# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/41 "2011-02-21T01:30:54Z")
As far as the OP goes, and brightly ignoring the fact there are people who don’t think global warming is occurring, it nearly broke my heart when I realised that modern oil companies had rejected the painful rectitude of the founders of the industry, and instead chose to act in a scoundrelly manner for mere profit. Portraits of the fine old face of John D. should be dripping tears all over the boardrooms at this betrayal of his standards. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/42 "2011-02-21T01:56:11Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > Ever ask yourself why it’s not more accepted that it’s too late to do anything about AGW? Actually, it **is** widely accepted that **some** climate effects of AGW are probably inevitable at this point. But why would anybody think that “it’s too late” to do **anything at all** about AGW? Anthropogenic climate change isn’t a one-shot deal, where we either cause it or don’t cause it and the outcome is settled for good either way. Rather, it’s an ongoing process of human impacts on climate. As long as we keep altering the composition of our atmosphere with ever-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, we will be altering the consequences for global climate in the future (at least, as far as we can tell from the current state of the science). AFAIK, there’s no scientifically valid reason to think that we’re anywhere near an “impacts plateau”, where what we do doesn’t matter anymore because the damage, whatever it is, has already been done. Why would you want such an idea to be “more accepted” than the science justifies? ---
**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, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/43 "2011-02-21T04:01:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Are surface temperature records reliable?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm) > > [The difference between weather and climate](http://www.skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm) > > 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](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm) > > 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?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm) > > 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](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/) > > Nah, what you are attempting to do is a sorry attempt at not dealing with the cites. > 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: > 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. I found a video online of Gigo typing up this post: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iE4uEsaBF0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iE4uEsaBF0) ---
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/44 "2011-02-21T04:08:48Z")
You brought up something in your last post that I meant to address earlier: [QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] 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. [/quote] > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > 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. I don’t have a major problem with any of those conclusions in particular. But those conclusions aren’t the half of it–they aren’t even the tenth of it. Mainstream AGW theory in the US right now adds a lot more to that, which I do find objectionable. The added parts are as follows: the rise in atmospheric carbon levels will have catastrophic effects, humans can stop those catastrophic effects from happening by reducing carbon emissions, and the US should act to mandate reduced carbon emissions. Each of these additional parts adds enormous complexity to the problem. And the fact that the policy changes AGW proponents want to enact just so happen to line up with usual liberal bugaboos casts a huge :dubious: over the whole exercise. ---
**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, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/45 "2011-02-21T04:13:49Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I found a video online of Gigo typing up this post: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iE4uEsaBF0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iE4uEsaBF0) Nobody drunk poor kool aid man, just looked at him funny… Looks at Rand Rover… :dubious: 😛 Here are better videos for people who want to check the truth: First, lets check the sources that Rand Rover likely uses: > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/12/qZzwRwFDXw0)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... > **[potholer54](https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/1/fbW-aHvjOgM)** > > The purpose of this channel is to correct false scientific information on the internet. I am a former science journalist and geologist (see the "Who I am" video or channel trailer). > > Feel free to post. The only rules are : > > DON'T... > 1)... No, global warming was not invented by AL gore or the liberals: > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/17/sdALFnlwV_o)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. And finally, how no faith is used by the scientists to tell us why AGW is happening: > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/38/yLYqzIhhT6o)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. > **[greenman3610](https://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/38/yLYqzIhhT6o)** > > Knocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. ---
**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, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/46 "2011-02-21T04:18:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > First, lets check the sources that Rand Rover likely uses: Here’s the main source that I use and that you are incapable of using: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/gVjpfPNpoGA/hqdefault.jpg "The Human Brain") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVjpfPNpoGA) ---
**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, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/47 "2011-02-21T04:30:09Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You brought up something in your last post that I meant to address earlier: > > I don’t have a major problem with any of those conclusions in particular. Ah, the old I’m not really denying the science after several pages of doing so gambit. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > But those conclusions aren’t the half of it–they aren’t even the tenth of it. Cite? From where are you pulling these ratios? > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Mainstream AGW theory in the US right now adds a lot more to that, which I do find objectionable. The added parts are as follows: the rise in atmospheric carbon levels will have catastrophic effects, humans can stop those catastrophic effects from happening by reducing carbon emissions, and the US should act to mandate reduced carbon emissions. > > Each of these additional parts adds enormous complexity to the problem. And the fact that the policy changes AGW proponents want to enact just so happen to line up with usual liberal bugaboos casts a huge :dubious: over the whole exercise. Lets see what Barry Brickmore, Republican, Scientist from BYU says about this being a liberal bugaboo: > **[My Reply to Senator Hatch](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/my-reply-to-senator-hatch/#more-768)** > > Dear Senator Hatch, Thank you for your reply of Dec. 21 in response to my criticisms of your “Climate Change 101” web page.  I deeply appreciated that you took down Lord Monckton’… > [@](#): > > Thank you for your reply of Dec. 21 in response to my criticisms of your “Climate Change 101″ web page. I deeply appreciated that you took down Lord Monckton’s graphs that included false data. Sadly, that kind of integrity isn’t universal among political figures. Likewise, I appreciate that you have sponsored a number of bills that will encourage at least some progress in updating the energy economy. > > You also said, however, that you are “not greatly alarmed about rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide at this time,” and I think you would agree that in terms of impacting anthropogenic climate change, the measures you have supported cannot be construed as a strong response to the problem of carbon emissions. If you don’t mind, I’d like to take another stab at convincing you that you have been misled about this issue, because I believe that if you could be convinced of that, you would have the integrity and courage to try to convince our fellow Republicans to come up with more politically acceptable ways to strongly address climate change. You alluded to your opposition to the recent “cap-and-trade” bill, and the fact is that I didn’t support that solution, either. I would, however, favor something like Rep. Bob Inglis’s “tax swap” idea. I think Republicans should be trying to come up with more solutions like that, which would not impose a greater tax burden or give license for political cronyism. So far, the only serious idea I’ve heard from the Republicans is Rep. Inglis’s, unfortunately. Someone like you could change that. > > In the following paragraphs, I’ll briefly point out several more problems I perceive in your “Climate Change 101″ page and your letter to me. I’m hoping to convince you that you’ve been too quick to accept arguments that reinforce your natural, conservative tendency not to favor solutions that involve more government regulation. Everyone does that to some degree, but you seem like the sort of person who is at least capable of changing his mind in the face of evidence. > [@](#): > > 1. Finally, you seem willing to adopt some rather weak excuses for doing nothing. You say, “Based on the target carbon reductions in that proposal calculated against the IPPC’s assumptions for the warming factor of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the legislation, if successful, would reduce the climate by between a total of .07 and .1 degree Celsius after nearly a century of effort.” I’ve seen this argument a number of times, and it seems to me that even if the numbers are correct, its main flaws are that 1) it assumes that nobody in the world outside the US will make any emissions reductions, and 2) no steps beyond the first will be taken to reduce emissions. By this logic, why should I have bothered adding to my attic insulation this year? Why would any single person, city, state, or nation take any action at all? In fact, this type of reasoning would give us license to ignore ANY problem that is global in scope or impossible to solve in a single step. > > Can you begin to recognize the pattern I’m seeing? If a single contrarian paper is published, it’s enough for you to pronounce AGW dead, even though you don’t have the expertise to assess it. If less than 1% of the IPCC scientists dissent about the IPCC’s conclusions, it’s enough for you to dismiss the overwhelming consensus of experts. If any natural variations have ever occurred, then you just assume recent changes have been naturally caused, too, even if no natural cause can plausibly be identified for the present trend. If someone proposes action that won’t immediately and completely solve the problem, you justify yourself in neglecting to take any action at all. > > I hope you can now see why I’m saying that your biases have allowed you to be misled about the seriousness of climate change. We all have biases, so I’m not trying to be overly critical about that. However, I am confident that if you step back and try to objectively examine your approach, you will agree that perhaps you need to take a second look at the issue. ---
**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, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/48 "2011-02-21T04:33:32Z")
You know what Gigo? If you stripped out the quotes and links to articles in every single post you’ve ever made, the result would be complete gibberish. Like stripping the nouns and verbs out of a sentence. Maybe try to think for yourself for once. ---
**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, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/49 "2011-02-21T04:36:09Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You know what Gigo? If you stripped out the quotes and links to articles in every single post you’ve ever made, the result would be complete gibberish. Like stripping the nouns and verbs out of a sentence. Maybe try to think for yourself for once. And thank you, for showing to all once again, that you are just a coward for not dealing with the cites that are the quotes and links. ---
**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, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/50 "2011-02-21T04:39:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thank you, for showing to all once again, that you are just a coward for not dealing with the cites that are the quotes and links. And thank you for continuing to show that you can’t consider what people actually are saying and craft a response yourself–you just reflexively post a link to something vaguely related to the general subject. ---
**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, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/51 "2011-02-21T04:58:24Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > And thank you for continuing to show that you can’t consider what people actually are saying and craft a response yourself–you just reflexively post a link to something vaguely related to the general subject. And that is worse than being a coward? 🙂 Will wonders ever cease in Rand Rover land? 😛 Your point here is another demonstrated lie, there are several posts on previous treads where I do explain in my own words how AWG makes more sense than the alternatives. Even on the Paleoclimate front and the Hockey Stick. That was one of the reasons why I got suck into discussions of Climate Change, the stupid was so bad coming from deniers that it burned. Back then I posted this: "For me in reality the interest to this issue came thanks to “The stupid! It burns!” It was not you, but there was a doper in a very early thread on this subject that made a very stupid mistake: He confused proxy temperatures with the instrumental temperature record. Then he compounded the stupid by pointing to a graph from an early IPCC report, and ignored that it came from one of the earliest IPCC reports, new data and information had rendered that graph obsolete (You know, thanks to something silly called more data gathered and records) by the 2007 IPCC report more up to date reconstructions and graphs were used that showed the now familiar hockey stick shape. Yet, deniers still claimed that the obsolete graph gathered by the same group was the “beesnees” as it showed a big medieval warm period and no hockey stick; however, a simple reading of the evidence showed to me that the denier was incredible stupid by using the same organization’s graph that was later dismissed/corrected as not being more accurate than the new ones gathered by the same organization. It was clear to me then: “Corrections made by the IPCC are even denied by these guys!”. It was clear that that denier was never aware of the old saying: “The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away” new and more samples of three rings, boreholes and corals showed that the medieval period was not as huge or global as previously thought. So yeah, you may attach religious reasons to others, as for myself I go for being biased in favor of science and against stupid ideas. Video showing how it is an article of faith among deniers that the graph that showed the medieval warm period is still the good one and not the latest ones: [http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/22/vrKfz8NjEzU](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/22/vrKfz8NjEzU) " I don’t expect much from you learning anyway, suffice to say is that even other conservative dopers said that guys like you are just full of hot air. ---
**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, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/52 "2011-02-21T05:08:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Ah, the old I’m not really denying the science after several pages of doing so gambit. I’ll just respond to this before renewing my vow to not engage you on this issue (since you are incapable of actually thinking about it): the list of things I agreed with T2BC on does not include the concept that humans are the cause of global warming. So I didn’t undeny something I’ve previously denied. ---
**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, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/53 "2011-02-21T05:11:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is worse than being a coward? 🙂 I’m not a coward, I’m a realist. I realize that you don’t want to discuss facts–you have made up your mind. I’ll repeat my challenge to you: what facts would demonstrate that your beliefs about AGW are wrong? ---
**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, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/54 "2011-02-21T05:33:08Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I’m not a coward, I’m a realist. I realize that you don’t want to discuss facts–you have made up your mind. I’ll repeat my challenge to you: what facts would demonstrate that your beliefs about AGW are wrong? Already mentioned before, but you also continue to demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension. And once again you are projecting, it is clear to all that you are the one who is not willing to discuss the facts or cites. > [@](#): > > 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. Each one of them can be demonstrated to be false with experimentation and then the main items of the AGW theory are wrong. Of course it is not that simple as even more evidence has piled up. Once again, all the indicators can be demonstrated to be false with experiments and then the theory goes up in smoke. Unfortunately the indicators and evidence has accumulated for more than 60 years, and the basics of AGW were understood from the 1950’s as the Canadian physicist Gilbert Plass showed back then. Currently there are more than 10 indicators that point to AGW as the most likely reason why the planet is warming during the last century. > **[10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html)** > > The NOAA State of the Climate 2009 report is an excellent summary of the many lines of evidence that global warming is happening. Acknowledging the fact that the planet is warming leads to the all important question - what's causing global warming?... > [@](#): > > 1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (CDIAC). Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let’s look at more evidence that we’re responsible for the rise in CO2 levels. > 2. When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Manning 2006). > 3. This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you’d expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide (Manning 2006). > 4. Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels (Pelejero 2005). > 5. So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What’s the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). > 6. If less heat is escaping to space, where is it going? Back to the Earth’s surface. Surface measurements confirm this, observing more downward infrared radiation (Philipona 2004, Wang 2009). A closer look at the downward radiation finds more heat returning at CO2 wavelengths, leading to the conclusion that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” (Evans 2006). > 7. If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006). > 8. Another distinctive pattern of greenhouse warming is cooling in the upper atmosphere, otherwise known as the stratosphere. This is exactly what’s happening (Jones 2003). > 9. With the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) warming and the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) cooling, another consequence is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, otherwise known as the tropopause, should rise as a consequence of greenhouse warming. This has been observed (Santer 2003). > 2. An even higher layer of the atmosphere, the ionosphere, is expected to cool and contract in response to greenhouse warming. This has been observed by satellites (Laštovi?ka 2006). So, good luck on finding evidence that discredits all of those indicators. And this is because: > [@](#): > > Science isn’t a house of cards, ready to topple if you remove one line of evidence. Instead, it’s like a jigsaw puzzle. As the body of evidence builds, we get a clearer picture of what’s driving our climate. We now have many lines of evidence all pointing to a single, consistent answer - the main driver of global warming is rising carbon dioxide levels from our fossil fuel burning. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/55 "2011-02-21T05:42:41Z")
> [@Rand Rover](#): > > […] the list of things I agreed with T2BC on does not include the concept that humans are the cause of global warming. So I didn’t undeny something I’ve previously denied. Actually, that seems to be exactly what you did. Here’s the exchange from your 11:08 PM post on 2/20: > [@Try2BComprehensive](#): > > 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. > [@Rand Rover](#): > > I don’t have a major problem with any of those conclusions in particular. If you’re not willing to agree with the mainstream scientific consensus that human activity is the chief cause of global warming, then yes, you’re contradicting your earlier claim not to have a problem with the science on the basic facts of the subject. > [@Rand Rover](#): > > And the fact that the policy changes AGW proponents want to enact just so happen to line up with usual liberal bugaboos casts a huge :dubious: over the whole exercise. :dubious: By that reasoning, you could use liberal support for speed limits and seatbelt laws to justify casting doubt on Newtonian physics. You can’t use political ideology as a proxy for scientific understanding. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/56 "2011-02-21T15:23:31Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I’m not a coward, I’m a realist. … Unintentional Irony of the Week Award. You are offered facts and research, you answer with a stubborn refusal to accept them and insist that you are right, regardless. If that’s realism, take more drugs. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/57 "2011-02-21T15:28:49Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Actually, that seems to be exactly what you did. Here’s the exchange from your 11:08 PM post on 2/20: You are confused. All T2BC said was that humans are responsible for increasing carbon emissions, not global warming. > [@](#): > > :dubious: By that reasoning, you could use liberal support for speed limits and seatbelt laws to justify casting doubt on Newtonian physics. You are still confused. You aren’t taking into account how neatly the science on AGW fits into liberal policy goals–i.e., that humans are causing AGW, quick-fixes don’t work, and that a reduction in carbon emissions by the US would work. A better analogy would be if liberals were saying that seatbelts only work to prevent injury if they are made out of sustainably grown hemp, and neither synthetic hemp or hemp grown using pesticides work in seatbelts for some reason or another. > [@](#): > > You can’t use political ideology as a proxy for scientific understanding. Exactly–which is why I haven’t swallowed mainstream AGW theory–it’s just political ideology dressed in scientific clothes. ---
**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, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/58 "2011-02-21T15:30:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Unintentional Irony of the Week Award. You are offered facts and research, you answer with a stubborn refusal to accept them and insist that you are right, regardless. If that’s realism, take more drugs. Nope. I answer with critical analysis of the facts and research that looks behind them for their reasons for existence, how they were derived, etc. and etc. I don’t just uncritically accept them. I bet you don’t uncritically accept the conclusions of Hernstein and Murray (and others) regarding the link between race and IQ. Why not? There’s lots of science on this point–study after study shows a link. But you are a race/IQ link denier. Why? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/59 "2011-02-21T15:34:24Z")
Well, since you are clearly losing this argument, changing the subject might work. It’ll work for you, at any rate. ---
**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, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/60 "2011-02-21T15:37:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, since you are clearly losing this argument, changing the subject might work. It’ll work for you, at any rate. Keep denying, denier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892.md?page=4)