While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable. "We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
11-25-2006, 03:04 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA 
| Exxon Mobil/Shell to accept man-made global warming/move to cut CO2 While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable. "We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?" Exxon Mobil Corp., the highest-profile corporate skeptic about global warming, said in September that it was considering ending its funding of a think tank that has sought to cast doubts on climate change. And on Nov. 2, the company announced that it will contribute more than $1.25 million to a European Union study on how to store carbon dioxide in natural gas fields in the Norwegian North Sea, Algeria and Germany. Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change - washingtonpost.com What are all those scientists who sold their souls for corporate salaries going to do now that it looks like Exxon Mobil is going to shut them down? And an oil/industry giant...Shell...agreeing with the scientific consensus? The only that ever happened was...the ozone layer when liberals were 100% right and conservatives plan would have destroyed all life on earth Once again, it looks like while conservative pundits sit there pouting "its just a guessing game!" you have business leaders and scientists working together to solve the problem | ||||
     |
|
11-25-2006, 03:09 PM
| #2 | ||||
| Administrator  libertarian Oklahoma
| This seems like a good thing to and looks like the "big" "bad" oil companies are doing the right thing here by cutting pollution. | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 03:17 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95 Like Shell said, you can't argue with Science 
| ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 03:30 PM
| #4 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Well I think the companies are doing the right thing trying to cut back on pollution and there's definately some cut backs that can be made and perhaps these two energy companies will pump even more into their alternative energy programs, both of whom have huge alternative energy programs.
| ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 04:55 PM
| #5 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41  Paleolibertarian USA
| What a Shell game (no pun intended). So the oil companies, fearing future reprisal from tree-hugging liberals, are going to beat them to the punch. They're going to "invent" some new (petroleum-based) additives for gasoline that will purport to cut green-house gasses, and get Carte Blanche from the government to reap a higher profit margin on it. And it may be a "scientific consensus" that there is currently a global warming trend, but there is no such consensus on that it is man-made, and even if there was, it would PROVE NOTHING, because the majority opinion does not define the reality. | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 04:56 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95
Don't wait for the credit. They can invest Billions in climate safe technology. But Robert Kennedy Jr. is the good guy while he jets around the world. There are the people who actually do things and the moral cowards who cling to political power and pronouncements they don't live by. The best "Green" technology is all coming from the bastard Capitalists!
__________________ Sock It To Me!  "Bureaucracy is a Parasite that Preys on Free Thought and Suffocates Free Spirit!" - Douglas Adams | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 04:58 PM
| #7 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by AVengeance
They will do it in a practical and responcible way that won't reak total havok with their industry. The tree huggers tried to sell us Electric cars while the sane people invented hybrids! | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:08 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Hybrid cars were pushed by "tree-huggers"... They had to come from overseas though, and thats why the US is losing the automotive wars, because American companies are too short-sighted And also: In December 2004, Science published an essay [8] by geologist and science historian Naomi Oreskes [9] that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:14 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Demand and the actual invention are two different things. That is why Al Gore did not invent the internet.  P.S. "If Pigs ever fly I now claim credit for that invention!"  | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:19 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON uhh...Honda Insight and Toyota Prius were developed and produced in the 90s when gas was 0.80 a gallon...sounds like there was a strong demand with those outrageous gas prices?
| ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:26 PM
| #11 | ||||
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim Well Bully for sound economic long term planning. Meanwhile California Tree Huggers were working on Electric car mandates. That was my point.
| ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:37 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim except the millions of times science was wrong.
| ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:41 PM
| #13 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 Since the arrival of empiracal evidence, show me the "millions of times" an overwhelming scientific consensus affecting the world was proven wrong
| ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 05:49 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim eugenics
How many millions were killed/sterilized from that fiasco that was backed by all the leading scientists/wealthy/politicans DDT, ban a basically safe pesticide and now 50 million have died from Malaria and thousands more have died from the much more harmful pesticides that replaced it. | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 06:45 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| El Salvador actually saw its cases of malaria increase during years of high DDT usage, directly contradicting the claims of Crichton and others. Chapin, G. & Robert W. (1981). "Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India". Nature 293: 181–185. And Eugenics is more of a political/moral argument than a scientific one, however you have to isolate a particular part and show me where there was overwhelming scientific consensus Even then, that'd be one example, not millions...and even then it wouldn't be that science was "wrong" more like it was "cold and immoral" if you are going to argue what I think you are going to argue. | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 07:23 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim So one country proves your point ? Malaria was basically wiped out then DDT was banned and now 50 million have died from it.
Even when they were going after genetic diseases, they picked some that are now classified as enrivomental issues not genetic. | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 07:38 PM
| #17 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Diesel66 I don't see any sources showing the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believing we should sterilize anyone who shows a sign of depression.
You picked a huge topic because you can leap frog from one aspect to another and make an appearance that because Scientist A believed X about eugenics and Scientist B believed Y about eugenics, that there was an overwhelming consensus when there was not | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 07:53 PM
| #18 | ||||
| Administrator libertarian Oklahoma
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON Robby is dead, you mean teddy?
edit: nm you said JR  Last edited by 6SpeedTA95; 11-25-2006 at 08:08 PM.. | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 07:58 PM
| #19 | ||||
| Junkie Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim
read and learn please . Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement Eugenics ISAR - Brief History of European and American Eugenics Movements Life Stories | ||||
| |
|
11-25-2006, 08:16 PM
| #20 |
| Political Genius Republican Yorba Linda Ca. |
