[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Lan...you don't believe global warming is happening?

Politically, obviously not.
But rumors abound in his recent purchase of 'high ground' .....

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Lan...you don't believe global warming is happening?

I believe that global climate change is a fact of nature, and is not a man-made phernomenon.

So, do I believe global warming is happening? Yes.
But I do not believe that even drastically altering the lifestyle of mankind will have any effect whatsoever on climate change, either way.

[Ciberblade]

If I remember correctly...he believes in the climate change that is happening, but is not sold on the concept that man is causing it to happen.

[iltos]

long article today in the nytimes about the cost of the planet warming up....can't guarantee this link, but try this http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/bu...ss/12warm.html

what caught my eye

So it is something of a surprise that James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a coal-burning utility in the Midwest and the Southeast, has emerged as an unexpected advocate of federal regulation that would for the first time impose a cost for emitting carbon dioxide. But he has his reasons.

“Climate change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide,” Mr. Rogers said. “And we need to start now because the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive this is going to be.”

Global warming is not only an environmental hazard, but also a great challenge for economic policy. Without economic incentives, analysts say, the needed investments in industrial cleanup, innovative low-carbon technologies, fuel-efficient cars and other ways of reducing energy waste will not occur.

Mr. Rogers’s stance is far from universal within the power industry, but it has surprising support, particularly from those, like him, who also produce electricity from carbon-free nuclear reactors.

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Politically, obviously not.
But rumors abound in his recent purchase of 'high ground' .....

I will really be impressed when he raises his own beef.

[Ciberblade]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I will really be impressed when he raises his own beef.

Oh...he would.


but it would be on a fork.

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

They are definitely aligned with the global warming extremists, like Democrat, Albert Gore.

Doubt you will read this Lan, but for others who may have doubts.

The 'Obfuscation Agenda'
The letter to ExxonMobil.

BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV AND OLYMPIA SNOWE
Monday, December 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Editor's note: This is the text of a letter Sens. Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) and Snowe (R., Maine) sent to ExxonMobil's CEO. A related editorial appears here.


October 27, 2006
Mr. Rex W. Tillerson
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
ExxonMobil Corporation
5959 Las Colinas Boulevard
Irving, TX 75039

Dear Mr. Tillerson:

....

Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the "deniers." Likewise, we look to you to guide ExxonMobil to capitalize on its significant resources and prominent industry position to assist this country in taking its appropriate leadership role in promoting the technological innovation necessary to address climate change and in fashioning a truly global solution to what is undeniably a global problem.

While ExxonMobil's activity in this area is well-documented, we are somewhat encouraged by developments that have come to light during your brief tenure. We fervently hope that reports that ExxonMobil intends to end its funding of the climate change denial campaign of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) are true. Similarly, we have seen press reports that your British subsidiary has told the Royal Society, Great Britain's foremost scientific academy, that ExxonMobil will stop funding other organizations with similar purposes. However, a casual review of available literature, as performed by personnel for the Royal Society reveals that ExxonMobil is or has been the primary funding source for the "skepticism" of not only CEI, but for dozens of other overlapping and interlocking front groups sharing the same obfuscation agenda. For this reason, we share the goal of the Royal Society that ExxonMobil "come clean" about its past denial activities, and that the corporation take positive steps by a date certain toward a new and more responsible corporate citizenship.

ExxonMobil is not alone in jeopardizing the credibility and stature of the United States. Large corporations in related industries have joined ExxonMobil to provide significant and consistent financial support of this pseudo-scientific, non-peer reviewed echo chamber. The goal has not been to prevail in the scientific debate, but to obscure it. This climate change denial confederacy has exerted an influence out of all proportion to its size or relative scientific credibility. Through relentless pressure on the media to present the issue "objectively," and by challenging the consensus on climate change science by misstating both the nature of what "consensus" means and what this particular consensus is, ExxonMobil and its allies have confused the public and given cover to a few senior elected and appointed government officials whose positions and opinions enable them to damage U.S. credibility abroad.

Climate change denial has been so effective because the "denial community" has mischaracterized the necessarily guarded language of serious scientific dialogue as vagueness and uncertainty. Mainstream media outlets, attacked for being biased, help lend credence to skeptics' views, regardless of their scientific integrity, by giving them relatively equal standing with legitimate scientists. ExxonMobil is responsible for much of this bogus scientific "debate" and the demand for what the deniers cynically refer to as "sound science."

A study to be released in November by an American scientific group will expose ExxonMobil as the primary funder of no fewer than 29 climate change denial front groups in 2004 alone. Besides a shared goal, these groups often featured common staffs and board members. The study will estimate that ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million since the late 1990s on a strategy of "information laundering," or enabling a small number of professional skeptics working through scientific-sounding organizations to funnel their viewpoints through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station. The Internet has provided ExxonMobil the means to wreak its havoc on U.S. credibility, while avoiding the rigors of refereed journals. While deniers can easily post something calling into question the scientific consensus on climate change, not a single refereed article in more than a decade has sought to refute it.

...http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

I will really be impressed when he raises his own beef.

I am having a hard enough time raising my own kids!

In comparisson, I'd bet raising my own beef might be considerably easier.


Did you read my answer to you? (Post 932)

[Gabriel]

Yes Lan, i did read it

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I believe that global climate change is a fact of nature, and is not a man-made phernomenon.

So, do I believe global warming is happening? Yes.
But I do not believe that even drastically altering the lifestyle of mankind will have any effect whatsoever on climate change, either way.

Just keep up the spoon feeding from Exxon!

http://images.gocomics.com/images/gc.../nq/small.html

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I'm doing my part ...... I'M EATING THE COWS!

And everyone who is not following...the cow statement was a follow up to this post by Lan.... I swear, is this reading comprehension day for us

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I believe that global climate change is a fact of nature, and is not a man-made phernomenon.

So, do I believe global warming is happening? Yes.
But I do not believe that even drastically altering the lifestyle of mankind will have any effect whatsoever on climate change, either way.

There are only a few, very few, that seem to tow the line that man causes it.

I think it's your second remark that is the result of political positioning.
Like your continued stance that WMD exists without proof, I suspect you will never accept man does have an influence on the rate of change no matter how strongly science demonstrates it.
As much as Gore abuses the concept of scientific investigation, so do the extreme right/neocons ......all for the purpose of political leveraging.

[LANMaster]

A thoughtful post, as usual, Jack.

I will even concede that man has contributed to some accelleration in the warming process of the climate.

What I won't buy into is that man is anything more than a miniscule contributor to a cycle which occurs naturally, or that a drastic alarmist reaction will do anything at all to slow the cycle, let alone reverse it.

But please don't paint me into the corner that thinks industry doesn't pollute the air and water.
I strongly support EPA regulations and the preservation of land for natural habitat.
(ANWR is a very small portion of a vast preserve, and would likely do more good for the wildlife than harm in the surrounding area)

[Gabriel]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

A thoughtful post, as usual, Jack.

I will even concede that man has contributed to some accelleration in the warming process of the climate.

Whoa Lan...that is cool. I really thought you were in total denial that we had a hand in it

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by Gabriel

Whoa Lan...that is cool. I really thought you were in total denial that we had a hand in it

More like a spec from under the fingernail rather than a hand in it. But a spec nonetheless.