Shell Oil Chief Tells the Truth About Global Warming

[subgenius]

Despite the Bush Administration's Revisionist Science, apparently someone realizes that physics trumps politics every time.
_______________________

Oil chief: my fears for planet
Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry

David Adam, science correspondent
Thursday June 17, 2004

The Guardian

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet".
In an interview in today's Guardian Life section, Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says we urgently need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store them underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.

"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," said Lord Oxburgh. "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present ... with consequences that we really can't predict but are probably not good.
His comments will enrage many in the oil industry, which is targeted by climate change campaigners because the use of its products spews out huge quantities of carbon dioxide, most visibly from vehicle exhausts.

His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position," said Lord Oxburgh, a respected geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March. "
..............
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4949299-103690,00.html

_________________

Makes me want to get Biblical: "What doth it profit a man to get rich and kill his children?"

 

[Cain]

Another wacky environmentalist.

 

[CapelDodger]

Shell had a crisis and a panic on and had to get somebody credible in place without checking them out on their tendency to shoot their mouths off on other subjects than reserves. Oh frabjous day. Not that Shell haven't taken a remarkably rational position (cf ExxonMobil) as an energy company, not an oil company. But seldom has such an unequivocal statement been made with such high profile and credibility on this issue. Exxon's position :

"We in ExxonMobil do not believe that the science required to establish this linkage between fossil fuels and warming has been demonstrated."

is so sad you could almost feel sorry for them.

 

[mgidm86]

Despite the Bush Administration's Revisionist Science, apparently someone realizes that physics trumps politics every time.

Or perhaps they believe that there is a lot of money in developing and maintaining such a system, which may also help prolong the world's reliance on fossil fuels. This would also have the additional benefit of making the oil companies look like they actually care about the environment.

Reminds me of the Phillip Morris website that is dedicated to educating people on the dangers of smoking cigarettes while they reap billions selling them to these very same people. The TV commercials make me want to scream.

Kudos to Shell and Phillip Morris for their ethics in business!

italics are mine:
You probably have to put it under the sea but there are other possibilities. You may be able to trap it in solids or something like that," said Lord Oxburgh, who claimed even vehicle emissions could be trapped and disposed of. "The ("timescale might be impossible")

Hmmm...real solid plan hehe. They know it'll never happen ("timescale might be impossible"), but they'll look good to the public for caring anyways.

I mean think about it...the chairman of Shell Corporation coming out and saying what he did is as calculated as any other political speech. Then maybe I'm just extra cynical this afternoon

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by subgenius:
Despite the Bush Administration's Revisionist Science, apparently someone realizes that physics trumps politics every time.

The question is who that someone is. The Chairman of Shell isn't necessarily an expert on climate change, making this a classic appeal to authority. How do you know Ron Oxburgh hasn't come to this conclusion relying on his own revisionist science?

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Exxon's position :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We in ExxonMobil do not believe that the science required to establish this linkage between fossil fuels and warming has been demonstrated."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


is so sad you could almost feel sorry for them.

Why so sad? The interminable threads on global warming here suggest that the position of ExxonMobil is perfectly rational.

 

[a_unique_person]

The question is who that someone is. The Chairman of Shell isn't necessarily an expert on climate change, making this a classic appeal to authority. How do you know Ron Oxburgh hasn't come to this conclusion relying on his own revisionist science?



Why so sad? The interminable threads on global warming here suggest that the position of ExxonMobil is perfectly rational.

Typical. The threads here suggest that the position of Shell is entirely rational.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy if the authority is not one. I would suggest that, like the heads of tobacco companies, the heads of oil companies would like to aquaint themselves with the accusations made against their products by reputable scientists.

It is interesting that an Australian, died in the wool free market thinker, David Kemp, the current minister for Science, has been 'turned' to believe in GW by his scientists. I asked my friend, who works for the CSIRO, how their GW research was regarded by a conservative government who sees it in just your terms.

My friends response was that, when the minister was presented with the science, he was convinced.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=10148

Kemp rolled on emissions: Labor
10:27 AEST Wed Jun 16 2004


Federal Environment Minister David Kemp had been rolled on a plan to increase a greenhouse gas reduction target, Labor said.

Dr Kemp has refused to say whether he took a submission calling for an increase in the mandatory renewable emissions target (MRET) to cabinet before the environment and energy package release.

Now all we need is for the rest of the cabinet to submit themselves to the same process. As it is, they have made the unbelievably stupid decision to subsidise diesel fuel.

 

[CapelDodger]

from schplurg:

I mean think about it...the chairman of Shell Corporation coming out and saying what he did is as calculated as any other political speech. Then maybe I'm just extra cynical this afternoon

Quite possibly. This is the very recently appointed chairman of Shell, who have had a torrid time recently over declared reserves. He is a "respected geologist", which has the kind of credibility the (remaining members of) the Shell board were looking for. They weren't looking at his attitude towards global warming, and it's unlikely that he has so quickly been conscripted into any sort of conspiracy.

The idea that this is all coming to a head - along with increased oil prices - just when hybrid cars are about to become mainstream is much better material for conspiracy, and credit to c0rbin for pointing that out on another thread. Motor manufacturers, after all, aren't oil companies, they're purveyors of transportation devices. What drives those devices isn't their concern.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
An appeal to authority is a fallacy if the authority is not one. I would suggest that, like the heads of tobacco companies, the heads of oil companies would like to aquaint themselves with the accusations made against their products by reputable scientists.

You can "suggest" all you want. In the absence of any evidence that Lord Oxburgh is indeed an expert on climactic change the presumption of an appeal to authority is still on solid ground.

It is interesting that an Australian, died in the wool free market thinker, David Kemp, the current minister for Science, has been 'turned' to believe in GW by his scientists.

It appears that the only people saying this are HRM loyal opposition. The Government position is suitably vague.

I asked my friend, who works for the CSIRO, how their GW research was regarded by a conservative government who sees it in just your terms.

My friends response was that, when the minister was presented with the science, he was convinced.

For all I know your friend could be a janitor prone to Walter Mitty type delusions. Spare us all that type of hearsay.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Shane Costello:

Why so sad? The interminable threads on global warming here suggest that the position of ExxonMobil is perfectly rational.

The interminability of threads about the existence of a god do not suggest that belief in such is rational. And libertarianism ... The ability of people to live in denial and make a noise about it is no justification for anything.

Remember : nicotine is still not addictive, according to some.

(Editd for typo)

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
The interminability of threads about the existence of a god do not suggest that belief in such is rational.

Nor did I suggest as much. It was merely an observation on the frequency of threads on global warming and the divergence of opinion present in them.

The ability of people to live in denial and make a noise about it is no justification for anything.

Who would disagree.

Remember : nicotine is still not addictive, according to some.

The preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

 

[a_unique_person]

You can "suggest" all you want. In the absence of any evidence that Lord Oxburgh is indeed an expert on climactic change the presumption of an appeal to authority is still on solid ground.



It appears that the only people saying this are HRM loyal opposition. The Government position is suitably vague.



For all I know your friend could be a janitor prone to Walter Mitty type delusions. Spare us all that type of hearsay.

Here is a list of his published papers

http://www.dar.csiro.au/cgi-bin/pubsearch.pl

Braganza, K., Karoly, D. J., Hirst, A. C., Mann, M. E., Stott, P., Stouffer, R. J., and Tett, S. F. B. (2003). Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - variability and correlation structure. Climate Dynamics, 20 (5): 491-502.

Abstract Available
Cai, W. J., Collier, M. A., Durack, P. J., Gordon, H. B., Hirst, A. C., O'Farrell, S. P., and Whetton, P. H. (2003). The response of climate variability and mean state to climate change: preliminary results from the CSIRO Mark 3 coupled model. CLIVAR Exchanges, 8 (4): 8-11,16-17.

Abstract Available
Durack, P. J., Lyons, T., Pattiaratchi, C., and Hirst, A. C. (2003). The effect of predicted climate change on Western Australian regional oceanography. In: Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 10th National Conference: abstract volume, University of Western Australia (AMOS Publication, 19) . [Perth?]: AMOS. p. 18.

Abstract Available
Gabric, A. J., Cropp, R., Hirst, A. C., and Marchant, H. (2003). The sensitivity of dimethyl sulfide production to simulated climate change in the Eastern Antarctic Southern Ocean. Tellus, 55B (5): 966-981.

Abstract Available
Karl Braganza, K., Karoly, D. J., Hirst, A. C., Stott, P. A., Stouffer, R. J., and Tett, S. F. B. (2003). Attribution of climate change during the 20th century climate using simple indices of global climate variability and change. In: IUGG 2003: abstracts , Sapporo. Japan: International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. p. MC14-30P/C28-003.

Abstract Available
Matear, R. J., and Hirst, A. C. (2003). Long-term changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations in the ocean caused by protracted global warming. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17 (4): 1125, doi:10.1029/2002GB001997.

Abstract Available
Vimont, D. J., Battisti, D. S., and Hirst, A. C. (2003). The seasonal footprinting mechanism in the CSIRO general circulation models. Journal of Climate, 16 (16): 2653-2667.

Abstract Available
Bi, D., Budd, W. F., Hirst, A. C., and Wu, X. (2002). Transient and long-term response of the Southern Ocean to global warming in the CSIRO Climate Model. In: Abstract volume 9th National AMOS Conference, University of Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 18) . [Melbourne?]: AMOS. p. 17.

Abstract Available
Bi, D., Budd, W. F., Hirst, A. C., and Wu, X. (2002). Response of the antarctic circumpolar current transport to global warming in a coupled model. Geophysical Research Letters, 29 (24): 10.1029/2002GL015919.

Abstract Available
Gordon, H. B., Rotstayn, L. D., McGregor, J. L., Dix, M. R., Kowalczyk, E. A., O'Farrell, S. P., Waterman, L. J., Hirst, A. C., Wilson, S. G., Collier, M. A., Watterson, I. G., and Elliott, T. I. (2002). The CSIRO Mk3 Climate System Model [Electronic publication]. Aspendale: CSIRO Atmospheric Research. (CSIRO Atmospheric Research technical paper; no. 60). 130 p.

Abstract Available
Hirst, A. C., and Gordon, H. B. (2002). The CSIRO Mk 3 Climate Model: control integrations and outlook. In: Abstract volume 9th National AMOS Conference, University of Melbourne (AMOS Publication, 18) . [Melbourne?]: AMOS. p. 40.

Abstract Available
Vimont, D. J., Battisti, D. S., and Hirst, A. C. (2002). Pacific interannual and interdecadal equatorial variability in a 1000-yr simulation of the CSIRO coupled general circulation model. Journal of Climate, 15 (2): 160-178.

Abstract Available
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.dar.csiro.au/profile/hirst.html

Please don't contact him with stupid emails, as a scientist, he regards debating people on the internet a waste of time, as they have already made up their minds and will not be convinced by any evidence.

 

[subgenius]

aup:
"Please don't contact him with stupid emails, as a scientist, he regards debating people on the internet a waste of time, as they have already made up their minds and will not be convinced by any evidence."

Its hard to believe that some people won't give the opinion of the head of a major oil company any credence if it doesn't fit their conclusions. Like he's a dummy. If he had a contrary view theirs would be contrary.

Physics trumps politics.

At least "consider" his opinion, which means if you disagree with its substance give support for doing so.

I, too, have given up trying to change anyone's mind.
Wise men don't need it. Fools won't heed it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, we won't go into Fool's problems. Enough has been said about them in our PMs already.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by subgenius:
Its hard to believe that some people won't give the opinion of the head of a major oil company any credence if it doesn't fit their conclusions. Like he's a dummy. If he had a contrary view theirs would be contrary.

Physics trumps politics.

Physics should trump politics. My only problem is that as far as I can see the physics of climate change is far from certain.

 

[a_unique_person]

Physics should trump politics. My only problem is that as far as I can see the physics of climate change is far from certain.

Maybe you should read some more infmormation from their site.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1

The information from the majority of scientists concerned with this issue is that we, humans, are influencing the weather. Call me a fallacist ad authoritarianum, but the message from the majority of climatoligists is that we are diggin our own grave. (well, not our grave, just lumbering our children with a future that will be more difficult to handle than our own, but who cares about them anyway).

 

[Kodiak]

The question is who that someone is. The Chairman of Shell isn't necessarily an expert on climate change, making this a classic appeal to authority. How do you know Ron Oxburgh hasn't come to this conclusion relying on his own revisionist science?

Why so sad? The interminable threads on global warming here suggest that the position of ExxonMobil is perfectly rational.

It amazes me how quickly an oil company exec can suddenly become a reliable and cogent authority when he suddenly backs up the modern environmentalist/anti-capitalist/socialist/greenie/"doom-and-gloomers"...

 

[c0rbin]

I predict riots and hoarding before there is a concerted effort to change the way we as a species power our toys and 21st-Century Tents.

In the June 14 issue of Time, T. Boone Pickens was asked 10 questions, one of which was:

"Will the Gasoline Age soon become a thing of the past, like the Stone and Bronze Ages?"

His reply:

"We will be out of the hydrocarbon era before we get to 2100. We'll phase in other forms of energy by 2050. We've got to use hydrogen somplace in there. For the short term, we've got to use more coal reserves in the US, and I would suppose we'll go back to looking at nuclear."