Global warming denial

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(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. 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.
Yes I do think the private sector should be left to create cleaner technology.

Can we have the sources for your claims please? I see no reason why I should have to PM you.
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by Vienna)

Can we have the sources for your claims please? I see no reason why I should have to PM you.
See above link.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by Laika)
God I don't understand this infatuation neocons
What has global warming got to do with neo-conservatism?

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?
Because it isnt a consensus?

Especially when the implications of ignoring global warming are far worse than the implications of trying to make positive changes.
We disagree with the changes being made.

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $181 billion while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.001°C


Two groups have analyzed these surface temperature records: the Climatic Research Unit in Great Britain, and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences. They broadly say the same thing: The 19th century was cooler than the 20th century. There may be some disagreement on the exact amount of the warming, but certainly the 20th century was warmer than the 19th.

Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural.

To see if the 20th-century surface warming is from human activity or not, we begin looking in detail at the surface record. In the 20th century, three trends are easily identified. From 1900 to 1940, the surface warms strongly. From 1940 to about the late 1970s, a slight cooling trend is seen. Then from the late 1970s to the present, warming occurs. Briefly, the surface records show early 20th-century warming, mid-20th-century cooling, and late 20th-century warming.

Without Kyoto, that model predicts a rise in globally averaged temperature of just about 1 degree Centigrade by the year 2050. Implementing Kyoto, according to that model, would result in a slightly but insignificantly lower temperature trend. The temperature rise avoided by the year 2050--the difference between the two trends--is six-hundredths of a degree. That is insignificant in the course of natural variability of the climate. Another way to look at the averted warming is that the temperature rise expected to occur by 2050 is projected to occur by 2053 if the emission cuts are enacted.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ment/HL758.cfm
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by Ulv!)
See above link.
I'm afraid that doesnt tell us anything other than Exxon, like the organisations they donate to, dont believe there is anything to conclude that mankind is the sole cause of global warming and dont believe that Kyoto is the best way of combatting an increase in emissions.
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#25
(Original post by Vienna)
I'm afraid that doesnt tell us anything other than Exxon, like the organisations they donate to, dont believe there is anything that demonstrates mankind is the cause of global warming and that Kyoto is not the best way of combatting an increase in emissions.
Which of my claims exactly would you like sources for? My initial post concerned itself with Exxon only, before I gave my own opininon, hence the link. As said, this link is a secondary source, the main article (containing more details on Exxon's activities) I read in a newspaper (you must know the Courrier International,given your location). Being away from home at the moment, I can't get that article. I will on Sunday. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you.
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by Made in the USA)
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
Such groups wouldn't even be established if there wasn't already an perceived problem though. However, I agree, both sides of the argument have vested interest in being correct. However, if this is the case then how can we, who have done no research of our own, and have only biased sources from which to draw our evidence, make a conclusion? To take one side is to do so under misinformation. It seems people just accept whichever theory best fits their world view.

(Original post by vienna)
What has global warming got to do with neo-conservatism?

We disagree with the changes being made.

Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about $181 billion while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.001°C
It's got nothing to do with neoconservatism and my post clearly didn't suggest any such thing. I was merely observing that it is often people who swing that way politically who are the ones denying the problem of global warming.

Kyoto has been, by all accounts, a half-hearted attempt at change and something of a failure. But that doesn't undermine the principle of attempting to be more environmentally friendly. As far as I'm concerned attempting to reduce carbon emissions/fossil fuel usage and being friendlier to the environment in general is a positive change, regardless of how much money it is going to cost us. The current lifestyle the world enjoys is unsustainable anyway, and whether you believe the threat of global warming or not, i think it is in our interests regardless to make long term changes to the way we use energy.
0
Adam83
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by Laika)
Such groups wouldn't even be established if there wasn't already an perceived problem though. However, I agree, both sides of the argument have vested interest in being correct. However, if this is the case then how can we, who have done no research of our own, and have only biased sources from which to draw our evidence, make a conclusion? To take one side is to do so under misinformation. It seems people just accept whichever theory best fits their world view.
Well thats debateable why they were established.
Luckily we dont have to make the decision it will be made for us by people elsewhere, we willsee how much they really care about solving this 'global threat to mankind' by their actions, and a 6% reduction in projected temperature increase over 50 years or whatever Kyoto does is not a serious attempt, so i have to ask are thee people serious?
I suspect what they are really after is setting up political and legal frameworks they wouldnt have got without glaobal warming, like cabon trading, a global airline tax, a global fuel tax.

It's got nothing to do with neoconservatism and my post clearly didn't suggest any such thing. I was merely observing that it is often people who swing that way politically who are the ones denying the problem of global warming.

Kyoto has been, by all accounts, a half-hearted attempt at change and something of a failure. But that doesn't undermine the principle of attempting to be more environmentally friendly. As far as I'm concerned attempting to reduce carbon emissions/fossil fuel usage and being friendlier to the environment in general is a positive change, regardless of how much money it is going to cost us. The current lifestyle the world enjoys is unsustainable anyway, and whether you believe the threat of global warming or not, i think it is in our interests regardless to make long term changes to the way we use energy.
Thats the advantage of the issues, that it seems inherantly a good cause so how can anyone argue against it.
Indeed i wouldnt, i have no problem with people being more environmenatlly friendly. What i do have a problem with is wild, tin-foil, eco warriors who claim Global Warming is the end of mankind and destruction of the planet. Therefore we should give up our political sovereignty to the United Nations as quickly as possible. I sense a political racket.
Until they treat it as seriously as their paid journalists hype it, im not gonna listen
0
Laika
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by Adam83)
Well thats debateable why they were established.
Luckily we dont have to make the decision it will be made for us by people elsewhere, we willsee how much they really care about solving this 'global threat to mankind' by their actions, and a 6% reduction in projected temperature increase over 50 years or whatever Kyoto does is not a serious attempt, so i have to ask are thee people serious?
Oh I agree with you. I personally have no idea to what extent global warming is a threat, but I think most government reaction so far has merely been self-interested anyway. Being environmentally friendly has just become another marketing opportunity as far as I can see, with no real marked attempt at change by big business and governments.

But at the level of the general population, I just find it odd to see people vehmently denying global warming, as there is really no reason to jump to this argument other than to fit into a certain political image.
0
Howard
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by Ulv!)
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.
Sorry, but blogs from MotherJones aren't really an objective source of information when it comes to environmental issues.
0
Ulv!
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#30
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by Howard)
Sorry, but blogs from MotherJones aren't really an objective source of information when it comes to environmental issues.
If you look at both sides of this global-warming debate, I don't think anyone can be an objective source of information hehe. Nowadays "environmental issues" amd "objective" don't fit together in any case.The debate we are having just proved it. But hey, the Wall Street Journal said the same things about Exxon (see link), i.e. lobbying, "hard-nosed conservative approach" to global warming, etc.. so I think my sources were fairly reliable considering the point I was trying to make.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
If this was the case, no American government office would conclude that there was a clear human impact on climate....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

Oh dear....

Oil companies pay universities a lot of money for developing new mechanisms of subsurface exploration for them - you dont claim that cancer research charities (the other scheme with very high funding) has a political agenda through their scholastic contributions, so why say so in this case?
0
arkbar
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
I dislike anyone using the phrase 'climate change is real!'.
Psello Toby, hows the geology?
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
I dont like that either...

hey buddy - its going well...loads of bloody revision though, and there is only so much you can read on theoretical cladistics before you wish to enact a nuclear purge to make evolution unimportant for a few million years...but, anyway - back to revision, hope all the urbangeo is treating you well...
0
arkbar
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
Well, anyone saying 'climate change is/is not happening!' is equally stupid IMO.

Well, I got my UCal acceptance through yesterday so I'm happy about that. However, revision is more than a bit annoying,especially in this weather.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by Laika)
Such groups wouldn't even be established if there wasn't already an perceived problem though.
There have been established alarmist groups in the past responding to a completely bogus "perceived problem." In the 1970s, The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was one of many groups claiming a new ice age was coming.
0
arkbar
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
A new ice age is coming...sometime :p:
0
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by arkbar)
A new ice age is coming...sometime :p:
Now, all I need to know is when do I find my Ellie? :confused:
0
arkbar
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
Don't worry, you'll only have a few more thousand years until the hypsithermal.
0
bikerx23
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle

See - it is inevitable.
0
Agent Smith
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
So. Because it has not been 100% proved that the threat is an immediate and a catastrophic one, we can all sit back and do absolutely *****all about it, and indeed about pollution in general. Terrific. Help me on with this gas-mask.
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

Did you get the SQA results you wanted today?

Yes- I did even better than I hoped! (35)
18.23%
Yes- I got what I was hoping for (53)
27.6%
No- my results weren't as good as I'd hoped (104)
54.17%

Watched Threads

View All