# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 5
**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 22, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/81 "2011-02-22T02:51:05Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Huh. In other words, you’re saying that economic regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would be a way of just “punishing business a bit”? Whereas waiting around for the unchecked consequences of climate change “to take hold” would entail “the complete destruction of civilization”? Which, presumably, would end up punishing business substantially **more**? > > You seem to be saying that even though these liberal environmental policy goals would end up being **less** destructive to business than the _laissez-faire_ alternative, you’re still opposed to them essentially just because you feel those mean old liberals are motivated by sadism and shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. > > Which, as far as I’m concerned, adds up to a big tall glass of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. Are you **seriously** so pathologically prejudiced against liberals that you’d actually welcome “the complete destruction of civilization” in preference to having to swallow a little liberal-spawned environmental regulation, even if it reduced the negative impacts of climate change? 😕 > > Like I said, political ideology cannot usefully serve as a proxy for scientific understanding. Or for rational policy assessment, for that matter. In your previous posts in this thread (all of which have followed the exact pattern of this one–i.e., you clearly misunderstanding something I said), I felt that your misunderstanding was honest, perhaps aided by some unclarity on my part. But now I realize you are either an idiot (but not idiotic enough as to be entertaining) or are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, I’m done with you. ---
**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 22, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/82 "2011-02-22T03:37:24Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > In your previous posts in this thread (all of which have followed the exact pattern of this one–i.e., you clearly misunderstanding something I said), I felt that your misunderstanding was honest, perhaps aided by some unclarity on my part. But now I realize you are either an idiot (but not idiotic enough as to be entertaining) or are being deliberately obtuse. Either way, I’m done with you. Anyone that resorts to claims that an opponent is doing something because it wants to “to teach those meanies a lesson” or that they are “sadists” with no evidence to support it, is resorting indeed to prejudice. Evidence has been presented to show who are the sadists in this tale, but no matter, anyone else can see how pathetic your reasoning is in your attempts to ignore the science. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/83 "2011-02-22T05:29:07Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > \Are you **seriously** so pathologically prejudiced against liberals that you’d actually welcome “the complete destruction of civilization” in preference to having to swallow a little liberal-spawned environmental regulation, even if it reduced the negative impacts of climate change?\ That’s the part I still don’t understand; if all the doom-sayers are right about all the catastrophes lining up waiting to happen, the consequences are basically the end of civilization as we know it; I’m going to use my ability to think and reason and say, “That’s a bad thing and I don’t want it to happen,” not bet all my chips on, “Well, it probably won’t happen, and if it does, it probably won’t be _that_ bad.” In my mind, the end of civilization as we know it is a thing to avoid at pretty much all costs, not something to gamble on (with other people’s lives). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/84 "2011-02-22T06:49:32Z")
> [@Cat Whisperer](#): > > That’s the part I still don’t understand; if all the doom-sayers are right about all the catastrophes lining up waiting to happen, the consequences are basically the end of civilization as we know it; I’m going to use my ability to think and reason and say, “That’s a bad thing and I don’t want it to happen,” not bet all my chips on, “Well, it probably won’t happen, and if it does, it probably won’t be that bad.” Exactly. It’s especially dumb to use political beliefs rather than scientific expertise as the deciding factor in which way to bet. I mean, heck, scientists come up with research all the time that offers no particular support to specific “liberal policy goals”. As for example (discussed in the current GQ thread on organic foods) when they publish studies that show there are no significant nutritional or health benefits for most individual organic food items compared to their conventional counterparts. So whether we liberal organic-agriculture proponents like it or not, there’s no accepted scientific evidence that organic foods are healthier for you, at least at the individual-consumer level, than other foods. Would it make sense for me to react to that by saying “Oh, that conclusion fits in too neatly with anti-liberal policy goals favoring large-scale industrial agriculture, so that casts a big doubt on the claims of the science”? That sort of anti-science ideological paranoia is roundly mocked (and rightly so) when factions on the political left are the ones invoking it. (“The government was behind 9/11!” “Solar energy technology is actually more cheap and effective than fossil fuels but the oil companies are hiding it!” “GMOs are poisoning our foods!”) Yet many anti-liberals like **Rand Rover** seem to feel that anti-science ideological paranoia is perfectly justified when it happens to fit **their** ideology. Even generally accepted basic scientific findings like “human activities are causing global warming” can apparently be rejected or dismissed on the grounds that they “fit in too neatly with liberal policy goals”. Hmm :rolleyes: ---
**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 22, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/85 "2011-02-22T12:17:40Z")
> [@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. It’s funny to me that you say this. This thread has had me questioning the value of the commonsense conclusions approach to my rhetoric. **GIGO** seems to provide more precise information, down to the level of providing historical precedents for the debunked arguments you raise. I mostly string together surface observations from the safe part of the argument. But rejecting GIGO’s approach is going to lead an honest person to my approach, which you aren’t meeting head-on either. Which tells me you aren’t going to address the arguments for AGW, let alone the issue of deceptive dirty-energy corporations that suck. Donkeys. Stated simply, you put the deny in denier. ---
**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 22, 2011, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/86 "2011-02-22T12:26:14Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. It is implicit in the list of things you agreed on that humans are causing global warming. **GIGO** provides more precise information to clarify that very point. I don’t put too fine a point on it because there can be other factors involved- like global warming leading to tundra thawing, which can release a lot of methane (another greenhouse gas), which might appear to be a ‘natural’ process but really isn’t. And other genuinely natural or seemingly natural effects. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/87 "2011-02-22T19:25:53Z")
If you think about this from the proper perspective, which is to say, mine, it will become clear that the political dimension of all this underscores the likelihood that AGW is correct rather than the opposite. Even if the scientific community were in cahoots with the vast liberal conspiracy to punish business and “bring it to its knees”, there could not be unanimity. There never is. There would have to be several scientists who, for whatever reason, were not absorbed into the hive mind. Now, let’s say that there is scientific evidence to be found that would utterly crush the whole AGW conspiracy. What would prevent it being found, and, being found, publicized? Certainly wouldn’t be lack of money, there is all sorts of money available to the brave and plucky scientist willing to risk mockery. Seeing as how it would be directly in the interests of some of the wealthiest people on the planet, it would be fair to say that such a research project would not go begging for long. And, needless to say, the results of such a project, proving AGW to be bullshit, would not remain hidden, not buried in the obscure pages of some scientific journal. The Koch Brothers alone, may goat diseases fester in their prostates, would ensure that the news would be posted on every media site over which they have influence. Finding such a result would ensure funding for the lucky scientist, as well as an avalanche of well-paid invitations to speak and write about such results. But no. What we see is a consensus arrived at after painful and careful analysis. How many scientists who began as AGW skeptics are now on board? Since the consensus is so broad, we may fairly assume quite a few. Even though such a public announcement would likely close off any number of potential sources for funding research. Because the interests of Big Money are involved here, it increases, rather than decreases, the likelihood that these results and the resulting broad consensus is one hundred percent legit. Further, I daresay that Big Money has beat the bushes looking for such a scientist with legitimate\* bona fides\*. How’s that working out? So far, not very well. Succinctly put, if a scientific results disfavors the interests of Big Money, it is far more likely to be true, assuming that the work is correctly done and stands up to scrutiny. I stand ready, **Rand** , to accept your gracious submission to my superior intellect. I promise to restrain myself from gleeful mockery. I make no promises for **GIGO** , of course, the boy has done yeoman’s work and I cannot, in good conscience, deny him a few cheerful "neener-neener"s. I await your abject surrender with “the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/88 "2011-02-22T19:31:29Z")
Interesting. It turns out whatsisface is a conspiracy theorist. You guys seem to be taking him more seriously than you would the clowns who think the WTC attacks were an inside job or that Barack Obama isn’t 'merican, or that the moon landings are a hoax. Why is this? Seems to me that Service Sector up there is being taken far more seriously than his paranoid conspiracy theory deserves. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/89 "2011-02-22T19:49:11Z")
He’s a lawyer. Who would know more about the thermal dynamics of hot air? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/90 "2011-02-22T19:51:03Z")
A lawyer?!??!!!? Who knew? From all the bullshit he flings I’d have thought he was in agriculture, or possibly landscaping. ---
**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 22, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/91 "2011-02-22T20:04:55Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **GIGO** , of course, the boy has done yeoman’s work and I cannot, in good conscience, deny him a few cheerful "neener-neener"s. I like Ike.. \* 😛 A little bit more, it is interesting that Dr. Plass’ work in the 50’s was related to improving the new heat seeking missiles being developed, as it was important to find how other heat source “noise” in the background could affect the missiles. Plass and others found the quantities and the specific ways that the infrared spectrum is absorbed by CO2, the levels of heat released by it; and the levels we get by the concentrations, layer by layer, down through the atmosphere. ---
**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 22, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/92 "2011-02-22T20:55:39Z")
> [@The\_Tooth](#): > > A lawyer?!??!!!? Who knew? From all the bullshit he flings I’d have thought he was in agriculture, or possibly landscaping. Motorized trike sales (my apologies, **RR** , for mis-remembering that as snowmobiles. _mea culpa_). ---
**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 24, 2011, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/93 "2011-02-24T02:51:23Z")
Thanks for your help guys. I shall savor this victory until the next time I get ripped to shreds. Interesting that I would have a thread seem to come to a conclusion. Not much doubt about it, Exxon and Chevron are stinky rotters. I’m replacing ARCO with the Koch brothers. Gawd, what a bunch of stinkers! The End. ---
**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 24, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892/94 "2011-02-24T03:06:09Z")
Missed the edit window: Since it’s a victory party, let’s put on some music. Appropriate enough but to wonk it is not to know it- I am just putting something on- [Prelude to Act I.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMtRof9qJG8) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-poor-behavior-of-exxonmobil-arco-and-chevron/571892.md?page=4)