|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Jan 12, 2007 20:47:56 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/Exxon cuts ties to global warming skepticsOil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases • Global warming of Exxon's heart? Jan. 11: The oil giant is pulling its money from an anti-global warming think tank, saying the issue has evolved. "On the Money's" Scott Cohn reports. Updated: 1:42 p.m. CT Jan 12, 2007 NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases. Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions. Mark Boudreaux, a spokesman for Exxon, the world’s biggest publicly traded company, said its position on climate change has been “widely misunderstood and as a result of that, we have been clarifying and talking more about what our position is.” Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions. View a TV ad produced for the Competitive Enterprise Institute that argues against regulating manmade carbon dioxide emissions as pollutants. CEI acknowledged the change. “I would make an argument that we’re a useful ally, but it’s up to them whether that’s in the priority system that they have, right or wrong,” director Fred Smith said on CNBC’s “On the Money.” Last year, CEI ran advertisements, featuring a little girl playing with a dandelion, that downplayed the risks of carbon dioxide emissions. Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, heavy industries have been nervously watching which route the United States may take on future regulations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases scientists link to global warming. Several lawmakers on Friday introduced a bill to curb emissions. President Bush has opposed mandatory emissions cuts such as those required by the international Kyoto Protocol. He withdrew the United States, the world’s top carbon emitter, from the Kyoto pact early in his first term. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader, has said he wants new legislation this spring to regulate heat-trapping emissions. Other legislators also are planning hearings on emissions. The industry talks center on the range of greenhouse gas policy options such as cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes, said Roy Kopp, head of the climate program at RFF. There also will be debates on whether rules should focus on companies producing oil, gas and coal, which release CO2 when burned, or consumers who use the fuels. To spur open industry discussion, RFF said the talks, which began in December, exclude nongovernmental organizations. Some see Exxon’s participation in the talks, coupled with its pledge to stop funding CEI, as early signs of a possible policy change. “The fact that Exxon is trying to debate solutions, instead of whether climate change even exists, represents an important shift,” said Andrew Logan, a climate expert at Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that works with companies to cut climate change risks. Exxon’s funding action was confirmed this week by its vice president for public affairs. Kenneth Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that Exxon decided in late 2005 that its 2006 nonprofit funding would not include CEI and "five or six" similar groups. Cohen declined to identify the other groups, but their names could become public this spring when Exxon releases its annual list of donations to nonprofit groups. Scoring oil In a report last year on how oil majors are addressing global warming emissions, Ceres gave Exxon a 35 — the worst of any company. Oil majors BP and Royal Dutch Shell got 90 and 79, respectively. “Given how large and influential Exxon is and that they are basically the last big industry climate skeptic standing, even small moves can have a very big impact,” said Logan. But he said it was too early to tell the substance of the change. “The devil is in the details,” he said. Cohen told the Wall Street Journal that while questions remain about the degree to which fossil fuels are contributing to warming, the computer modelling on what the future may hold “has gotten better.” And, he said, “we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken.” Peter Fusaro, a carbon markets expert, noted that Exxon already must comply with Kyoto regulations in other countries, and said the company may want to simplify compliance standards throughout its international operations. “Multinational companies are under the gun to comply with Kyoto,” he said. “It’s starting to crystallize that companies can’t have dual environmental standards.” Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, told the Wall Street Journal that he was impressed by Exxon. “They are taking this debate very seriously,” said Sharp, a former Democratic congressman. “My personal opinion of them has changed by watching them operate.”
|
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Jan 14, 2007 18:48:35 GMT -5
How long before this unexpected change of heart is blamed on the “enviro-nazi" movement?
“Ahhh, you see, Exxon has been bought off by the tree huggers”, "they've infiltrated the company and subverted it to achieve their own personal agenda".
“And that island that just disappeared after being swallowed up by the ocean… that never really happened either”. “It was actually Al Gore who was deceiving us by pulling a David Copperfield using blue screen photography”.
I’m sure Exxon has altered its policies for all of the wrong reasons but it’s better than nothing I guess. I bet they finally realized that as the imminent threat of global warming becomes absolutely undeniable their skeptic position would eventually become a public relations nightmare.
They’re just like the Bush administration. If and when they ever do the right thing it’s only because they were placed under intense pressure to do so. Then they act as if they still deserve credit somehow? Their intentions are never good, they just happen to find themselves in indefensible positions and needing to save face.
|
|
|
|
Post by halva on Jan 31, 2007 23:38:48 GMT -5
The slogan we are talking about using here in Greece is: "SCEPTICS" OUT, "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" IN!
|
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Feb 4, 2007 1:25:33 GMT -5
I just e-mailed this to Alex Jones with a note stating that if his web-sites don't post this information I'm going to have to assume that he's receiving a cut from Exxon as well. I’m still waiting for an answer to the question of, if global warming is an NWO plot, then why isn’t the Bush administration endorsing it? Why is this government and their oil buddies trying to censor independent scientists on the issue? money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?section=money_mostpopularExxon linked to climate change pay out
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels. The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science. Scientists say they're pressured to play down the impact of global change. CNN's Andrea Koppel reports (January 30) Play video "The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University. "We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..." The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Exxon greens up its act While there is nothing wrong with funding new research, activists said the intent of the letter seemed to be to criticize the UN report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work. "It is a major problem that scientists make arguments against climate change...that they can't back up [with] peer reviewed data," said Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for ExxposeExxon. In a statement, AEI said Exxon's annual contribution to the group is small, amounting to less than 1 percent of AEI's annual budget. It also said a $10,000 payment for scientific work was not unusual. "A $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest," the statement read. One academic disagreed with that claim. "To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money," said Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois. Wuebbles criticized the letter for attempting to influence the outcome of its authors. "Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand," he said. But David Karl, a climate professor at the University of Hawaii, said that the amount of money was typical for authoring such a report, but he took issue with the tone of the letter. "It sounds like they were looking for a particular outcome," he said. Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science. "This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind." A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science." According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004. An Exxon (Charts) spokesman said the company continues to donate to AEI, but said it does not control what the group does. The spokesman also noted that Exxon is one of many corporations that give to AEI, which is a well-known think tank. But Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming. "There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," reads Exxon's latest statement on global warming, issued Friday in response to the UN study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions. "Because the risks to society and ecosystems [posed by global warming] could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health." But critics are calling Exxon's sincerity into question over their perceived attempts to cloud the public's perception of scientific opinion. "What we want to see is that Exxon is making a polar change" before the company claims that it has reformed its old ways, said Hoover. ________________ Report: Humans 'very likely' cause global warming |
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 8:20:01 GMT -5
I just e-mailed this to Alex Jones with a note stating that if his web-sites don't post this information I'm going to have to assume that he's receiving a cut from Exxon as well. I’m still waiting for an answer to the question of, if global warming is an NWO plot, then why isn’t the Bush administration endorsing it? Why is this government and their oil buddies trying to censor independent scientists on the issue? Did you even bother to goto his site to see what had been posted there?  It's really amazing how In-line with each other we can be on most every subject but one and you'd just cast off anyone with a concept or perception that global warming will be used to further the NWO agenda.... This has been up on his site since Friday... prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/030207warming.htmwww.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/2/145427.shtml?s=ic |
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 8:28:21 GMT -5
The reason that the Bush admin doesn't acknowledge it is because it would cause a rift with his right wing bible thumping followers.
He's not really a Christian but his followers are so he has to appease them, You haven't picked up on this game yet???
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 8:34:06 GMT -5
I can believe Global Warming exists and at the same time believe that the NWO will use it to their advantage...
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 9:00:56 GMT -5
Tell me this if you would, How do we cut our emmisions in half without living like cavemen??
Getting the rich to stop driving their BIG SUV's certainly won't do it. How would you heat your house throughout the year with half the natural gas??? Why don't you go down to the inner city and ask the poorest of the poor what it's like to live without heat.
Good thing the homeless can't get natural gas piped into their cardboard boxes.....
What am I supposed to do? I drive to make a living. If me and the other techs drove half as much, the Company would only make half as much and likely not be around, Or some of us would not have a job..
I believe that the reason for global warming is in part do to how out of balance the enviroment is. Why do we have to cut emmisions why can't we plant a few billion acres of hemp to help counter balance the CO2.If we could manage the CO2 output a little better we could work on cleaner fuels and better filtration for exhaust...
|
|
|
|
Post by kola on Feb 4, 2007 17:45:29 GMT -5
CDnutz,
you act/write/speak a lot like ed smell/yack etc.
swamp?
Kola
|
|
|
|
Post by kola on Feb 4, 2007 18:08:06 GMT -5
Nuts quote: "Tell me this if you would, How do we cut our emmisions in half without living like cavemen??"
-----------------------
No-nuts. I advise you to do some reading. Then look back 80-100 years ago when people lived happily, were self-sufficient and weren't in debt up to their necks. Hardly cavemen.
Nutz quote: "Getting the rich to stop driving their BIG SUV's certainly won't do it."
-----------------
Then read about hybrids and alternate powered vehicles such as solar, hydrogen etc.
nuts quote :"How would you heat your house throughout the year with half the natural gas???"
--------------------
nutz how about something called wood?? ever hear of it? solar grids and pasive solar power? wind generators? Even the cavemen figured that one out, nutz.
nutz quote: "Why don't you go down to the inner city and ask the poorest of the poor what it's like to live without heat."
------------------
Todays "poor person" has not been taught how to be self sufficent as he/she got sucked into
bullshit corporate consumptions. They only know how to be reliant slaves.. as per the plan.
Nutz quote,"Good thing the homeless can't get natural gas piped into their cardboard boxes....."
--------------
Nuttszo, I admire your compassion (sacastic tone there).It speaks volumes.
Nut quuote: "What am I supposed to do? I drive to make a living. If me and the other techs drove half as much, the Company would only make half as much and likely not be around, Or some of us would not have a job.."
------------------
hey nutz,.. yeah, Smell drives for a living too doesn't he? Sorry you can only function at one level.
Nutz quote:"I believe that the reason for global warming is in part do to how out of balance the enviroment is."
---------------
Who is in charge of doing the "balancing"? Corporate Oil Pigs which drive Governmental Goons?
Nutz quote:" Why do we have to cut emmisions why can't we plant a few billion acres of hemp to help counter balance the CO2.If we could manage the CO2 output a little better we could work on cleaner fuels and better filtration for exhaust..."
---------------------
Hemp huh? Is hemp really going to balance out nuclear waste? Is hemp going to make those chemtrails vanish. Is Hemp going to nutralize depleted uranium levels? Is hemp gpoing to clear all the pharmaceuticals out of our drinking water. Will hemp balance the overload of fertilizer nitrate run off that has burned up the Gulf of Mexico outlet?
You act a lot like mister Smellyack.
kola
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 18:08:45 GMT -5
Kola,
You act/write/speak like you have know idea what you're talking about....
So f*ck off!!!!!!! Tard
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 18:12:49 GMT -5
You act a lot like mister Smellyack. kola That statement proves you have know FUCKING idea what you're saying!!!! Prick |
|
|
|
Post by kola on Feb 4, 2007 18:26:11 GMT -5
Nutz,
btw, I will not read the PM you just sent me but it is saved. If you have something to say, post it on the board but only if you can act like an adult. This will be my last reply to you personally. Thanks.
Kola
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 18:34:46 GMT -5
Nuts quote: "Tell me this if you would, How do we cut our emmisions in half without living like cavemen??" ----------------------- No-nuts. I advise you to do some reading. Then look back 80-100 years ago when people lived happily, were self-sufficient and weren't in debt up to their necks. Hardly cavemen. _____________________________ Oh so we have devolve in order to fight this global warming thing??? ____________________________ Nutz quote: "Getting the rich to stop driving their BIG SUV's certainly won't do it." ----------------- Then read about hybrids and alternate powered vehicles such as solar, hydrogen etc. _____________________________________________ Yea everyone can go drop 30 grand on a new hybrid or alternative powered vehicles.Most people can't afford solar either and hydrogen costs way to much to make now and is years off... _______________________________________________- nuts quote :"How would you heat your house throughout the year with half the natural gas???" -------------------- nutz how about something called wood?? ever hear of it? solar grids and pasive solar power? wind generators? Even the cavemen figured that one out, nutz. ____________________________________________ Wood??Doesn't that add to the pollution problem, If not, why do they restrict wood burning during the winter months here in Colorado? Again not enough people can go drop a few grand on solar. Most neighborhoods are not zoned for wind generators. So what did the cave men figure out??Did i miss something or did they find wind generators from several hundred thousand years ago?? Or solar grids for that matter???HAHAHAHA what a joke!! _____________________________________________ nutz quote: "Why don't you go down to the inner city and ask the poorest of the poor what it's like to live without heat." ------------------ Todays "poor person" has not been taught how to be self sufficent as he/she got sucked into bullshit corporate consumptions. They only know how to be reliant slaves.. as per the plan. ____________________ No arguement there... _______________________ Nutz quote,"Good thing the homeless can't get natural gas piped into their cardboard boxes....." -------------- Nuttszo, I admire your compassion (sacastic tone there).It speaks volumes. ______________ You like that??? ______________ Nut quuote: "What am I supposed to do? I drive to make a living. If me and the other techs drove half as much, the Company would only make half as much and likely not be around, Or some of us would not have a job.." ------------------ hey nutz,.. yeah, Smell drives for a living too doesn't he? Sorry you can only function at one level. ______________________________________________ I don't give a shit what Snell does for a living. I can function a more levels then you can imagine. How could you even begin to know otherwise as you have know idea who I am??? __________________________________________- Nutz quote:"I believe that the reason for global warming is in part do to how out of balance the enviroment is." --------------- Who is in charge of doing the "balancing"? Corporate Oil Pigs which drive Governmental Goons? _______________ You're an IDIOT ______________________ Nutz quote:" Why do we have to cut emmisions why can't we plant a few billion acres of hemp to help counter balance the CO2.If we could manage the CO2 output a little better we could work on cleaner fuels and better filtration for exhaust..." --------------------- Hemp huh? Is hemp really going to balance out nuclear waste? Is hemp going to make those chemtrails vanish. Is Hemp going to nutralize depleted uranium levels? Is hemp gpoing to clear all the pharmaceuticals out of our drinking water. Will hemp balance the overload of fertilizer nitrate run off that has burned up the Gulf of Mexico outlet? ___________________________________________ Matbe you should do a little research on the benifits of hemp.... There was no mention here about Nuclear waste. And the fact that you Even made this statement proves you're just a instigator. Why don't you look back at some of my posts at CTC before you go showing everyone what a ignorant sack of shit you are??? If you had you'd know my stance on Chemtrailz, depleted uramium, Pharma. _______________________________________ Next time you want to assume you think you know who I am you'd better do a little more research, asshole _____________________________________ You act a lot like mister Smellyack. kola [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 18:36:45 GMT -5
My Email to Kola: For anyone who gives a shit....
Bring it you little PRICK!! How long have you been around this board or CTC??? Not long enough to be making such ignorant comments..
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 18:59:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Feb 4, 2007 19:21:07 GMT -5
I refuse to get baited in to this worn out, tired old debate. I have no need to defend or justify my comments. Internet drama is lame and I have better things to do with my time.
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 19:26:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 19:27:55 GMT -5
I was not trying to bait anyone.If you noticed I admitted there IS GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!
I was simply giving my opininion!!!!! ANd asking a few simple questions on how we can cut our emmisions in half
|
|
|
|
Post by kola on Feb 4, 2007 21:13:33 GMT -5
knowthis quote :"I refuse to get baited in to this worn out, tired old debate. I have no need to defend or justify my comments. Internet drama is lame and I have better things to do with my time."
Knowthis, I am with you on this one.
enuf' said,
Kola
|
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Feb 4, 2007 21:17:23 GMT -5
Good on you...  |
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 21:51:28 GMT -5
Again get past what you think I'm saying and read what I'm really saying...
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 4, 2007 22:08:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by et in Arcadia ego on Feb 5, 2007 1:30:41 GMT -5
CDsNuTz is not in the Smell brigade, kola..
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 5, 2007 19:03:37 GMT -5
Thanks Arcadia, Least someones got my back!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Feb 5, 2007 19:23:41 GMT -5
So, I have to ask...Did you happen to read through ANY of my posts kola??? I read every one of your 123......Not to impressive, Seems you are more of a boot licker then anything....
|
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Feb 6, 2007 0:27:23 GMT -5
This thread is locked due to arguing Flat Earth theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Jun 1, 2007 6:47:20 GMT -5
Exxon/Mobil was lying after all. I wonder who is funding Alex Jones, Mike Rivero, Rense, Drudge..........In fact, ALL of the denier movement, which is not really that big, except they have the media power of the Right Wing Noise Machine behind them, and it appears to be larger than it is.  Why are these people constantly attacking Hippies, Gays, Environmentalists, Woman's Libbers, ACLU, and Vegetarians? Is it a systematic destruction of the values from the 60s that these groups of people represent? We did stop the Military-Industrial Complex Machine once before. You see, if any of these "Libertarians" came out without the 9/11 stuff, and just lamblasted all of the Progressive causes, they would just have a bunch of toothless hillbillies and Klansmen listening to them. Now, throw 9/11 in the mix, and you can rope in these same progressives. I myself was hoodwinked by many of these people, until they started peeling off their masks. thinkprogress.org/2007/05/18/exxon-global-warming-2/ExxonMobil Lied, Continues to Lavishly Fund Prominent Global Warming DeniersIn January, oil giant ExxonMobil tried to “soften” its stance on climate change, asserting that it was “misunderstood” and now acknowledges the contribution of humans to global warming. Subsequently, the company promised that it would “not be providing any further funding” to groups that distort global warming science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. But a new report from GreenPeace reveals what the company “didn’t mention” to the public. According to its IRS reports, Exxon is still actively funding at least 14 organizations “for their climate change work.” These groups include organizations like Frontiers for Freedom, which recently released a report “dedicated entirely to questioning global warming science, policy and attacking Al Gore.” Today, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) wrote to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson lambasting the company for its inconsistency on global warming and urging the company to provide “full accounting of actual giving” to these climate skeptic groups, records which it has withheld from the public: In a September 20, 2006, press release, ExxonMobil claimed it was reviewing funding for the coming year and that support for “organizations is publicly posted on our website.” […] ExxonMobil’s clarification has yet to receive clarity. The analysis done by Greenpeace highlights disparities between your 2005 World Giving Report and actual giving as reflected in the copy of your IRS 990 tax form…the 2006 World Giving Report confirms that ExxonMobil has not stopped supporting climate skeptic organizations, as past statements from the Corporation suggested would be the stance of the company. […] The support of climate skeptics, many of whom have no real grounding in climate science, appears to be an effort to distort public discussion about global warming…It is indefensible for private entities to fund phony science to create fictional “scientific” controversies where no legitimate controversy exists. The report confirms ExxonMobil’s new policy on global warming is the same as its old policy. thinkprogress.org/2007/01/09/exxon-global-warming/See Miller’s full letter to ExxonMobil HERE democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/AdminLetters/miller_exxon_5.17.07.pdf See GreenPeace’s report HERE. www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/exxon-secrets-analysis-of-fun |
|
