Is The Debate Over?

Upton · #11 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

How exactly do oil companies profit from disputing global warming?

Looks to me like Exxon Mobil is trying to buy scientific conclusions.

Quote:

Press Releases :: October 18, 2007
ExxonMobil Finances Astrophysicist who Denies Polar Bears
Chairman Miller Asks for all documents related to ExxonMobil funding of studies of Arctic animals

(Washington, DC) U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight Chairman Brad Miller (D-NC) has sent a letter to the ExxonMobil Corporation requesting all records since 2002 related to their support for scientists working on polar bears and other Arctic animals.

This request comes in the wake of an “opinion” piece appearing in the journal Ecological Complexity by seven scientists claiming that there is no evidence of decline in the polar bear population of West Hudson Bay as a result of global warming. In an acknowledgement at the end of the article, one of the lead authors, Dr. Willie Soon, thanked ExxonMobil (along with the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute) for their support of his work on polar bears.

Chairman Miller commented, “In a letter dated June 1, 2007 ExxonMobil assured the Subcommittee that they use their funding of science on the environment to produce sound science. It's hard to see this article as rigorous, sound science. The article has all the trappings of being peer-reviewed analysis based on independent research when it is little more than an editorial that received no peer-review. ExxonMobil assured the Subcommittee that they want to inform public debate through their funding of science. The purpose of the article appears to be to provide a façade of scientific respectability to those who say the polar bear is just fine, but there's nothing behind the façade. Those who oppose listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act are now citing the Soon Essay to justify their opposition.”

The State of Alaska cited the piece extensively in their filing with the Fish and Wildlife Service opposing the polar bear's listing.

“The Subcommittee wants to understand how ExxonMobil decided to fund an astrophysicist to do research on polar bears,” continued Miller. “We have asked for their files on funding for Dr. Soon in this area as well as funding of any other researchers working on Arctic animal species. The public deserves to know if ExxonMobil is funding other scientists who work on animal species in this region, who are less open than Dr. Soon about the source of those funds.”

ExxonMobil is a partner in the Alyeska pipeline corporation and runs oil operations on Alaska’s North Slope. Steps to save the polar bear may have a direct or indirect impact on operations in the Arctic, including the North Slope of Alaska.

The letter to ExxonMobil was sent yesterday, the same day that Chairman Miller held a hearing covering the major global warming-related challenges facing the Arctic, including the fate of the polar bear as projected by the United States Geological Survey. Dr. Susan Hazeltine of USGS appeared as a witness as did Ms. Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, a lead complainant in the suit which ultimately forced the Administration to undertake the process of listing the polar bear as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Public comments on the proposed listing are being gathered by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior.

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Reps :: Press Release :: ExxonMobil Finances Astrophysicist who Denies Polar Bears

coyote · #12 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Looks to me like Exxon Mobil is trying to buy scientific conclusions.

Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Reps :: Press Release :: ExxonMobil Finances Astrophysicist who Denies Polar Bears

Your using circular reasoning

(1) You claim we cant trust climate skeptics because they’re funded by oil companies.

(2) You claim we cant trust oil companies because they’re financing skeptics.

Now answer the question, how exactly do oil companies profit by disputing global warming?

Upton · #13 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

Your using circular reasoning

(1) You claim we cant trust climate skeptics because they’re funded by oil companies.

(2) You claim we cant trust oil companies because they’re financing skeptics.

Now answer the question, how exactly do oil companies profit by disputing global warming?

Considering the business they are in, oil companies have a vested interest in trying to discredit the argument that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2007 accusing the largest of the offenders, Exxon Mobil, of spending $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43 advocacy organizations which dispute the impact of global warming. I ask you, how can you, in all seriousness, take a report from an organization funded by Exxon Mobile at face value?

coyote · #14 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Considering the business they are in, oil companies have a vested interest in trying to discredit the argument that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming.

What would happen if oil companies doubled their prices? Basically two things, people would use fossil fuels and the oil companies would make more profits. So it seems to me that oil companies could be profiting even if fewer people used fossil fuels. What’s interesting is that the same politicians who gripe about global warming recently passed a law making “price gouging” by oil companies a crime. It would seem to me if they really were concerned about mans use of fossil fuels they would want gas prices to be as high as possible. To them Global Warming theory is more of a ruse to score political point rather than legitimate concern for the environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2007 accusing the largest of the offenders, Exxon Mobil, of spending $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43 advocacy organizations which dispute the impact of global warming. I ask you, how can you, in all seriousness, take a report from an organization funded by Exxon Mobile at face value?

Why should we take a report from the Union of Concerned Scientist at face value considering their funding?
Union of Concerned Scientists Finances

typical dem · #15 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007, 11:02 PM

Of course the debate is over. Anybody that has seen the documentary "The Day After Tomorrow" and Al Gores marvelous expose realizes we are all doomed to roast or freeze to death. It's inevitable, its all man-made, and its all the fault of the USA.
Stupid rethuglicans.

ONEWHITEDUCK · #16 (**permalink**) 10-29-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by typical dem

Of course the debate is over. Anybody that has seen the documentary "The Day After Tomorrow" and Al Gores marvelous expose realizes we are all doomed to roast or freeze to death. It's inevitable, its all man-made, and its all the fault of the USA.
Stupid rethuglicans.

uh HEY...........

YOU TYPICAL DEM YOU

Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.

Upton · #17 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

What would happen if oil companies doubled their prices? Basically two things, people would use fossil fuels and the oil companies would make more profits. So it seems to me that oil companies could be profiting even if fewer people used fossil fuels.

Apparently, Exxon Mobil doesn't agree with that assessment. Otherwise, you can be sure that the funding for anti global warming groups would dry up. In fact, if what you say is true, what would you hypothesize is the reason behind the funding?

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote

Why should we take a report from the Union of Concerned Scientist at face value considering their funding?
Union of Concerned Scientists Finances

While I wouldn't take either side's findings at face value, I'll take an environmental advocacy group over Exxon Mobil anytime.

Oedipus Rex · #18 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007, 12:16 PM

Global warming is a crock. Just another power grab by the uber-socialists.

coyote · #19 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Apparently, Exxon Mobil doesn't agree with that assessment. Otherwise, you can be sure that the funding for anti global warming groups would dry up. In fact, if what you say is true, what would you hypothesize is the reason behind the funding?

If oil companies raised gas prices they would make more profits. Do you disagree with that statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

While I wouldn't take either side's findings at face value, I'll take an environmental advocacy group over Exxon Mobil anytime.

Why?

coyote · #20 (**permalink**) 10-30-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Apparently, Exxon Mobil doesn't agree with that assessment. Otherwise, you can be sure that the funding for anti global warming groups would dry up. In fact, if what you say is true, what would you hypothesize is the reason behind the funding?

While I wouldn't take either side's findings at face value, I'll take an environmental advocacy group over Exxon Mobil anytime.