthread and some of the other things I posted – including the oil industry’s history of denialism funding, and of course the in-your-face evidence of the sheer amount of denialist media that is out there, consistent with Brulle’s estimate of almost $1 billion spent on denialist propaganda over an 8-year period. BTW, the link is to an abstract of the funding study but if you Google the exact title you can download the full paper from Drexel University. Here’s a summary of some additional pertinent points:
No, if you want to really interpret the OP in the appropriately narrow context, he’s just saying that oil companies are making bland generic statements on their websites acknowledging that fossil fuels contribute to global warming (while also downplaying it relative to the value of oil and economic growth etc. etc.) In other words, they are making the only kinds of statements they can possibly make without being ridiculed and harming their reputations even more than they’ve already been harmed.
I don’t deny that they are making such statements – there they are, for all to see. To which my response is a great big “so what?” I question what that observation is supposed to tell us, given the oil and coal industry’s nefarious history of funding denialism with every reason to believe that such funding is continuing, mostly in the form of dark money. The nearly $1 billion that Brulle talks about comes from somewhere – what are the chances that some of it comes from the world’s largest and wealthiest corporations whose very existence depends on oil and which have in the past been deeply involved in such schemes? Or have these companies all simultaneously reformed overnight and all suddenly become terrific corporate citizens? If this miracle has occurred, what is the evidence for it? Some statements on a website, which they have no practical alternative but to make lest they appear to be neanderthal buffoons? Sorry, I’ll need a lot more than that. This is not “frothing hatred of evil corporations”, this is history and realism.
Where would you expect anyone to get the specific evidence you’re asking for when so much of the funding is done through anonymous donor organizations – a trend that’s increasing? What we do have is aggregated information and estimates, such as the Brulle study I linked several times upthread and some of the other things I posted – including the oil industry’s history of denialism funding, and of course the in-your-face evidence of the sheer amount of denialist media that is out there, consistent with Brulle’s estimate of almost $1 billion spent on denialist propaganda over an 8-year period. BTW, the link is to an