website.net.nz

8 Responses to “Exxon / Mobil caught funding skeptics again”  

1. 1 Mark May 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

   Exxon may have provided funding, but why isn’t anyone debating the substance of the skeptic’s argument instead of deflecting attention to who is funding it. Didn’t the other side of the argument have funding? How much funding did Greenpeace give? Ok, so we’ve established there was funding on both sides. Now can we debate point-by-point?

   I don’t think anyone is disputing Global Warming. The dispute is what % of the warming is from humans? Can we just focus on that?

2. 2 admin May 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

   Mark - I think the big difference is that Exxon have a vested interest in the argument they are paying for. I agree that we really beed to be focused on climate change rather than the fringe group arguments but I also think that huge corps like Exxon need to be called on their dodgy dealings.

   I don’t think it’s worth our while debating exactly how much impact is caused by humans as their is enough evidecne that we’re contrinuting a fair whack.

   What we really need to focus on is how to turn around our impact and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3. 3 Mark May 20th, 2007 at 7:02 am

   Fair enough. Roger Daltry had a quote this weekend that is a new idea, “Let’s burn up all the f___ing oil as fast as we can. Then the politicians will be FORCED to do something about it.” If that’s not “outside the box”, i don’t know what is.

4. 4 Frank May 21st, 2007 at 5:37 am

   Hi, admin.
   I think Greenpeace has a vested interest in the argument they pay for as well; if nothing else, their reputations. How long has Greenpeace warned people about warming? If science, reason, logic and experience ultimately prove them wrong, Greenpeace will have a much harder time convincing people of when a *real* environmental emergency arises. Besides, can we not agree this issue represents one of such importance as to warrant constant verification and reexamination? If physicists are still reviewing Einstein’s theory of relativity, with over a century having passed without anyone finding any flaw or inconsistancy, why shouldn’t any scientist do the same for a field which has a much more immediate effect on our daily lives?

   Additionally, you didn’t address Mark’s central question: Now can we debate point-by-point? The Scientific Method doesn’t care who funds the research. The Scientific Method doesn’t care who signs the check. The Scientific Method only cares about the integrity, predictability and reproducibility of procedure and data. Any intellectually honest critique of research should focus on the procedure and data alone.

   Lastly, Mark does have a fair point. How much do humans actually contribute to the warming? How much will we contribute to the warming in the future? Would reductions actually make any noticeable difference? Would the proposed changes actually result in greenhouse gas reduction or would the laws of Economics set off a chain reaction resulting in a greenhouse gas increase?

   A significant number of people (myself included) without agendas or vested interests want and deserve such clarifications before being asked to take action. For example, my body heat contributes to the warming of my house, just as human activity is supposed to contribute to global warming. However, if I left my house as is for a month (including leaving the thermostat to the temperature I would have set it were I at home), I do not see how the temperature of my house (or my energy bill) would change any significant amount. Maybe someone knows and can show me; maybe not.

   In similar fashion, someone should be able to lay out, piece by piece, the who, what, where, when, why and how much of environmental change humans create and its consequences for the future. One might claim the IPCC has already done so. In which case, the IPCC should also be able and willing to answer the questions of skeptics and those who (like myself) just have a few questions left over in their minds. The IPCC should also be able and willing to show why the skeptics are wrong. Unfortunately, in my experience, the uninformed person with honest questions, too often finds themself categorized as a ’skeptic’, a ‘denier’, or an ‘oil industry hack’, when they simply don’t understand and want to learn.

5. 5 shindig May 21st, 2007 at 12:15 pm

   mark - and Frank

   thing is, The IPCC has shown the skeptics to be wrong on a number of occasions. The sceptics are continually being forced to change their arguments as the science weighs in against them. Some of the sceptics arguments are even decades old.

   There are few, if any, published, peer reviewed, current climate scientists who are sceptics - the ones oft-quoted by Exxon’s front groups have been saying the same thing for years - but have been so busy saying it they’ve forgotten how to be scientists. One of them, Fred Singer, has been a scientific expert on first the ozone layer (which he said wasn’t problem. he was wrong). He then started working for the nuclear industry (he said there’s no problem with radioactivity. he is wrong). Now the latest bandwagon he’s jumped on is global warming.

   There was one piece of

6. 6 shindig May 21st, 2007 at 12:41 pm

   well, that was a little odd… my rant was discontinued.

   anyway, to continue.

   thing is, it’s in Exxon’s interest to keep the debate going. if the debate continues, then public won’t want action. After all, who really wants to believe what the scientists are saying?

   So in wanting to debate the science and the sceptic arguments, you guys are doing EXACTLY what Exxon wants you to do - what Exxon is paying to keep going.

   So if you think Greenpeace has been fooled, maybe consider that you are the guys who are being fooled. Think about what Exxon wants you to do. You think it’s about science - but that’s got little to do with it. It’s about oil and money. And keeping the oil industry going.

   And don’t forget that the concensus process is one which leads to the lowest common denominator. The IPCC has to work on a concensus basis, so anything with doubts they cannot include. There are Exxon scientists on the IPCC - and even they appear to agree with the conclusions. And those conclusions have taken around a century to agree. And they agree with 90% certainty that global warming is real and that we’re causing it through the burning of fossil fuels.

   Now if you thought that the SUV you’re about to drive off in had a 90% chance of exploding the minute you did, would you go with those saying “nah, she’ll be right mate - just get in and drive”? Or would you check out the state of the car.

   I don’t think anyone wants to believe the reality of what global warming would do to the world, least of all Greenpeace. But it seems like they’re going with the 90% which does seem sensible.

   So keep on arguing the science (the peer reviewed climate scientists that you are: Mark and Frank) and have fun - carry on playing Exxon’s game. Enjoy it. The rest of the world’s trying to do something about your kids’ future.

7. 7 Mark May 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm

   I feel the conversation spiralling out of control with your final crack. It was a crack assuming that we were some card carrying right-wing nut jobs. I think that both Frank and I approached this subject with a degree of respect. Our questions are not intended to poke holes in your arguments because our minds are already made up. Our questions are legitimate ones we have in our heads as rational human beings. Insults don’t answer these questions.

8. 8 jason brown May 22nd, 2007 at 4:05 am

   Nothing wrong with asking questions, except when standing in front of an oncoming freight train.

   Isn’t it time we stopped debating best-case scenarios, and started preparing for worst-case scenarios? If it’s not global warming, then try solar flares (next big ups in 2012 according to Discovery channel) literally frying our modern economic circuits. Or tectonic shift as the polar caps melt (for WHATEVA reason).

   Volcanoes, anyone? Bird flu?

   Point is, sceptics miss two points. One, as our mummies always told us, better safe than sorry. Or, hope for the best, prepare for the worst, as our disaster management experts likewise suggest.

   Two, that whatever the causes of global warming, or the likelihood or not of solar flares (big ones), or chook chundering, few are prepared at community, national, regional or international level for anything other than a sinking ship or crashed plane.

Leave a Reply