Slashdot Mirror
Exxon CEO: Warming Happening, But Fears Overblown
Freshly Exhumed writes "In a speech Wednesday, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said. Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations."
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press
Yes, the public is about as smart as a rock. But that doesn't mean you need to spin it. Desertification of wide swaths of land as well as the acidification of the oceans will be pretty hard to deal with.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain
Not a concern for Exxon, he means.
Deny
Undervalue impact
Disassociate
Imply fix.
On the plus side,now that the CEO of Exxon has also said that the increase in temperatures over standard cycles i.e. Global Warming, is man made, I'm sure all you deniers will now apologize fro being wrong.
haha, of course you want. You entrenched into an emotional opinion, so actual facts will never change you mind.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The natural progression:
1. There is no such thing as global warming!
2. Global warming is theoretically possible, but it's not happening.
3. Global warming is happening, but it's no big deal.
4. Ok, we should probably do something about this global warming before it gets worse.
5. We're really f*cked now.
Apparently we're past denial and anger, and are now in the middle of bargaining.
This is going to get rough. Before we get to acceptance, we have depression to go through first.
Ahem, sorry. I meant Fr1st!!!!
The CEO of an oil company tells us that burning oil isn't such a big problem! Well, I guess we can all stop worrying about that then.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
We're actually entering an Ice Age.
Global warming isn't happening.
It's happening, but we didn't cause it.
It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it.
It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it at a price we're willing to pay.
We don't know what's going to happen, so we need to wait until more evidence is in.
The first few are often accompanied by:
It's just a liberal plot to destroy industry
(as if offshoring hasn't already destroyed it).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The coral reefs off Australia and New Zealand announced their Climate Transition Plans in Adelaide, Thursday. The reefs, known for their outstanding beauty and fragile ecosystems, have decided to move further south. They announced their plans, which involve a 600 mile hike, as Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil CEO, announced plans to survey the ground they abandoned each year for new oil and gas fields.
4. Huh . . . well, look at that. Hurricanes in January. Hey, this is not a time to play the blame game. No one could have foreseen this would happen.
5. Something must be done. Level headed people like us. Introducing Exxon Atmospheric Engineering Associates.
6. OK, that didn't work. But hey, neon green sunsets . . . cool!
7. Look you'all knew for decades that our product could lead to this, but you CHOSE to ignore the warnings by scientists rather than taking responsibility and choosing to use renewable energy. We were just selling a product people wanted and freely chose to use.
"pretty close, the difference is music is still being made at a rate that can meet demand"
However the pipe between the well and the bowser is leaking like a siev.
Can we relocate this guy's mouth to 1 inch above sea level? If sea level remains the same, he has nothing to worry about. If not, well, the world will be less one asshole.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.
but it's not. if it were we wouldn't need to exercise our fifth freedom to ensure our oil-consuming way of life. case closed, exxon douchebag. this is, of course, forgetting that oil supply is finite, while biomass/solar fuels are sustainable.
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions
why would advocacy groups do that? is there a profit motive? is it a bigger profit motive than exxon's?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
What's really nutty about ExxonMobil is that on the one hand, they are spending millions on TV, radio and print ads on how the US needs to improve math and science education, but at the same time roughly two-thirds of their political contributions (corporation and employees) are to Republican candidates. To a person, Republicans have conducted an all-out war on free public education, teachers, and teachers unions over the last 30 years. The leading US scientists over the last 100 years did not, in general, attend tony prep schools or come from wealthy families. If ExxonMobil is actually serious about improving math and science education in the US, they'll stop funding Republican candidates and start funding Democrats, as well as making targeted gifts to grammar and high school math and science programs around the country.
"Last July I discussed another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite their public pledge to âoediscontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner" link
AccountKiller
Of course the Exxon CEO thinks global warming is "overblown". How long do you think it's been since he's set foot somewhere that doesn't have air conditioning?
When he was 10 years old, his Dominican nanny was carrying him through Neiman Marcus and someone asked his mother, "Gee, your son is certainly too big to still be carried. Can't he walk?" and his mom answered, "Of course, he can walk. But thank God he doesn't have to".
You are welcome on my lawn.
And let's hope while he's spouting off all that BS, he's investing in solar and wind or he'll ride that company all the way to Juno and Kodak land. Those aren't drilling sites, I mean Juno that old dialup company and Kodak, the company that just declared bankruptcy lol.
This statement is coming from a company with a net worth in the billions and a vested interest in remaining profitable. Of course, they are going to downplay global warming fears. Hopefully more people see through this very thinly veiled reassurance.
We're going to hear lots of lamenting and hating of Exxon, but they're just a business providing what their customers want. And sad to say... all of you that are bitching about them ARE their customers. I've got one question for you: Have you stopped driving you car yet? Stopped using busses? Stopped using electricity? No? The problem isn't Exxon, the problem is we the people. We WILL use all of the fossil fuels. We'll burn them till their gone. Even if the US and Europe banned their use tomorrow, China, Russia, and Africa would gladly take up the slack.
So the question isn't "How do we find alternatives to fossil fuels" because we aren't going to find anything nearly as cheap and easy in the near future. The question is "how can we deal with whatever problems using them is going to cause?" If they really are going to cause so much damage it ends the world, then we're fucked. Cause it's going to happen. If, instead, it's going to gradually raise the tempureture of the planet over the next 200 year, then we'll likely be able to come up with some technology to help mitigate the effects. If we can't we'd better at least learn to deal with them... because the fact is, it's going to happen... no matter how much you complain on an internet forum using your computer with it's 500 watt power supply that you left on all day while you were at work.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain [...]
And we will spend trillions of dollars of tax money to keep that access available.
If the same people who believe that creationism is a drop in replacement for science were also the ones objecting to unobstructed consumption, manufacture and/or sale of oil/gas products, and the global warming theory
However its generally, but not always the more scientificly aware people who come out against fossil fuel usage as a whole, and global warming. There has really yet to be a good scientific study against global warming other than soley industry funded research.(like a bunch of scared CEOs desperately trying to keep stock prices from tanking in a panic)
<quote>have you stopped driving your car yet</quote>
This argument is a fallicy, our society is set up around automobile usage, and it'd be difficult if not impossible in most places to continue your life without an automobile. A better argument would be why aren't people buying more efficeint cars. Many are, but I still see a steady parade of people communiting to office buildings in SUVs. The worst part, is since they consume more fuel, they increase demand driving prices up.
The man's favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged. All credibility voided by that fact alone.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.
Of course not, it's not as if it's your boys who are going to get sent off to get killed, maimed for life, and left with memories that will haunt them forever, you goddamn plutocrat fuck. It's not as if nearly all of our current national security headaches (and nearly all the people killed by terrorism in the world for the last 20 years) can be traced to our meddling in the middle east AT YOUR BEHEST AND ON YOUR BEHALF. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick, don't you people pay handlers to prevent us from seeing just what massive assholes you are?
Notice how we never, ever hear this kind of despicable statement from people like Joe Biden, or the English royals, both of of whom have family serving? You will find no record of President Eisenhower blithely insulting the difficult job the men in Korea faced (I wonder why!). Yet there is a word that specifically refers to the kind of twunts who don't serve, then loudly cheer to have others sent to die (especially if they use privilege to avoid serving after being called to): chickenhawks. They are despicable and should be loudly shamed at every opportunity.
Think "Colorado Springs." Adaptation sounds wonderful but it'll be fueled by burning houses, with hopes damped by submerged homes. It's all part of the deal.
I hate to say it, but sometimes the global warming topics get difficult to read.
I love to say it, but go do something else then; your crying about how difficult it is to read is only contributing to the shit factor in this thread.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Tillerson cleverly attacks the weakest part of research about climate change: the prospective part, about its consequences.
In general, the short term projections that were included in the 'concensus' report by the IPCC show that the scientists underestimated the effects of global warming, so far.
Tillerson is combining PR and salesmanship. He acknowledged the objection, and then he minimized it. After which he went on to taught the strengths of his company and it's position and even called to question the intelligence of it's detractors. It was really quite masterful, in a pathological sense, since, if you view his assertions in light of the fact that climate change, if severe enough, could challenge humanity's ability to produce enough agricultural output to support the current population, require the re-engineering of all of our coastal facilities and population centers worldwide, and require the relocation of millions of refugees who exist at subsistence level to begin with.
Tillerson, on the other hand, is in the enviable of position of being able to outsource his move, off-shore his assets and afford to have staff make all the arrangements.
And when the full effects of AGW come into play, those poor people will be even worse off. Sure, the First World can probably roll with the punches, but for those in the Third World, changes in agricultural belts could spell absolute catastrophe. But hey, short term benefits and fuck the future, huh!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
why can't they corner the market on alternative fuels? They're still going to gouge you, whether it's $1.50/litre of gas, or a $1.50/litre of hydrogen or $1.50/kWh or whatever.
I suspect they'll do just what you recommend, but not until they calculate that conditions are right to do so. Starting their transition to renewables "too soon" would cost them development and infrastructure money, while also decreasing demand for their current product, thus reducing their profits two different ways.
Or to put it another way, when you see the oil companies pushing energy technologies other than oil in a significant way, that's when you'll know the world's oil supply really has started to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I'm sure we will adapt. However, I'm much in doubt that the new world environment will be as pleasant as it was before.
The crime is not to change the world. The crime is to change it for the worse.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
I suggest you read the IPCC report: most of its conclusions are at best couched in terms like "likely" (meaning >66% probability estimate by experts). The fact that they need to determine probabilities by expert judgment, rather than by statistics on observations, tells you that they don't have much data to go on. The results are not independently reproducible because most of them are retroactive interpretations of data. "Rock solid" is five sigma results obtained in multiple independent experiments.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that in order for "expert judgment" to be worth anything, you need to test and verify that your experts are actually qualified and that they are unbiased, but the IPCC report has been created by a self-selected crowd of people with an ax to grind whose qualifications are all over the place, and whose conclusions were arrived at by negotiation and not statistics.
Because there is 227 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is methane? Also CO2 and methane absorb IR in different bands and the band that methane absorbs in radiated at a lower energy level than CO2's. Finally, most atmospheric methane breaks down into CO2 and water within a decade or two so in the long run one methane equals one CO2 anyway.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" It's funny because it's true. It's also sad because it's true.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black