Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies

[FixedGear]

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

[blairtruck]

where is the who cares option.

nothing you or i can do. China will be pumping it out more every year

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by blairtruck
where is the who cares option.

nothing you or i can do. China will be pumping it out more every year

Are you a moran? It's obviously VW's emission defeat device that is causing more climate change than China could ever dream.

[riander5]

I cant believe iv been deceived so long. Thank you for showing me the light!

[Sugarphreak]

....

[ExtraSlow]

http://endlesspicdump.com/original/who%20needs%20oil%20i%20ride%20the%20bus.jpg

[Black Gts]

The ndp used climate change to oust the pc's and ruin Alberta #thankstrudeau

[Inzane]

Yaaawwwnnnn....:zzz:

[msommers]

Regardless of what happened, Exxon's shredding machine is on full blast :rofl:

[Maxt]

When are they going to investigate Al Gore for climate change lies, I think more came true about 2015 in Back To The Future than in An Inconvenient Truth. :rofl:

[Feruk]

Does this mean I can start suing my neighbors now that they KNOW driving their cars causes climate change, but still choose to do it, and therefore risk my precious health?? My street better prepare for a reverse class-action (where I alone sue everyone on the street with a car).

[FixedGear]

^obviously you haven't read the article. There point is that the oil companies were funding vast lobby and "research" efforts (eg Friends of Science) that disputed facts they knew to be true, and which shaped policy around the world.

[FixedGear]

It's not just Exxon, spreading to other groups too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/science/more-oil-companies-could-join-exxon-mobil-as-focus-of-climate-investigations.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Canmorite]

Ah, the Beyond 'scientists' didn't take long to show up :rofl:

Of course they'd lie to protect their interests. Same with the tobacco companies decades ago.

[ExtraSlow]

Ban funding research.

[killramos]

Ban Climate Change

[googe]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Where is the option "Climate Change is a Hoax"?

Mods, please add



Originally posted by Maxt
When are they going to investigate Al Gore for climate change lies, I think more came true about 2015 in Back To The Future than in An Inconvenient Truth. :rofl:

:rofl:

http://orig13.deviantart.net/a7cf/f/2014/364/9/f/climate_denial_in_a_nutshell_by_valendale-d8bslhd.jpg

[Maxt]

Originally posted by googe





:rofl:

http://orig13.deviantart.net/a7cf/f/2014/364/9/f/climate_denial_in_a_nutshell_by_valendale-d8bslhd.jpg
Who said I hate Al Gore? His predictions so far haven't panned out.
Also Climate Denial? I don't think anyone denies climate changes..

[Buster]

You should be able to be a climate change denier all you want.

[oster]

climates change

[SKR]

I think we should be doing everything we can to make the climate change. This one stinks.

[Maxt]

Science for or against aside, it doesn't really matter anymore, it's arguing against apple pie and motherhood...
I guess we are at the point where we just have to submit to governments guilting us into paying a tax for this crisis du jour, when we all get use to $1.50 a litre gasoline to make it all better, like a band aid with a clown face on it..Global warming will fade away like global cooling and acid rain and life will go one like it always did. Well, until the next big humanity ending crisis that gives birth to new cap and trade markets, and added general revenue funding.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maxt
Science for or against aside,

You say this like there is actually science against. Any 'against' side has been a complete PR fabrication.



I guess we are at the point where we just have to submit to governments guilting us into paying a tax for this crisis du jour, when we all get use to $1.50 a litre gasoline to make it all better, like a band aid with a clown face on it..Global warming will fade away like global cooling and acid rain and life will go one like it always did. Well, until the next big humanity ending crisis that gives birth to new cap and trade markets, and added general revenue funding.

Oh yeah, acid rain just faded away...after government's got involved, changed regulations and reduced the causes, and acid rain just sort of "faded away."

Or the hole in the ozone. Regulations again come in to ban CFCs and the problem just "fades away."

Or leaded gasoline

Or chemicals being dumped into waterways

All just problems that faded away.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by kertejud2


You say this like there is actually science against. Any 'against' side has been a complete PR fabrication.



Oh yeah, acid rain just faded away...after government's got involved, changed regulations and reduced the causes, and acid rain just sort of "faded away."

Or the hole in the ozone. Regulations again come in to ban CFCs and the problem just "fades away."

Or leaded gasoline

Or chemicals being dumped into waterways

All just problems that faded away.

You could always try reading both sides of an issue...

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maxt


You could always try reading both sides of an issue...

Some issues don't have two sides. Some have more, some only have one with a bunch of vested interests doing what they can to make it seem like there are two sides and that they carry equal weight.

The other side in this issue has been worn down from "climate change isn't real" to "whatever it doesn't matter because China." just like how Big Tobacco went from "there isn't science that shows cigarettes are harmful" to "it isn't about whether they're harmful it is about personal choice."

A more recent group of people tossing science aside in the name of "reading both sides" are anti-vaxers. Sure, read both sides even if one of them is made of bullshit I guess.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Some issues don't have two sides. Some have more, some only have one with a bunch of vested interests doing what they can to make it seem like there are two sides and that they carry equal weight.

The other side in this issue has been worn down from "climate change isn't real" to "whatever it doesn't matter because China." just like how Big Tobacco went from "there isn't science that shows cigarettes are harmful" to "it isn't about whether they're harmful it is about personal choice."

A more recent group of people tossing science aside in the name of "reading both sides" are anti-vaxers. Sure, read both sides even if one of them is made of bullshit I guess.
And you have to read both sides to answer that...The difference with the anti-vaxxers though is they still have choice to opt in or out, for now anyway.
The China debate is another issue by itself, especially with a recent news story about their emissions... Have they really been onside with reductions in S02, C02, CFC, lead in paint etc, and if they do reduce, do we believe their numbers?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Maxt
You could always try reading both sides of an issue...

http://memecrunch.com/meme/7QD1/internet-arguments-strawman/image.jpg

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Maxt

And you have to read both sides to answer that...The difference with the anti-vaxxers though is they still have choice to opt in or out, for now anyway.

When do we accept that 'both sides' isn't worth reading? Those science textbooks would get pretty heavy if we kept the bullshit in indefinitely:

http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/wp-content/images/TeachControversy.jpg http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/teach_the_controversy_t-shirt_designs.jpg



You want to believe that there are two sides because your job depends on it. I get it. But don't try to continue the bullshit that your side has anything other than complete and utter made up bullshit supporting it and that you're being reasonable by pretending to be a voice of reason rather than being a shill.



The China debate is another issue by itself, especially with a recent news story about their emissions... Have they really been onside with reductions in S02, C02, CFC, lead in paint etc, and if they do reduce, do we believe their numbers?

China's commitment to nuclear energy, even after Fukushima, puts them in a position where you can't help but start listening to their commitment to reducing GHGs.

[kertejud2]

double

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


http://memecrunch.com/meme/7QD1/internet-arguments-strawman/image.jpg

What makes sense about it, exactly?


If you believe there are two sidesworht listening to, you're just buying into complete bullshit. You might as well say ciggarettes aren't addictive and don't have health defects, you might as well say CFCs don't have a negative effect on the ozone layer, or that asbestos doesn't, might as well say asbestos isn't all that bad and isn't a carcinogen.

When you've backed yourself into the climate change corner of "China is worse" then you're simply admiutting that it is a problem but you think it is unfair that you should do something about it first. Might as well be the asshole at a party that is shitting in the hot tub and refuse to stop because Todd shits way more than you do.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by kertejud2
You want to believe that there are two sides because your job depends on it.

What do you think his job is exactly?

[Sugarphreak]

....

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


What do you think his job is exactly?
I'd have to assume it is in the oil industry because otherwise you're just believing the other side because...?

Essentially I'm trying to assume he has a job that directs his opinion because otherwise he is simply an idiot, rather than somebody who is understandably skewing reason and evidence for their own self-interest.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Note to self.... avoid kertejud2's wild hot tub parties

Your loss. Cyclists have nice legs.

Though the hot tub is solar powered so it doesn't work at night.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by kertejud2
I'd have to assume.........because otherwise he is simply an idiot


The guy that makes an idiotic assumption then calls someone else an idiot.

http://media.collegetimes.com/uploads/2014/05/Well-played.jpg

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


The guy that makes an idiotic assumption then calls someone else an idiot.


So I'm wrong and he's an idiot?


Whatever you say.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Wasn't there a meme kicking around here, something about chinese people playing chess in the desert or something?

Seems this thread needs it.

[01RedDX]

.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
You don't like that he assumed that Maxt is in the oil industry but then if he isn't, then climate change denialism really is a completely idiotic position for him to take.

Where did he make a statement denying climate change? if I missed it I guess I missed it. But from what I read he called Al Gore a tool, he called climate change the "cause de jour" and he mentioned we probably shouldn't take China at their word on some of their claims. From that we gathered he's an idiot, climate change denialist who works for a filthy oil company :eek:

What would be an example of an industry to be in where denying climate wouldn't be "a completely idiotic position to take"

[Maxt]

Originally posted by kertejud2


When do we accept that 'both sides' isn't worth reading? Those science textbooks would get pretty heavy if we kept the bullshit in indefinitely:

http://ironwolf.dangerousgames.com/blog/wp-content/images/TeachControversy.jpg http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/teach_the_controversy_t-shirt_designs.jpg



You want to believe that there are two sides because your job depends on it. I get it. But don't try to continue the bullshit that your side has anything other than complete and utter made up bullshit supporting it and that you're being reasonable by pretending to be a voice of reason rather than being a shill.




China's commitment to nuclear energy, even after Fukushima, puts them in a position where you can't help but start listening to their commitment to reducing GHGs.
You are assuming two things, and are wrong on both.. My job doesn't depend on oil at all, so throw that one away, you are also assuming I don't believe in man made climate change which is also wrong. The science and effects of a change are there, I don't fully believe it to be catastrophic, put me in the Freeman Dyson camp if you really need to know where my opinion is on it..
China will say what it needs to say to in order to stay in business at this point, be it on CFCs or whatever.. They still sell new R12 over there.

[kertejud2]

Why would somebody choose to be in the "I'm not an expert on the matter, I don't want to be considered an expert on the matter but I believe climate change exists and humans play a part in it but don't think it's a big deal because we can just plant trillions of trees and solve the problem camp"?

He is basically admitting to simply being the contrarian voice because he feels there should be one, not because he actually has any science or evidence to support why people should see that stance as legitimate.

I mean, this is one of Dyson's points on climate change:

“No doubt that warming is happening. I don’t think it is correct to say “global,” but certainly warming is happening. I have been to Greenland a year ago and saw it for myself. And that’s where the warming is most extreme. And it’s spectacular, no doubt about it. And glaciers are shrinking and so on. But, there are all sorts of things that are not said, which decreases my feeling of alarm. First of all, the people in Greenland love it. They tell you it’s made their lives a lot easier. They hope it continues. I am not saying none of these consequences are happening. I am just questioning whether they are harmful.”

He might as well be saying "Yes sea levels are rising and are rising because of what we are doing. But rising sea levels aren't a problem, most people love the beach and this makes purchasing beachfront property more affordable so therefore it is good."


Dyson is a brilliant physicist, but a climate scientist he is not. Perhaps you should listen to him when he says "I am not an expert" and question whether or not this is the boat you want to be in.

[Maxt]

Like listening to Gore and Suzuki then.. Dyson is a rational man, and if you are suggesting there are not climate experts that agree with his position, that would be incorrect. I am really not interested in a battle of google links and dirt digging on names either, I read all sides anyway.
I think the lukewarmer position is probably the hardest position to be in, because one gets it from both sides. I am inline with the physics of the warming, the question is , is it all bad? If we control C02, does that mean we have control of the climate? Will mankind do better in a warmer or a colder climate? These kinds of questions are ones that anyone with an open mind should ask instead of going wholesale with, "its all bad".
I am still laughing a bit about being a corporate shill though, I could actually use catastrophic global warming as a great sales tool for my job, in fact I should be promoting the most dire of outcomes.

[frizzlefry]

Whether or not climate change is caused, to a large degree, by man or not is irrelevant really to business. What is relevant is the perception. And the perception that man has caused global warming has been the standard for some time. And businesses need to adapt, they need to be better at environmental protection. Attack the science all you want but those pipelines are not going to be approved unless you change public perception. And you do that by actually doing your jobs and properly monitoring the lines.

I am pro-pipeline. Every time I see a news story about a leaking pipe I roll my eyes. Seriously guys, get your shit together! Pipelines are far safer than rail when implemented properly. A properly maintained pipeline will never leak, rail is highly subjected to acts of god or a bad driver.

For me the root issue for the oil industry is this: On paper pipelines should never leak. They leak because of negligence. And when they leak less pipelines will be approved. On paper tailing ponds won't kill birds. When they do its because proper procedures have not been followed.

If big oil executed properly there wouldn't be any issues. People could think what they think but at the end of the day there wouldn't be any evidence. Stop giving people reasons to think oilsands are killing everyone, stop giving people reason to assume pipelines will leak.

If all big oil projects functioned as proposed and supported by engineers then no problem. And they do for a little bit. Then the companies fuck up.

You lost yer pipeline because you fucked up. Period.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
You lost yer pipeline because you fucked up. Period.

I disagree. Is that part of it, the bad image? Sure. However with an election coming up there is many many other facets to Obama's decision and pointed comments.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


I disagree. Is that part of it, the bad image? Sure.

That's the issue. Image IS reality. And the industry has been piss poor at maintaining standards resulting in turning big projects into cannon fodder.

There is a perception, true or not, that big oil is killing the planet. All the tools to monitor and negate any leaks are in place but not being followed. They are feeding the perception.

Election issues are one thing. But if there were no pipeline leaks during Obama's presidency do you think this would be an issue? If big oil simply executed on plans proposed?

They don't, providing reasons to support Obama's assertion, THEN they try to deny that what they did was harmful rather than actually ensuring it never happens again.

It's a major screw up. If big oil executed projects properly then keystone would be a go right now because Obama would look nuts opposing something without any reason to do so.

[FixedGear]

I can't believe no one has voted for "Yes, I will feel dumb because I've been an ignorant fool my entire life" - it clearly applies to at least half of the posters in this thread.

[FixedGear]

Oh and the guy arguing that the oil industry doesn't know how to manage perception is on the moon. Clearly you didn't read the article or understand how big oil has been influencing public opinion and policy for decades. Further, you are arguing that it's a good thing. You are either exceedingly dumb or evil incarnate.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by frizzlefry
THEN they try to deny that what they did was harmful rather than actually ensuring it never happens again.


Do you know anyone who works for a pipeline company? This statement couldn't be further from the truth.

[soloracer]

The elephant in the room, that no one is talking about, is human overpopulation. If there weren't 7 billion people in the world and growing a lot of issues would be resolved. Everything from species extinction to carbon emissions to deforestation. But instead everyone focuses on alleviating the symptoms instead of fixing the problem.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by soloracer
The elephant in the room, that no one is talking about, is human overpopulation. If there weren't 7 billion people in the world and growing a lot of issues would be resolved. Everything from species extinction to carbon emissions to deforestation. But instead everyone focuses on alleviating the symptoms instead of fixing the problem.

Taking about "overpopulation" and "fixing the problem" in the same sentence, careful now lol. ;)

[HiTempguy1]

Human overpopulation is NOT a problem.

There is zero evidence to support that position. There are plentiful resources to take care of all humans on the planet in environmentally friendly ways, in fact, if you haven't noticed, there is an OVERABUNDANCE what with crashing commodity prices. The estimate of being able to sustain humans hasn't changed much from 14 billion in the past couple decades. Lifestyles will change (one way or another) to make this happen though, it's already in progress (people not driving cars, getting entertainment virtually, etc).

Here is food for thought; why do we want to stop global climate change? Its also a silly argument, climate change DOES happen anyways. What we want to do is keep the affects of climate change tolerable for humanity and at a slow enough rate of change as for us to be able to respond adequately in time for the change.

[Mista Bob]

Originally posted by soloracer
The elephant in the room, that no one is talking about, is human overpopulation. If there weren't 7 billion people in the world and growing a lot of issues would be resolved. Everything from species extinction to carbon emissions to deforestation. But instead everyone focuses on alleviating the symptoms instead of fixing the problem.

Good luck getting votes while telling people that they shouldn't be pushing out crotch fruits like they are being paid to do it. Oh right... we do pay people to do that.

[googe]

Hopefully the deniers donate their brains to science. Especially anybody that compares it to magnetic bracelets.

You have to be quite an astounding combination of illogical and stubborn to think you have enough foundational knowledge to even have an opinion on the matter. What goes wrong in the brain to lead to such a deficiency?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[googe]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Pretty much this... the immediate threat we face is overpopulation, not a 1 degree change in global temps. The human race made it through the mini ice age of the 17th century... I am sure we will somehow survive slightly warmer climate.


Ahhhh magnetic bracelets... endless testimonies, thousands of studies, hundreds of doctor endorsements. Sure you can't actually quantify that it works, and likely you'd never actually be able to see a tangible result. However, can all of those naturalists truly be wrong? Probably just "big pharma" trying to keep a lid on it.

Meanwhile:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

What do paint chips taste like?

[codetrap]

.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by codetrap
You going to volunteer to go first?

I don't plan on making more people than the number to replace myself and my wife if that is what you mean.

HiTempguy: Overpopulation IS the problem and while barely manageable now what happens when we go to 10 billion? And stating that a surplus of some commodities is evidence of no problem with population is a false argument. Just because we get better at harvesting something in the short term doesn't make it wise in the long term. At some point the strain on the system shows up. Man made climate change wouldn't even be an alarmist wet dream if the population was 1/2 of what it is today. Fossil fuels could be utilized in the same manner as today, and for much longer since there would be lower demand, and the system would absorb it naturally.

[frizzlefry]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Human overpopulation is NOT a problem.

There is zero evidence to support that position. There are plentiful resources to take care of all humans on the planet in environmentally friendly ways, in fact, if you haven't noticed, there is an OVERABUNDANCE what with crashing commodity prices. The estimate of being able to sustain humans hasn't changed much from 14 billion in the past couple decades. Lifestyles will change (one way or another) to make this happen though, it's already in progress (people not driving cars, getting entertainment virtually, etc).

Or eating meat. Ed Wilson, a Harvard University biologist, estimates 10 billion (not 14) could be supported if everyone was vegan. But the land required would only support 2.5 billion north American omnivores. Current trends support a population of 9 billion in 2050.

People don't need traded commodities to live. They need food. Population growth is at least as much of a pressing matter. I chuckle when the NDP defended dairy farmers when that kind of land use will starve us before global warming kills us off.

Only solution is to leave the planet. Can't tell people to stop fucking. And wind mills or solar power won't get us to another planet.

[HiTempguy1]

There is enough food produced in this world to adequately feed all 7 billion people right at this very moment. There is a difference between waste and poor policy and not being able to produce enough food. And we are not in any way at the upper limit of food we can produce.

Some of you guys are off your fucking rockers :rofl:

[04Terminator]

Originally posted by soloracer


I don't plan on making more people than the number to replace myself and my wife if that is what you mean.

.
How many is that, and do you plan on commiting suicide the moment they hatch? Because even 1 is increasing the population. And they will also likely have kids, making you a grandparent, and who knows, even a great grand parent.

We arent squid or black widows or whatever usually.

[ExtraSlow]

China has pretty much abandoned their one child policy.

[soloracer]

Originally posted by 04Terminator

How many is that, and do you plan on commiting suicide the moment they hatch? Because even 1 is increasing the population. And they will also likely have kids, making you a grandparent, and who knows, even a great grand parent.

We arent squid or black widows or whatever usually.

And we aren't immortal either. You are only looking in one direction. Before I become a grandparent I would have grandparents of my own. They pass away and the number goes down by two. I have two kids and the balance is restored. If the maximum children each couple had was 2 the population would decline - mainly due to random acts/fate/accidents and not having replacements at the ready. It's when you have large families who in turn have large families that population growth occurs.