# The Poor Behavior of ExxonMobil, ARCO and Chevron **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 19, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892 "2011-02-19T06:53:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/21 "2011-02-20T01:17:15Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > These cites do not support the OP’s claim. You have drunk the kool-aid (and gone back for seconds, and gotten an IV drip of the stuff), so of course you think that anything that’s not 100% with the party line on AGW is “spreading misinformation.” But that’s just not so. The OP could support his claim only by showing that anything that’s not 100% pro-AGW is “misinformation,” which is of course complete hogwash. > > I’ll keep siding with the science. You idiots that are all about the politics can keep posting cite after cite to politically funded and motivated organizations that have reached the answer you want and agree with your manufactured consensus. Doesn’t bother me. I’ll let the science resolve itself before taking a position. Oh really? > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... As it was demonstrated before, Rand Rover never learns, but that is OK, Science still marches on and still continues to confirm AGW. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/22 "2011-02-20T01:21:13Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Gigo’s the one who’s not persuadable. I approach AGW just like I do any other scientific topic–I evaluate claims on both sides and become comfortable with one sice or the other once the science resolves itself. Last time it was clear that you were proud of ignoring the history of how the current consensus was reached, of that we can be certain. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Gigo doesn’t care about science, he cares only about politics. Meh, I found better reasoning among moon landing deniers. His evaluations never amounted to more than proud ignorance of the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/23 "2011-02-20T01:26:14Z")
Gigo, why are you so personally invested in the truth of AGW? I mean, any time someone mentions the topic you come swooping in with links to your little incestuous “political screed under the guise of science” websites. Why, man? Maybe take a walk or get laid or something. Your belief in AGW borders on religious fervor–it’s not falsifiable. There is absolutely no evidence that would make you think “well shit, I was wrong about that AGW thing, I’ve changed my mind.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/24 "2011-02-20T01:47:19Z")
I’m sorry, GIGO, but **Rand** ’s science is clearly superior. Mostly, there’s not nearly so much of it. You have stacks and stacks of references, links, papers, studies. This could be an expression of your insecurity on the issue. **Rand** is more restrained, he doesn’t feel such a need to belabor you with facts ands scholarly papers, he is more secure in his knowledge, and his knowledge is bliss. If you were truly secure in your opinions, you wouldn’t need all those abstruse scholarly cites, choked and constipated with the maths. “In the late paleolimbo era, the carbon-lithium albedo was no greater than 2.75 microcecils (plus or minus .002)…” Except it would have those fancy-ass maths thingys, like that plus symbol dancing on a minus, which is a sure sign of scientifical snobbery. **Rand** prefers scholarly work of a more accessible kind, a common-sense approach. “Long time ago, really long, the ocean levels were a tad higher, but not a whole lot.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/25 "2011-02-20T01:58:12Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Gigo, why are you so personally invested in the truth of AGW? With science, yes. And not only with AGW. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I mean, any time someone mentions the topic you come swooping in with links to your little incestuous “political screed under the guise of science” websites. Why, man? Maybe take a walk or get laid or something. Nope, this a demonstrated lie, I was famous first for turning guys like \*\*Seethruart \*\*into clowns because they denied the Moon landings. Whenever a subject has scientific support and we get crackpots claiming otherwise I’m there. And no, the “political screed under the guise of science” websites accusation is also demonstrated to be a stinky lie, all the points are based on science papers. You are just stopping at your preconceptions before consulting the science itself. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Your belief in AGW borders on religious fervor–it’s not falsifiable. There is absolutely no evidence that would make you think “well shit, I was wrong about that AGW thing, I’ve changed my mind.” > **[Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)** > > \Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Any of the direct observations could be demonstrated to be false and it would be a blow to an aspect to the theory, but this shows how you are not even on the “wrong” territory, you are really clueless. The people who are using religious fervor to deny the science are really on the Republican leadership, so stop projecting. But be my guest, just continue to demonstrate to others how you are willing to twist science to fit your ideology. Even the reasonable conservative dopers have dropped this denialism. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/26 "2011-02-20T02:00:34Z")
It may be just business, but when it steps into buying a pass for polluting, a lack of regulation and exploiting indigenous populations, it spills into ethics and morality. If you accept the premise that corporations will do everything they can to make money, then you have to understand it is the job of our government to keep them legal. it is not working ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/27 "2011-02-20T02:10:03Z")
Gigo, thanks for illustrating my point. I said that AGW is like religion to you, and instead of responding, you quote a piece of your catechism (which you are undoubtedly clutching and rocking as we speak, repeating “my precious”). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/28 "2011-02-20T02:16:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Gigo, thanks for illustrating my point. I said that AGW is like religion to you, and instead of responding, you quote a piece of your catechism (which you are undoubtedly clutching and rocking as we speak, repeating “my precious”). Nah, once again everyone can see that you are telling all to ignore the cite and check the science behind the debunked say so’s of the deniers. “Skeptical Science” is the place to go to easily go to check for the science, and it is a place that I go just like I would go to “Talk Origins” when discussions about evolution or Intelligent Design (Another subject that many Republicans do not get) pop up. You are the one that continues to demonstrate for all who is a perfect example of a willful ignorant. For this subject, there are other sources too anyhow. > **[Climate Change](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/topic/climate-change?source=NavEnvGlobal)** > > Global warming is reshaping our world through extreme weather events, drought, species loss, and a warming and rising ocean. Get the latest coverage of the science behind climate change, the communities most affected, threats to biodiversity, and the... > **[Evidence - NASA Science](https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)** > > Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/29 "2011-02-20T03:26:15Z")
My position on AGW is derived from personal conversations with one of NOAA’s Ph.D.'s in atmospheric science. I don’t want to identify this person and so I expect you won’t find this satisfactory. But if you seriously want to debunk AGW, please show the error in the following: 1. Carbon absorbs heat 2. Atmospheric carbon levels are rising 3. Humans are among the causes of the rise in atmospheric carbon levels. Good luck. Yes, that is not the whole story. The details of the effects are debatable/unpredictable, aside from things like disruptive weather and melting icecaps. The misinformation comes in when eliding the 3 points above. I am in the middle of something and can’t return until tomorrow, please forgive me. You all are doing a great job so far without me, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/30 "2011-02-20T04:26:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Gigo’s the one who’s not persuadable. I approach AGW just like I do any other scientific topic–I evaluate claims on both sides and become comfortable with one sice or the other once the science resolves itself. Gigo doesn’t care about science, he cares only about politics. Your own words betray your ignorance and your agenda-driven bullshit. Scientific topics don’t have “sides.” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/31 "2011-02-20T04:34:56Z")
Missed the edit window. Sheesh, look at me, trying to engage the already-convinced, just like I warned against. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/32 "2011-02-20T04:52:24Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Cite that they are spreading misinformation or suppressing true information? Yes, they’re suppressing the use of solar technology via abusing the patent system. Didn’t you read OP? Of course AGW deniers aren’t generally intelligent enough to read. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/33 "2011-02-21T00:01:09Z")
> [@wellanuff](#): > > $700 million in three months (although that is given for wind and solar, I have no idea what the breakdown is) means BP Solar would be among the biggest stand-alone solar panel manufacturers in the world if it was not a subsidiary of BP. Yes, compared to the revenues from its existing mature oil business (which is what, more than 100 years old?), it is only 2%. But compared to the major independent solar panel manufacturers, that is huge. Frankly, I didn’t realize BP Solar was THAT big. Keep in mind that I actually started a pit thread that doesn’t have anything to do with BP. BP can disappear tomorrow for all I care, but they aren’t the focus of this thread. > [@](#): > > The oil sold is a consumable, the panels are a capital good. In other words, the oil sold is (or soon will be) consumed, to be replaced by oil sold in the current quarter, and so on. Nitpick: The oil isn’t being replaced as fast as it is consumed. See [Exxon Struggles To Find New Oil](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146362117313094.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories) > [@](#): > > Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, is struggling to find more oil. > > In its closely watched annual financial report released Tuesday, the company said that for every 100 barrels it has pumped out of the earth over the past decade, it has replaced only 95. > [@](#): > > Chevron Corp.'s chief executive … warned that Chevron added only one new barrel for every four it produced[in 2010]. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/34 "2011-02-21T00:13:09Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Your own words betray your ignorance and your agenda-driven bullshit. Scientific topics don’t have “sides.” Way to really stretch for a put-down. Let’s say the issue is whether x causes cancer–I think it’s reasonable to say there are two “sides” there (which of course obscures lots of nuance–maybe x causes cancer in some people but not others, maybe it increases the risk of certain cancers and decreases the risk of others, etc.). I don’t think the fact that I used the word “sides” there necessarily shows that I don’t understand science or have an agenda, but whatever. And your characterization of my position on AGW as agenda-driven is laughable–it’s gigo’s side (there’s that word again) with the clear agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/35 "2011-02-21T00:13:15Z")
Just want to give a big thanks to **GIGObuster** for backing me up. It seems clear from his cites that Exxon has been funding AGW-denier groups, the specifics of which weren’t included in the vague article I cited. Considering the science behind AGW, to fund groups that deny it seems to me the equivalent of spreading disinformation. Remember _Citizens United_? Spending money is now speech; Exxon’s speech is lies. I pit them for being suckmeisters. **Rand Rover** : Do you have a specific complaint about the concept of AGW? You have described it as a “political screed” and a “religion” but are completely lacking in specifics. Me, I have spoken with some extremely persuasive expert-level people on the subject. It isn’t a religious belief with me. I’m not an “environmentalist” or a “greenie” or what have you. The evidence seems to point unmistakably toward AGW, that’s all. Tell us where the theory fails so we can hash it out. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/36 "2011-02-21T00:22:18Z")
We can add Koch Industries to the list of targets in this thread. From one of **GIGO** ’s cites, [Report: Koch Industries outspends Exxon Mobil on climate and clean energy disinformation](http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/31/report-koch-industries-outspends-exxon-mobil-on-climate-and-clean-energy-disinformation/): > [@](#): > > This private, out-of-sight corporation is now a partner to Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and other donors that support organizations and front-groups opposing progressive clean energy and climate policy. In fact, Koch has out-spent Exxon Mobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, Exxon Mobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the climate denial machine. You’d think billionaires wouldn’t display such poor behavior, considering all the effort that goes to equating wealth with class. Sheesh! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/37 "2011-02-21T00:23:06Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And your characterization of my position on AGW as agenda-driven is laughable–it’s gigo’s side (there’s that word again) with the clear agenda. Piffle. > **[The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2010](http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2010_04.html)** > [@](#): > > Aren’t you the Bill Ward who said: > > “I oppose the policies because they would have no effect on temperatures, but show a very high probability of subjecting everyone to global tyranny under a Progressive/communist world government. My faith is in freedom.” > > I think that, in the above two sentences, we have insight into the _real_ reasons why most AGW denialists are denialists. I actually do believe that it is an honest statement of his and many denialist sentiments, more-or-less. > > I would say only that the truth is that Mr. Ward _really_ _really_ _really_ wants AGW not to be true and for all those fancy pants scientists to be wrong. It is perfectly clear that he is _choosing_ to believe scientific outliers and pseudoscientists or other denialist amateurs (and it is clear that he is a scientific amateur) rather than (tenatively, always tenatively) accepting the prevailing scientific consensus until or unless there is _real_ evidence against it. Some denialists here even go further, dogmatically denying well-established science: > > 1. that there has been a secular warming of the globe (a small but detectable one), > 2. that CO2 _is_ a greenhouse gas and the second most important one in the atmosphere because it absorbs LWIR in a region that water vapor does not (often denied by introducing irrelevancies like CO2 is only 3% of the gas in the atmosphere), > 3. that human burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 (as if that CO2 could magically disappear rather than going into some sink – namely the oceans even if it did disappear from the atmosphere). > > Even most of the remaining scientific climate scientist skeptics (the outliers and obvious industry shills) no longer deny that there has been warming, but instead try to focus attention on non-anthropogenic causes. If the observed warming were due to an increase in solar input (which certainly was tested, but now has been shown to be an unlikely cause), I doubt that the denialist community would exist. So it is perfectly clear to me that what the denialist community wants to deny is anthropogenic causation. So what agenda or goal do the proud to be ignorant of science do have? > [@](#): > > I see repeated examples where fear of necessary change required to deal with the present and future reality in the denialist community. [A similar denial that AIDS was caused by a virus rather than by “sin” meant that they could feel safe.] That denial doesn’t mean that if we are to support _future_ generations of humans on this planet, we don’t have to _collectively_ take actions (whether that be population reduction, care to work within the limits of sustainability, conservation of limited and fragile resources) that put _reasonable_ constraints on individual options. Your freedom to drink yourself into a stupor ends when you get behind the steering wheel of your car. Your freedom to change the oil in your car ends when you dump it down the storm sewer to wind up in the local watercourse. So what “freedom” would you be losing if society were to switch from oil and coal to sources with less CO2 impact? > > My personal preference is that we use capitalist economic mechanisms (put appropriate costs on behaviors or actions that affect a commons, organize financing mechanisms) to encourage solutions that are most economic. Other societies may use demand economics. Global problems require global actions, but the mechanisms for achieving a goal can be local. It matters little to me whether my car runs on oil or electricity or whether that electricity comes from a concentrated source like a nuclear power plant or a distributed source like rooftop solar panels or wind generators. Whatever accomplishes the twin goals of keeping our CO2 production within levels that can be buffered by natural mechanisms and still supply us with the energy we need (but not the massive amount we waste). \*\*But we won’t reach that future by pretending that we can individually spew out _anything_ without consequence. And to be able to continue pretending that humans currently, unlike in the distant past, have no collective impact on the global environment (atmosphere or ocean) is, ultimately, the goal of AGW denialism. \*\* Notice the source? It was Talk Origins, what has happened is that creationists have so many tactics in common and same faces as the climate change deniers, that even supporters of biology science have noticed! ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/38 "2011-02-21T00:32:59Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Just want to give a big thanks to **GIGObuster** for backing me up. It seems clear from his cites that Exxon has been funding AGW-denier groups, the specifics of which weren’t included in the vague article I cited. Considering the science behind AGW, to fund groups that deny it seems to me the equivalent of spreading disinformation. Remember _Citizens United_? Spending money is now speech; Exxon’s speech is lies. I pit them for being suckmeisters. > > **Rand Rover** : Do you have a specific complaint about the concept of AGW? You have described it as a “political screed” and a “religion” but are completely lacking in specifics. Me, I have spoken with some extremely persuasive expert-level people on the subject. It isn’t a religious belief with me. I’m not an “environmentalist” or a “greenie” or what have you. The evidence seems to point unmistakably toward AGW, that’s all. Tell us where the theory fails so we can hash it out. I’m not going to get into a very long drawn-out debate about AGW. I will just simply state some of my reasons for not drinking the AGW kool-aid, and you can take it or leave it (I fully expect you to leave it) and then you can read the cites Gigo will inevitably post in response if you feel your kool-aid level getting low. 1. The measurements AGW is based on require subjective adjustments to be useful. 2. The theory is based largely on feeding these subjectively adjusted measurements into models, which were created using subjective criteria. Forecasting anything is extremely difficult (read The Black Swan if you haven’t–it’s very good on this point at least); forecasting the climate for as far as AGW proponents think they can is near impossible (mainly because of the number of variables that would need to be taken into account). 3. Everyone knows the right answer on AGW, so if you don’t reach the right answer, you must be wrong and your research no longer gets funded. It was a running joke for a while among scientists that the way to get your project funded was to add " . . . and to study [whatever]'s effect on global warming" to their proposal. 4. The consensus was manufactured by politicians for political purposes. There is lots of debate over various scientific topics–ever ask yourself why there’s no “official consensus” on those? Because politicians didn’t convene their pet scientists to manufacture one. 5, The prevailing theory fits too neatly into liberals’ policy goals. Ever ask yourself why it’s not more accepted that it’s too late to do anything about AGW? Some climate scientists believe that, but it’s not part of the consensus. Ever wonder why many climate scientists poo-poo quick fix ideas? There’s a quick take on my views. Like I said, take it or leave it. I’m not going to discuss this ad nauseum–I get very tired of reading posts like Gigo’s, where he misunderstands what I say and responds to something different. It’s mentally tiring to say again what I already said and show how what he responded to is not what I said, and it looks like waffling and/or hand-waving to outside observers who aren’t smart enough to follow, so they pile on. So, for me on this topic, it’s a one-and-done. If you want to take that as admitting that I’m not smart or knowledgeable enough to debate the topic, then fine, you are correct, you win, please claim your prize. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/39 "2011-02-21T00:49:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I’m not going to get into a very long drawn-out debate about AGW. I will just simply state some of my reasons for not drinking the AGW kool-aid, and you can take it or leave it (I fully expect you to leave it) and then you can read the cites Gigo will inevitably post in response if you feel your kool-aid level getting low. You obviously aren’t stupid. Do you treat everyone who takes a different view from you as kool-aid drinkers?? > [@](#): > > 1. The measurements AGW is based on require subjective adjustments to be useful. I am personally acquainted with someone who personally gathers these measurements. It isn’t subjective AFAICT- an example would be appreciated. > [@](#): > > 1. The theory is based largely on feeding these subjectively adjusted measurements into models, which were created using subjective criteria. Forecasting anything is extremely difficult (read The Black Swan if you haven’t–it’s very good on this point at least); forecasting the climate for as far as AGW proponents think they can is near impossible (mainly because of the number of variables that would need to be taken into account). I agree about the difficulty of forecasting. However, the models from a big-picture view are pretty straightforward. A mass of air with composition x overall will react in a certain way- who can prove otherwise? There are variables, yes, but I don’t see any way of reaching a conclusion opposite of AGW. Especially with the already-documented global temperature rises, the melting glaciers, etc. Anyway, I’ll look into the Black Swan if I get the time. > [@](#): > > 1. Everyone knows the right answer on AGW, so if you don’t reach the right answer, you must be wrong and your research no longer gets funded. It was a running joke for a while among scientists that the way to get your project funded was to add " . . . and to study [whatever]'s effect on global warming" to their proposal. Meh. There isn’t actually a liberal conspiracy you know. Everyone knows the Earth is round; people who say otherwise don’t get funded to research that either. > [@](#): > > 1. The consensus was manufactured by politicians for political purposes. There is lots of debate over various scientific topics–ever ask yourself why there’s no “official consensus” on those? Because politicians didn’t convene their pet scientists to manufacture one. There is debate about the outcomes of AGW, sure. The consensus is in the basic facts, namely carbon absorbs heat, atmospheric carbon levels are rising and humans are largely to blame. I was hoping you’d undermine those, because I don’t really enjoy AGW either. Anyway, my source of info is by no means some political tool, I assure you. > [@](#): > > 5, The prevailing theory fits too neatly into liberals’ policy goals. Ever ask yourself why it’s not more accepted that it’s too late to do anything about AGW? Some climate scientists believe that, but it’s not part of the consensus. Ever wonder why many climate scientists poo-poo quick fix ideas? Define ‘liberal’. As for your questions, no and no. But- I’m not getting any gestalt about liberals considering these questions… > [@](#): > > There’s a quick take on my views. Like I said, take it or leave it. I’m not going to discuss this ad nauseum–I get very tired of reading posts like Gigo’s, where he misunderstands what I say and responds to something different. It’s mentally tiring to say again what I already said and show how what he responded to is not what I said, and it looks like waffling and/or hand-waving to outside observers who aren’t smart enough to follow, so they pile on. So, for me on this topic, it’s a one-and-done. If you want to take that as admitting that I’m not smart or knowledgeable enough to debate the topic, then fine, you are correct, you win, please claim your prize. Well if you are done, more’s the pity. But don’t take it personally- I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/40 "2011-02-21T01:10:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I’m not going to get into a very long drawn-out debate about AGW. I will just simply state some of my reasons for not drinking the AGW kool-aid, and you can take it or leave it (I fully expect you to leave it) and then you can read the cites Gigo will inevitably post in response if you feel your kool-aid level getting low. > > 1. The measurements AGW is based on require subjective adjustments to be useful. > **[Are surface temperature records reliable?](https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm)** > > Numerous studies into the effect of urban heat island effect and microsite influences find they have negligible effect on long-term trends, particularly when averaged over large regions. > [@](#): > > Conclusions > > The well-known and widely-cited reconstructions of global temperature, produced by NASA GISS, UEA CRU, and NOAA NCDC, are replicable. > > Independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. > > The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 1. The theory is based largely on feeding these subjectively adjusted measurements into models, which were created using subjective criteria. Forecasting anything is extremely difficult (read The Black Swan if you haven’t–it’s very good on this point at least); forecasting the climate for as far as AGW proponents think they can is near impossible (mainly because of the number of variables that would need to be taken into account). > **[The difference between weather and climate](https://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm)** > > \Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change.\ > [@](#): > > Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change. > > [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen\_etal\_1.html](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2005/Hansen_etal_1.html) > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 1. Everyone knows the right answer on AGW, so if you don’t reach the right answer, you must be wrong and your research no longer gets funded. It was a running joke for a while among scientists that the way to get your project funded was to add " . . . and to study [whatever]'s effect on global warming" to their proposal. Nah, deniers have made a lot of hay out of encountering that the “science” they peddle is full of error, good for blogessors though. > **[Climategate and the peer-review process](https://skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm)** > > The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions relating to peer review. In one case, it judged their strong reaction to a controversial paper was not unusual. In another, it turned out the alleged victim had... > [@](#): > > In the case of Briffa’s actions, when the Review examined the full email exchange they found nothing to support the interpretation of collusion in rejecting contradictory ideas: > > ``` > It appears to reflect an Editor with a strongly negative review in hand, and who presumably had read the paper, asking for confirmation that the paper should be rejected, possibly to reduce one of the many complications that assail an editor; and in view of the delay in communicating to authors, hoping for a strong decision from the referee. On receiving a second, more equivocal review, he offers the authors the opportunity to re-submit. [8.5] > > ``` > > The Review’s conclusion on the peer review allegations was as follows (its emphasis): > > ``` > On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication. [1.3.3] > > ``` > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 1. The consensus was manufactured by politicians for political purposes. There is lots of debate over various scientific topics–ever ask yourself why there’s no “official consensus” on those? Because politicians didn’t convene their pet scientists to manufacture one. Not true, and you know it already, history does not support this “manufactured” lie. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) Also, the item of “official consensus” is a straw man. There is a consensus or there is none. > **[What does Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus show?](https://skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm)** > > \An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don't offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > An examination of the papers that critics claim refute the consensus are found to actually endorse the consensus or are review papers (eg - they don’t offer any new research but merely review other papers). This led the original critic Benny Peiser to retract his criticism of Oreskes’ study. > > In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject “global climate change” published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles. The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 5, The prevailing theory fits too neatly into liberals’ policy goals. Ever ask yourself why it’s not more accepted that it’s too late to do anything about AGW? Some climate scientists believe that, but it’s not part of the consensus. Ever wonder why many climate scientists poo-poo quick fix ideas? Because they do not work as many of the quick fix proponents mention, and to be effective they need to also include control of carbon emissions. > **[RealClimate: Why Levitt and Dubner like geo-engineering and why they are wrong](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/)** > > RealClimate: A review of the science of geoengineering featured in Superfreakonomics by Levitt and Dubner > [@](#): > > To conclude, the reasons why Levitt and Dubner like geo-engineering so much are based on a misreading of the science, a misrepresentation of proposed solutions, and truly bizarre interpretations of how environmental problems have been dealt with in the past. These are, in the end, much worse errors than their careless misquotes and over-eagerness to shock highlighted by the other critiques. Geo-engineering is neither cheap, nor a fix, and the reasons why it is very likely to be a bad idea are ethical and legal, much more than its still-uncertain scientific merits. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > There’s a quick take on my views. Like I said, take it or leave it. I’m not going to discuss this ad nauseum–I get very tired of reading posts like Gigo’s, where he misunderstands what I say and responds to something different. Nah, what you are attempting to do is a sorry attempt at not dealing with the cites. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > It’s mentally tiring to say again what I already said and show how what he responded to is not what I said, and it looks like waffling and/or hand-waving to outside observers who aren’t smart enough to follow, so they pile on. So, for me on this topic, it’s a one-and-done. If you want to take that as admitting that I’m not smart or knowledgeable enough to debate the topic, then fine, you are correct, you win, please claim your prize. Meh, the only price I like to get is being recognized by people that have curiosity for the evidence and facts, so this is a cherished price: > [@Try2B Comprehensive](#): > > Just want to give a big thanks to GIGObuster for backing me up. And for other dopers out there, even the recent conservatives that have come around to the light and rejected denialism (I guess Rand Rover would even deny that this took place in this message board already), you’re welcome. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892.md?page=3)