Global warming denial

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#1
Hello all,
I would be interested in knowing what you think about global warming denial, and more specifically about the following (if you want newspaper articles, references, PM me):
Exxon-Mobil, number 1 oil company in the world, pays politicians and lobbyists (not a new strategy in the US, admittedly), but also journalists (Fox News) and "scientists" (Harvard(!)...) to actively deny that global warming is currently taking place. Not only do they deny it; they also dismiss extensive scientific studies on the subject as being bogus. I am just amazed at how hypocritical, short-sighted, and downright dumb those Exxon people are. Instead of adopting a BP or Shell line, two companies that have actually realised that it is better to work in the direction of protecting the environment (or at least pretending to), those Exxon dunces are using their big bucks to deny the obvious. I hope that ultimately, it will damage their credibility and make them lose money, thereby forcing them to adapt to the new "green oil- company" trend.
In any case, it all happens in Washington so there is nothing we can do, but you got me: don't buy Exxon oil !
Just so this post doesn't remain completely pointless: do you think that the private sector should leave it up to governments, etc.. to regulate environmental policy, and not take any action on their own, or is a greener way of doing business an integral part of the "business/market ethic" today? (I will gracefully accept any complaints on formulation ). Could a greener attitude eventually benefit businesses?
Thanks for your thoughts on this, in my eyes, rather crucial issue.
0
Ferrus
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 14 years ago
#2
Well, in the end I can hardly see the world making a collective action one way or the other. So let us just hope that the sceptics are right.
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#3
(Original post by Ferrus)
Well, in the end I can hardly see the world making a collective action one way or the other. So let us just hope that the sceptics are right.
I would agree with you, but the chances are slim, sadly... . Worldwide collective action (i.e. at governement level) definitely seems to be impossible, so maybe the champion of our times, namely the global market, could choose or could be forced to (by consumers) to fight this threat. I am sure that some business men will see the light through all that smog...not all of 'em are the Exxon type, thank god.
0
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 14 years ago
#4
Might be interested in this...
It's an open letter sent to the PM of Canada. Goes some way to exposing just how bogus the "scientific consensus" is on climate change.

"Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation.

The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an 'emerging science,' one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.' The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to 'stopping climate change' would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next."

And who's it signed by? A couple of annoyed scientists? Some Exxon lackies? No. Here's a list, over 60 top experts in the field from around the world:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
0
Ferrus
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 14 years ago
#5
(Original post by Ulv!)
I would agree with you, but the chances are slim, sadly... . Worldwide collective action (i.e. at governement level) definitely seems to be impossible, so maybe the champion of our times, namely the global market, could choose or could be forced to (by consumers) to fight this threat. I am sure that some business men will see the light through all that smog...not all of 'em are the Exxon type, thank god.
I doubt it. Humans as a whole are terrible at this sort of thing (c.f. Easter Island and Mayan civilisation).
0
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report 14 years ago
#6
I don't think it matters a pair of elephant testicles whether climate change is real. Fact is, pollution is bad whether or not it's causing an ecological catastrophe. The tendency of various governments to sit back and relax once reassured that it's not an imminent and disastrous situation reflects badly on them. Just because "we're not all going to die!" doesn't mean we shouldn't be even remotely concerned with cleaning up our own backyard.

On an unrelated note, polar bears and hippos are now considered to be at risk of extinction. Hopefully the fact that species people have actually heard of are now for the chop might help matters.

Oh, and one other thing - in Oz, and possibly elsewhere, it is the insurance companies that are proving an unlikely ally for the eco-warriors. Their reasoning is that if a company is not concerned enough about the environment to have green policies, it is probably not concerned about safety either and therefore a liability. So they don't insure it. This isn't just a theory, but a small and growing reality. Already a few companies have been refused insurance on this basis, so perhaps - contrary to what the "think of the economy!!1one" camp would have us believe - being green does pay after all.
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#7
To Jonathan:
They certainly have a point in saying that the science of climate change is too complex to be understood right now. I am hopelessly unqualified to oppose the opinions of those distinguished scientists, save that their letter does not mean that we should become complacent about the environment, even if climate change is not taking place: "The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to 'stopping climate change' would be irrational."
Don't get me wrong: I am not a climate-change alarmist. I just think that Exxon has no right to influence politicians, etc.. to tell voters that climate change is non-existent, since most voters will simply interpret that as a sign to go ahead cruising around with their oil-guzzling S.U.V.s in downtown Dallas.
It is obvious that Exxon Mobil is not interested in a scientific debate on climate change with real scientists, in order to know if it exists or not. They want consumers to forget protection of the environment altogether, and are using the justified debate on climate-change to that effect.
My point is that the scientists you just quoted are aware of the what needs to be done to protect the environment now, and will not go on a pollution rampage just because they think climate change does not exist. If I exaggerate, average consumers, under the influence of Fox TV demagogues, will, since they only distinguish between black and white, and forego the pleasent shade of green certain people, including the scientists you quoted, are eager to promote.
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#8
(Original post by Agent Smith)
I don't think it matters a pair of elephant testicles whether climate change is real. Fact is, pollution is bad whether or not it's causing an ecological catastrophe. The tendency of various governments to sit back and relax once reassured that it's not an imminent and disastrous situation reflects badly on them. Just because "we're not all going to die!" doesn't mean we shouldn't be even remotely concerned with cleaning up our own backyard.

On an unrelated note, polar bears and hippos are now considered to be at risk of extinction. Hopefully the fact that species people have actually heard of are now for the chop might help matters.

Oh, and one other thing - in Oz, and possibly elsewhere, it is the insurance companies that are proving an unlikely ally for the eco-warriors. Their reasoning is that if a company is not concerned enough about the environment to have green policies, it is probably not concerned about safety either and therefore a liability. So they don't insure it. This isn't just a theory, but a small and growing reality. Already a few companies have been refused insurance on this basis, so perhaps - contrary to what the "think of the economy!!1one" camp would have us believe - being green does pay after all.
I fully agree.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 14 years ago
#9
(Original post by Ulv!)
Exxon-Mobil, number 1 oil company in the world, pays politicians and lobbyists (not a new strategy in the US, admittedly), but also journalists (Fox News) and "scientists" (Harvard(!)...) to actively deny that global warming is currently taking place.
What makes you think the other side isn't on someone's payroll? I'm sure there are plenty of scientists, lobbyists, and journalists being paid off by the global warming alarmists as well. Everyone is for sale.

The mainstream media also has dollar signs in their eyes. What sells more papers, telling people stories of apocalyptic visions of impending doom conjured up by environmentalists, or running a story telling people everything is fine?
0
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 14 years ago
#10
(Original post by Agent Smith)
I don't think it matters a pair of elephant testicles whether climate change is real. Fact is, pollution is bad whether or not it's causing an ecological catastrophe. The tendency of various governments to sit back and relax once reassured that it's not an imminent and disastrous situation reflects badly on them. Just because "we're not all going to die!" doesn't mean we shouldn't be even remotely concerned with cleaning up our own backyard.

On an unrelated note, polar bears and hippos are now considered to be at risk of extinction. Hopefully the fact that species people have actually heard of are now for the chop might help matters.

Oh, and one other thing - in Oz, and possibly elsewhere, it is the insurance companies that are proving an unlikely ally for the eco-warriors. Their reasoning is that if a company is not concerned enough about the environment to have green policies, it is probably not concerned about safety either and therefore a liability. So they don't insure it. This isn't just a theory, but a small and growing reality. Already a few companies have been refused insurance on this basis, so perhaps - contrary to what the "think of the economy!!1one" camp would have us believe - being green does pay after all.
How irnonic would it be to see big money Insurance vs big money Oil Tycoons? Both worries about going bankrupt, you'd think it's just a matter of time before they go head to head on this issue. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
0
Byronic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 14 years ago
#11
I'm sick of the scientific pigheadedness surrounding this issue by many on the right. It's becoming slightly tiresome. Of course the earth is getting hotter and it is impossible to conclusively point out the ultimate cause; however there is a branch of substantiated thought that illustrates the damage we're doing!

It’s similar to people saying smoking isn’t bad for you or that driving without a seatbelt has no impact on the likelihood of you surviving a car crash.
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 14 years ago
#12
God I don't understand this infatuation neocons and others on the right have with denying global warming. For one, why would you accept the word of one section of the scientific community so willingly over another, which holds the common concensus? Especially when the implications of ignoring global warming are far worse than the implications of trying to make positive changes.

I reiterate the sentiments of some others in this thread. We should be changing to become more environmentally friendly anyway for our own benefit, regardless of whether we are responsible for global warming.
0
Adam83
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 14 years ago
#13
(Original post by Made in the USA)
What makes you think the other side isn't on someone's payroll? I'm sure there are plenty of scientists, lobbyists, and journalists being paid off by the global warming alarmists as well. Everyone is for sale.

The mainstream media also has dollar signs in their eyes. What sells more papers, telling people stories of apocalyptic visions of impending doom conjured up by environmentalists, or running a story telling people everything is fine?
yep. agree with this guy
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 14 years ago
#14
(Original post by Adam83)
yep. agree with this guy
How can you think global warming is a fabrication to boost media consumption? I understand that they may blow the situation out of proportion but they don't really have any reason to invent such a threat. There is no agenda for people who believe global warming is a problem. This is far from true for the other camp who have big business interests in denying global warming. It's so far fetched to assume that particular side of the fence rather than the other, far more realistic, scenario.
0
Adam83
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 14 years ago
#15
of course there is an agenda.
Its not a media driven one other than good scare stories.
Its driven from somewhere else
try and work it out yourself.
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 14 years ago
#16
Nah you'll have to spell it out for me.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 14 years ago
#17
(Original post by Ulv!)
Hello all,
I would be interested in knowing what you think about global warming denial, and more specifically about the following (if you want newspaper articles, references, PM me):
Exxon-Mobil, number 1 oil company in the world, pays politicians and lobbyists (not a new strategy in the US, admittedly), but also journalists (Fox News) and "scientists" (Harvard(!)...) to actively deny that global warming is currently taking place.
Since you offered I would like a link to the article(s) that tells you that.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#18
Report 14 years ago
#18
(Original post by Laika)
How can you think global warming is a fabrication to boost media consumption? I understand that they may blow the situation out of proportion but they don't really have any reason to invent such a threat. There is no agenda for people who believe global warming is a problem. This is far from true for the other camp who have big business interests in denying global warming. It's so far fetched to assume that particular side of the fence rather than the other, far more realistic, scenario.
So you are trying to argue that a scientist who is overpaid to study the "problem" of global warming has no stake in proving the problem exists?

Just because a scientist works for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or some other deep-pocketed environmental or government agency doesn't mean he doesn't worry about keeping his job like the rest of us. He wants to make sure the funds keep coming in so he can continue to work. Why on earth would he ever come forward with an opinion that could potentially grind his gravy train to a screeching halt?

To argue that money and politics have no influence on the alarmist side of the fence is incredibly naive
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#19
(Original post by Howard)
Since you offered I would like a link to the article(s) that tells you that.
No problem Howard. Right now I am away from home: I will be back on Sunday and I'll give you the link,ok?
Patience!
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#20
Here is a starter for those who are interested:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...j_on_exxo.html
The article I quoted is Chris Mooney's: it is mentioned in the above one. I will try to dig it out somewhere.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How will you be receiving your results?

Going into school to pick them up (191)
33.39%
Receiving them online / by email (287)
50.17%
I still don't know (94)
16.43%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise