CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Par for the course, then.
Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation
- Thread starter batvette
- Start date
- Status
macdoc
Philosopher
Oh yeah - he didn't answer the question...
Tillson the head of Exxon thinks AGW is a significant risk.
Who's correct...Tillson or AM...?? He keeps dodging this.
Tillson the head of Exxon thinks AGW is a significant risk.
http://breakingenergy.com/2013/05/2...es-significant-risk-but-outcome-is-uncertain/
Who's correct...Tillson or AM...?? He keeps dodging this.
Last edited:
macdoc
Philosopher
Yeah we already cancelled the next one which was due a few thousand years out.
Life loss is far more likely to come from other resource depletion or disease.
Climate change makes the other issues more complex and opens up broader swathes to disease.
Erratic weather already costs many billions that could be put to better use dealing with some of the other issues and that's not gonna get better it might just be slowed down enough for the GDP to catch up.
A certain degree of renewal from natural disaster never hurts an economy.
The last couple of years have stretched the concept in the US certainly.
I find it ironic the deniers are quite happy paying some shiek for oil that will run out instead of supporting efforts to reduce dependency on erratic sources AND keep the global temp down while doing so...
Seems sensible...but then when was the rightwingdings been sensible.
Life loss is far more likely to come from other resource depletion or disease.
Climate change makes the other issues more complex and opens up broader swathes to disease.
Erratic weather already costs many billions that could be put to better use dealing with some of the other issues and that's not gonna get better it might just be slowed down enough for the GDP to catch up.
A certain degree of renewal from natural disaster never hurts an economy.
The last couple of years have stretched the concept in the US certainly.
I find it ironic the deniers are quite happy paying some shiek for oil that will run out instead of supporting efforts to reduce dependency on erratic sources AND keep the global temp down while doing so...
Seems sensible...but then when was the rightwingdings been sensible.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
another day the deniers did not answer questions posed to them, nor adress the post that showed them wrong.....
typicall deniers. all they have left is spamming myths and lies and run away from questions....
no wonder people laugh about those nutty deniers.
typicall deniers. all they have left is spamming myths and lies and run away from questions....
no wonder people laugh about those nutty deniers.
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
You have come full circle my friend if you are now quoting EXXON
By the way , I do not believe everything the energy companies say either.
I am fair and balanced in my denial
I feel EXXON is simply using public relations spin for political and economic reasons
I feel the IPCC and its minions also use public relations spin for political and economic reasons.
Cant say as I blame EXXON .... after all they have been accused of causing most of the warming on the planet.
The fatal flaw I have in my brilliant mind is that it is me and you who are consuming the fuels , all EXXON does is supply it to us , and they have become a "big oil company" by supplying our "big consumption" .... we want to be warm , to drive , and to fly , and have electrical power to run our Mac's
25 liters of fuel to go to work and back is a necessity
225,000 liters of fuel in a Boeing 747 to go on our next ski trip is much less of a necessity.
EXXON is our friend , they supply the world with fuel at a very low cost , $1 - $2 per gallon delivered .... the rest is taxes.
I often wonder why people do not complain about the "big government taxes" parasited from "Big Oil Production"
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
So are you saying the head of Exxon is lying? Present your evidence.
macdoc
Philosopher
At least we cleared that up - now he thinks Tillison is wrong as well.
Oh they do - just not in the paid for opinion crap publications you frequent like the Toronto Sun that paragon of neutrality
there are lots more. Coal subsidies are indeed insidious...
The irony here is delicious...
Oh they do - just not in the paid for opinion crap publications you frequent like the Toronto Sun that paragon of neutrality
there are lots more. Coal subsidies are indeed insidious...
The irony here is delicious...
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Fair enough DC but you avoid fundamental questions also .... you try to hide behind stacks of "science"
Folks like you have tunnel vision (not always a bad thing) ... but when the planet does not obey your models you blame it on me not answering your questions.
Think about that for a minute.
Neither you nor I can predict the future , but what if the next 30 years sees a cooling trend ... what will we blame that on ??
What if it is simply good old mother earth doing what it has always done for thousands of years . I suspect it is , with maybe a small influence from burning fossil fuels.
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Please dont twist my words sir .... I said Exxon is likely using PR spin for political and economic reasons.
The whole world employs public relations propaganda , why shouldn't Exxon get on board as well.
It is all designed to be "feel good" anyway ... that is what the bleeders want.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Your metaphysical defences are impenetrable.
The IPCC has minions?
No, they haven't. EXXON aren't that important.
This is a science blog. What we humans want, and what we do, has no bearing on science.
No, it isn't.
Ya think?
And they they lie to you about AGW for "political and economic reasons". What kind of friend is that?
They make billions of dollars a month and, in concert with all the other source-owners, dominate the world's traded economy. They are not your friend. They do not care about you in the slightest.
Governments always tax dominant economic resources because that's where the money flows; the owners of those resources become extremely wealthy, and the wealthy don't pay taxes. If history teaches us nothing else it teaches us that. Taxes are for the little people.
Resource owners take their profit off the top, which is why "striking oil" replaced "finding gold" as a metaphor for sudden riches over a century ago. Big Oil has got you by the gonads and you thank them for not squeezing harder, without even noticing that they're squeezing a little bit harder every year. You just don't feel it.
Last edited:
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Name the questions.
The climate models have been shown to have been quite robust, if a tad conservative.
Before making your next nonsense filled post, take your own advice.
A miracle.
The suspicions of a high school drop out has no bearing on the reality of AGW.
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Exxon did indeed use PR spin for quite a number of years. They were good at it. Heck, you are still parotting their propaganda.
What I can't understand is how you can believe Exxon would willingly accept part of the blame for the greatest threat to the continued existence of civilisation as we know it since the nuclear bomb, if it wasn't true.
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Irony indeed , you may worship at the altar of Suzuki and the CBC , but I have a much broader view.
Mr Suzuki is furious his game plan did not come to fruition. I do not think we will hear much from him again.
And have you ever notice the CBC has gone pretty mum on the Global Warming issues that used to dominate their headlines ?? Why is that ???
Do you know they moderate and edit out the reader comments that do not tow the Suzuki-CBC line ?
The CRTC slapped their wrists because of that and gave them the warning to report on all sides of the issue. But rather than comply they pretty much dropped the whole topic except what comes through AP or Reuters etc.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
PR spin is lying.
I don't.
To what purpose/ what do you think they're lying to you for?
Propaganda isn't always designed to make you feel good. Propaganda is often used to make you feel threatened. Just as you feel threatened by the AGW conspiracy to make you pay taxes and limit your freedom - alarming prospects. After all, you claim that scientists are using propaganda to promote fear and alarm where it need not exist.
So why are EXXON lying to you, and to the public in general (not all of whom are as perceptive as you)?
The simple truth is that denying AGW is no longer tenable if you want to appear responsible and rational, and this is not because of propaganda. It's because denying AGW is to be identified with the likes of Monckton, Inhofe, Judith Curry, Tony Watts and, frankly, you. These are the people you feel, bro, and by your friends shall you be known. It may not always be fair but there it is, because as a rule-of-thumb it does work.
If you want to frack under somebody's house, are you going to approach them as a friend of Monckton? You're not. You want to appear rational and trustworthy, and that's hard enough for oil companies as it is, just on their records.
You and yours are a failing breed. There, I've said it.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
There's a threat to freedom realised, and you think it's a good thing.
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
Cite or reference?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
As I read it, EXXON are pandering to some interest influential enough to be worth pandering to, secure in the knowledge that intellects such as Arnold Martin's will see the implied nod-and-wink. That influential interest might or might not be Pope Francis; I'm not making a bet either way on that.
macdoc
Philosopher
I don't think so...there was a threat by the Rockefellers that shifted the goalposts and stopped the funding of the denier crowd.
Exxon is necessary and we are a long way away from anything other than liquid fuels but in all cases Exxon will distribute and be involved.
If they continue to be obstructionist they risk backlash.
They knew the score in 1995.
There are lots of people that avoided ESSO including me because of their climate stupidity.
It was only going to get worse for them.
Board revolt,
consumer boycott,,
S02 reduction was only finally accelerated by court action.
Big Tobacco dodged and ducked for years until some states took action.
C02 may go the same route ...Exxon know it and the sooner they get out of bed with Big Coal the better for them.
Obama has correctly targetted coal and has made progress.
China and US just made a large scale commitment to emission reduction. Exxon can benefit from that but only if they are not seen to be obstructive.
A denier might sit here and play stupid about reality...
A head of the second most valuable company on earth had better show board and shareholders more sense.
Exxon is necessary and we are a long way away from anything other than liquid fuels but in all cases Exxon will distribute and be involved.
If they continue to be obstructionist they risk backlash.
They knew the score in 1995.
There are lots of people that avoided ESSO including me because of their climate stupidity.
It was only going to get worse for them.
Board revolt,
consumer boycott,,
S02 reduction was only finally accelerated by court action.
Big Tobacco dodged and ducked for years until some states took action.
C02 may go the same route ...Exxon know it and the sooner they get out of bed with Big Coal the better for them.
Obama has correctly targetted coal and has made progress.
China and US just made a large scale commitment to emission reduction. Exxon can benefit from that but only if they are not seen to be obstructive.
A denier might sit here and play stupid about reality...
A head of the second most valuable company on earth had better show board and shareholders more sense.
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
This has already happened at least twice. Where a major energy company simultaneously invests in renewables and a major climate-friendly PR campaign(especially when there are tax breaks and government subsidies available) while also pumping funding into the deniosphere.
macdoc
Philosopher
I think they as a corporation is out of it....might be lots of private funding but Heartland is bleeding big time.
It's a complete waste of their money at this point in time.
It's a complete waste of their money at this point in time.
- Status