Slashdot Mirror
How ExxonMobil Funded Global Warming Skeptics
Erik Moeller writes "According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a 'global warming controversy' exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?"
are as pure as the wind driven snow. BOTH sides have lied IMO. Somewhere between the two, you'll find the truth. "Technically" global warming does exist, but, the output from the sun has increased in the past decade or more. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you increase the temperature of the oven, the food gets warm. I remember when I was in high school back in the 70's, everyone was worried about global cooling. I remember winters were BRUTALLY cold. If people can get the sky is falling mentality out of their heads and think, maybe we can figure all of this out without shouting down each other ;)
Honestly, I'm not a funded skeptic (although I wouldn't mind a few bucks for speaking my own piece) but some of the data collection methods (I'll attach a link when I get home, I can't find it here at work) for global warming have error ranges that pretty well invalidate the data. For example, there are instances of temperature data being derived by the date upon which grapes were harvested in a given year - it seems that science is being driven by politics and seeking the conclusions it wants to come to instead of the other way around. I don't doubt for a minute that the globe might be warming up, but nobody has really hard data that shows that it is truly due to greenhouse gas emissions. Honestly, if we really knew the answer, would there be *this* much debate? I'm all for going green, and hey, it might do some good, but science hasn't much shown either way an effective relationship. I could show you data that would just as easily say that global warming is due to my age.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
Yes it is accounted for by the recent slightly warmer temperatures! So instead of thinking that man kind is the main reason, we should just understand that we will be entering a period of time when the sun is just warmer. Even the UN recently recognized this and that man kind is responsible for a very small portion of "Global Warming". What are we going to do, place a huge sun shade between us and the sun? That would be crazy! What we need to do is figure out how to mitigate the damages that we expect the hotter sun to produce, and move on from there. We also need to stop paying attention to the wild fear mongering that that the wacky "Global Warming" prophets of doom keep preaching, for their own benefit. Just follow and watch how much money is being spent by and for these false prophets!
----SofK---
there is very little to be gained by believing in global warming.
I think that companies that deal in alternative energy - wind, solar, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. - would very strongly disagree with that.
Skepticism is the lazy person's default position.
Nice pseudo-ad-hominem there. Kindly go indulge in self-fornication. This has absolutely nothing to do with laziness. Heaven forbid that someone looks at what's being said (by all sides) and still come to the conclusion that no side has made a complete argument that irrefutably makes their point.
I've seen the studies on various temperature not only recently but throughout history. The earth regularly goes through warming and cooling trends and we're in a warming trend. Have temperatures risen faster in recent years than in other cycles? Yes, as far as we can tell. Is it without question due to humanity? I have not been convinced of it but neither am I against it.
Nothing any moderators could do to you could possibly make what you have to say any less valid.
Considering your willingness to call anyone who dares to question what you happen to believe in "lazy", your opinion means less than nothing.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Does anyone else find it ironic that the "Sky is falling" Global Warming clique - generally considered in American parlance to be "liberal" - is invariably the most elitist, condescending voice in the room?
If one disagrees with a conservative, that's it - a disagreement.
If one disagrees with a liberal, on the other hand, one is "stupid", "retarded", usually a beer-swilling, NASCAR-watching redneck, and most frequently EVIL.* Usually backed by the shadowy power of a multinational.
* EVIL: a concept which Liberals refuse to even acknowledge exists except insofar as they can apply it to conservatives.
-Styopa