Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 6:32 am

So Exxon is bad because they refused to admit to errors that did not suit them? Hmmm, why do you not blame the IPCC for doing the same when they hid things that did not suit their positions?
But Exxon is a company, the IPCC is a scientific concern where such information is supposed to be freely available for all to see.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 7:15 am

gmtom
So Exxon is bad because they refused to admit to errors that did not suit them?


I have no idea what you mean by errors..

Exxonn scientists published their scientific studies and conclusions in peer reviewed journals dozens of times. None were ever repudiated or withdrawn or changed.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 8:37 am

Good lord nothing changes does it?
You want to play games with words? You are complaining about Exxon and what they hid and how awful they are. Yet the IPCC goes and does the same exact thing and it's just fine in your eyes.

Please explain how the two are so very different yet you call for Exxon's head and let the IPCC skate by, seems like you want to listen to one side only and ignore any and all that opposes your pre-set position. Yet the "deniers" do not deny, we simply see things the way they are. We see some facts that are alarming, we see some facts that are not so alarming, we see corruption on BOTH sides and we agree alternative fuels are to be encouraged.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 9:26 am

rickyp wrote:fate
I read enough of it to see that it is based, in part, on recollections of former employees


Yes. And memos within the company. And published research reports. And reports to the board and shareholders. And audits of Exxon budgets and expenditures...
ExxonMobil scientists have been involved in climate research and related policy analysis for more than 30 years, yielding more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed publications."


And, oh stuff like actually physical evidence...like the size of a super tanker...

Outfitting its biggest supertanker to measure the ocean's absorption of carbon dioxide was a crown jewel in Exxon's research program.


http://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092 ... s-business


You've shown yourself to be a conspiracy nut.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 10:29 am

GMTom wrote:Good lord nothing changes does it?
You want to play games with words? You are complaining about Exxon and what they hid and how awful they are. Yet the IPCC goes and does the same exact thing and it's just fine in your eyes.
Please show what it is you are alleging the IPCC has done.

And please explain how even if it were true, that has any bearing on what Exxon did? Whataboutery is all very well, but can you either defend or explain Exxon's actions?

In fact, do you even get what it is that Freeman's is saying? They were actually doing work that tallied with climate science.

Please explain how the two are so very different yet you call for Exxon's head and let the IPCC skate by, seems like you want to listen to one side only and ignore any and all that opposes your pre-set position. Yet the "deniers" do not deny, we simply see things the way they are. We see some facts that are alarming, we see some facts that are not so alarming, we see corruption on BOTH sides and we agree alternative fuels are to be encouraged.
I think companies that rely on the sale of oil are less likely to agree that alternatives should be encouraged. Buggy whip manufacturers were not noted supporters of automobiles either.

And Tom, if you "see things the way they are", can you explain the science for us?
Last edited by danivon on 25 Apr 2016, 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Apr 2016, 10:37 am

I get the part where Exxon was in the fore-front of scientific research about global warming and funded scientific research and then switched course and spent money to lobby against it. I just don't see they were hiding evidence or lying about what they found. As far as I can tell when they were in favor of the global warming the information they found to support it was made public (the 50 peer reviewed studies). I guess you can argue that changing their position from being in the van of global warming research to saying it was inconclusive was in effect lying about the prior scientific research they had done but I don't see they actually said those studies were wrong. Or did they? It's clear that they changed their position on it, that it was based on their bottom-line, and that if they had continued to support the research it might have made a big difference. But I don't see where they hid what they did before or lied about why previously did. You can argue that it is a form of lying for Exxon to argue against the global warming theory when they knew it to be true (based on their own research--but again this was public stuff), but I don't see the evidence that Exxon had some great evidence proving global warming that they were hiding from the public or lying about.

Interestingly enough, their positions in being in the fore-front of climate research and then against it are actually consistent with their focus on threats to their bottom-line. When they were concerned about how global warming would affect oil exploration they wanted to know what the affects would be so they could plan for it. But once they realized that the response to global warming would be cuts in carbon emissions that would affect their bottom-line immediately they switched course. And actually they probably wanted more research (just not funded by them) because they still wanted the information but were just opposed to the overall conclusions drawn from the research and against the remedy (cutting carbon emissions)
Last edited by freeman3 on 25 Apr 2016, 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 10:45 am

freeman3 wrote:Interestingly enough, their positions in being in the fore-front of climate research and then against it are actually consistent with their focus on threats to their bottom-line. When they were concerned about how global warming would affect oil exploration they wanted to know what the affects would be so they could plan for it. But once they realized that cuts in carbon emissions would affect their bottom-line immediately they switched course. And actually they probably would more research (just not funded by them) because they still wanted the information but just against the remedy.

Indeed, they went from being neutral about it to having a bias. And when they were neutral, they were in line with the prevailing theories, which are the basis of climate science today. Was that a deliberate policy? There's no smoking gun, but it does look fishy.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 2:22 pm

freeman3

I guess you can argue that changing their position from being in the van of global warming research to saying it was inconclusive was in effect lying about the prior scientific research they had done but I don't see they actually said those studies were wrong. Or did they?

Its almost identical to the history of Big Tobacco. They clearly knew that tobacco smoking was a cause of cancer, heart disease etc. But, despite knowing this they set up "associations" that tried to amplify the small uncertainties, and diminish the probabilities that they were already aware of...

Here's what Exxon did when they figured out that the remedies to the problems they had clearly identified would probably hurt them financially, at least in the short run.

First, they set up the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying partnership of leading oil and automobile companies dedicated to defeating controls on carbon pollution.
"As major corporations with a high level of internal scientific and technical expertise, they were aware of and in a position to understand the available scientific data," recounts an essay on corporate responsibility for climate change published last month in the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change.
"From 1989 to 2002, the GCC led an aggressive lobbying and advertising campaign aimed at achieving these goals by sowing doubt about the integrity of the IPCC and the scientific evidence that heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels drive global warming," says the article, by Harvard climate science historian Naomi Oreskes and two co-authors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

Then, in 1998 Exxon also helped create the Global Climate Science Team, an effort involving Randy Randol, the company's top lobbyist, and Joe Walker, a public relations representative for API.

Their memo, leaked to The New York Times, asserted that it is "not known for sure whether (a) climate change actually is occurring, or (b) if it is, whether humans really have any influence on it." Opponents of the Kyoto treaty, it complained, "have done little to build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty."
The memo declared: "Victory will be achieved when average citizens 'understand' (recognize) uncertainties in climate science," and when "recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'"
Exxon wholeheartedly embraced that theme. For example, an advertisement called "Unsettled Science" that ran in major papers in the spring of 2000, prompted one scientist to complain that it had distorted his work by suggesting it supported the notion that global warming was just a natural cycle. "It's a shame," Lloyd Keigwin later told the Wall Street Journal. "The implication is that these data show that we don't need to worry about global warming."


I'd say this was completely contradictory to that which their scientists had declared in the decades earlier... They certainly didn't dig their old reports up to support their claims of "uncertainty".
All you need to do is replace "causes cancer" with "Contributes to climate change". Both Exxon and most of the tobacco companies knew they were trying to create uncertainty when they already knew the truth.
If they are sued .... what will a court say? With Tobacco it was enormous.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102 ... ncertainty
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 3:18 pm

Perfect:

Ty Bomba
1 hr
Today I 'sealed the deal' with Compass Games to design "Climate Change War, 2030." It's an intermediate-future what-if mini-monster wargame, the presumption of which is the worst global warming scenario comes true (+4 degrees C), giving us an ice-free world in 15 years. The base map is attached.
I'll be using that base on the "modified azimuthal" global projection that I recently used for my (also for Compass) "Triumph of the Will: Nazi Germany vs. Imperial Japan, 1948." (The system in CCW will also be an evolution of TotW.)
I'm designing it to be playable by two through four (maybe five). Army/fleet level, cyberwar, assassination, Antarctic colonization, interactive one-action-at-a-time turn sequence, orbital attacks, etc.
I'm hoping people don't feel they have to be pro- or con- the whole climate change debate in order to play this. What's drawn me to it is the idea the changed geography (see map) would present a whole new strategic arena on which to conduct global war.


Image

The climate's going to have to get busy to get rid of all the ice!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 11:46 pm

Sorry, but a game is evidence of what?

You do know that Diplomacy is ahistorical - the borders were not like that in 1901 - particularly in the Balkans.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 5:39 am

danivon wrote:Sorry, but a game is evidence of what?

You do know that Diplomacy is ahistorical - the borders were not like that in 1901 - particularly in the Balkans.


1. Every time we play Diplomacy we change history. History books have to be rewritten.
2. The game is proof of AGW. Just look at what has happened to the world map!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 9:47 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Sorry, but a game is evidence of what?

You do know that Diplomacy is ahistorical - the borders were not like that in 1901 - particularly in the Balkans.


1. Every time we play Diplomacy we change history. History books have to be rewritten.
2. The game is proof of AGW. Just look at what has happened to the world map!

This is you trying to have a "serious discussion" is it?

:sleep:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 10:13 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Sorry, but a game is evidence of what?

You do know that Diplomacy is ahistorical - the borders were not like that in 1901 - particularly in the Balkans.


1. Every time we play Diplomacy we change history. History books have to be rewritten.
2. The game is proof of AGW. Just look at what has happened to the world map!

This is you trying to have a "serious discussion" is it?

:sleep:


Oddly, that's my response to your hype and hysteria.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 12:33 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Sorry, but a game is evidence of what?

You do know that Diplomacy is ahistorical - the borders were not like that in 1901 - particularly in the Balkans.


1. Every time we play Diplomacy we change history. History books have to be rewritten.
2. The game is proof of AGW. Just look at what has happened to the world map!

This is you trying to have a "serious discussion" is it?

:sleep:


Oddly, that's my response to your hype and hysteria.
Mine? what "hysteria" have I posted? Quote me.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 1:46 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Sorry, but a game is evidence of what?

You do know that Diplomacy is ahistorical - the borders were not like that in 1901 - particularly in the Balkans.


1. Every time we play Diplomacy we change history. History books have to be rewritten.
2. The game is proof of AGW. Just look at what has happened to the world map!

This is you trying to have a "serious discussion" is it?

:sleep:


Oddly, that's my response to your hype and hysteria.
Mine? what "hysteria" have I posted? Quote me.


Anything from the first few pages, 12 years ago.