Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

[lazs2]

there is no return from an ice age either angus.   The vast majority of your scientist priests predicted that we would be in one by now.  

Either they are just guessing (like the local weatherman) or... they are missing something in the model.

either way... the average person sees that the scientist priests can't even predict next weeks weather and that is why there is so much (justified) skepticism.

oh... is butter good or bad for you this week?   you have an in with the scientists maybe you can ask?

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by Angus
To add to the effect, we are deforestating the globe at an enormous rate with the huge benefit of slightly cheaper lumber, burgers and coffee.

Actually, you'll find that deforestation has very little to do with cheaper lumber, burgers, and coffee. For example, when you order a home to be built, and the lumber is delivered, you're ordering for new trees to be planted. It's a renewable resource, and that's how the logging business works.

Massive deforestation is happening in poor countries by people trying to establish sustainable agriculture to feed their families. Things that "environmentalists" constantly protest against like genetically engineered crops and globalization are the keys to solving the problem.

Also, you can't have cheaper lumber if the supply is diminishing. The price would go up, not down.

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
there is no return from an ice age either angus.   The vast majority of your scientist priests predicted that we would be in one by now.  

Either they are just guessing (like the local weatherman) or... they are missing something in the model.

either way... the average person sees that the scientist priests can't even predict next weeks weather and that is why there is so much (justified) skepticism.

oh... is butter good or bad for you this week?   you have an in with the scientists maybe you can ask?

lazs

Ice ages come with a return, - without routing out all life.
Find me life on Venus as a contrast.

[Angus]

Originally posted by indy007
Actually, you'll find that deforestation has very little to do with cheaper lumber, burgers, and coffee. For example, when you order a home to be built, and the lumber is delivered, you're ordering for new trees to be planted. It's a renewable resource, and that's how the logging business works.

Massive deforestation is happening in poor countries by people trying to establish sustainable agriculture to feed their families. Things that "environmentalists" constantly protest against like genetically engineered crops and globalization are the keys to solving the problem.

Also, you can't have cheaper lumber if the supply is diminishing. The price would go up, not down.

Lumber is cheap while natural forests are being hacked down without being replaced. The supply isn't diminishing in a very visible way.
The coffee quote is on the same rod. Clean a forest, sell the lumber, then use the fertile topsoil to grow coffee or other sorts in untill the nutrition runs out, then you're down to grassland where you can still use as a pasture. Doing it in a balancing way is much more expensive. So, cheaper lumber, coffee and burgers until you run out of land, then the prices are up.
There is only one continent AFAIK that has this in equilibrum.
BTW, there is a lot of lumber available, but the important areas are in S-America, - effective photosyntesis needs warmth and sun.

[indy007]

Originally posted by Angus
Lumber is cheap while natural forests are being hacked down without being replaced. The supply isn't diminishing in a very visible way.
The coffee quote is on the same rod. Clean a forest, sell the lumber, then use the fertile topsoil to grow coffee or other sorts in untill the nutrition runs out, then you're down to grassland where you can still use as a pasture. Doing it in a balancing way is much more expensive. So, cheaper lumber, coffee and burgers until you run out of land, then the prices are up.
There is only one continent AFAIK that has this in equilibrum.
BTW, there is a lot of lumber available, but the important areas are in S-America, - effective photosyntesis needs warmth and sun.

Lumber will continue to be cheap, at least for Americans, because of the way logging businesses operate. Using lumber leads to more trees being planted, because owners are greedy and want their profits to continue indefinately.

However, everything you've said still does not address the fact that the evironmental groups you're very fond of supporting for their global warming views are the same groups that fund the fight against solutions to deforestation in continents like South America and Africa. I'll give you some examples...

DDT - the studies upon which the laws banning it were completely debunked.. yet it's still illegal, crops that could be protected are not (resulting in more land usage per pound of harvestable food), and millions a year die from Malaria.

Genetically Engineered Food - "environmentalists" or their groups "street teams" will stand outside of a grocery store in skull masks and signs declaring the government is trying to kill you with GE food.... even though the food has passed testing by the EPA, FDA, & USDA. Now, the FDA is good enough to trust for your antibiotics, but they're trying to kill you with GE food? It's a political arguement with little to no basis in reality. This is the same food that can solve world hunger and put a dent in the deforestation that is a problem by again, producing more food per acre, with less susceptability to disease, and draining fewer resources from the soil allowing for faster re-use of the same land.

Behind the vast majority of "environmentalists" is an anti-globalization or "corporate greed" arguement waiting to happen. You've done it yourself going on about cheap coffee and burgers (even though, for example, McDonalds is sourced predominately from established American farms).

There's a place for anti-corporation arguements. The environment is not one of them.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Elfie
Exxon is a company that is based in a country other than England, that was my point. They arent an English company. Many companies/corporations have international offices.

And my point is that they are based in the UK as well as many other countries. Their headquarters may be in the US (actually ExxonMobil Marine and ExxonMobil Aviation are uncannily enough, headquartered in Leatherhead in Surrey which is in the UK), but they trade in the UK and -- what's more germane -- they fund climate change denial in the UK too. And as previously pointed the Royal Society wrote to Esso -- ExxonMobil's UK division -- not ExxonMobil. Indeed I expect that the majority -- if not all -- of the Fellows of the Royal Society are or have been Esso customers. Customers complaining to a company -- how ironic!

The global warming issue isn't something that is unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists. If it were, you would be able to say Exxon is funding bad science....but.....it isn't. Even among those scientists who say global warming is an issue, don't all agree on the causes.

I didn't say the global warming issue was unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists (although it does seem to be the majority). I said that the Royal Society, as the premier group of scientists in the UK, is entitled to its opinion that Exxon is funding bad science, and is thus entitled to write and tell them so, because science is a universal rather than regional thing.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by -dead-
I said that the Royal Society, as the premier group of scientists in the UK, is entitled to its opinion that Exxon is funding bad science, and is thus entitled to write and tell them so, because science is a universal rather than regional thing.

So... trying to end an argument by saying, "Stop argueing with me my mind is made up." is in the spirit of good science?

[lazs2]

indy is an obvious shill for the lumber industry and he should be made to shut up by the royal scientists before he does any more harm.

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by lazs2
indy is an obvious shill for the lumber industry and he should be made to shut up by the royal scientists before he does any more harm.

lazs

Damn, figured out by Lazs of all people. You're not dead yet?



Catch you in the EWA, flying as "ndy".

[Angus]

Originally posted by indy007
Lumber will continue to be cheap, at least for Americans, because of the way logging businesses operate. Using lumber leads to more trees being planted, because owners are greedy and want their profits to continue indefinately.

However, everything you've said still does not address the fact that the evironmental groups you're very fond of supporting for their global warming views are the same groups that fund the fight against solutions to deforestation in continents like South America and Africa. I'll give you some examples...

DDT - the studies upon which the laws banning it were completely debunked.. yet it's still illegal, crops that could be protected are not (resulting in more land usage per pound of harvestable food), and millions a year die from Malaria.

Genetically Engineered Food - "environmentalists" or their groups "street teams" will stand outside of a grocery store in skull masks and signs declaring the government is trying to kill you with GE food.... even though the food has passed testing by the EPA, FDA, & USDA. Now, the FDA is good enough to trust for your antibiotics, but they're trying to kill you with GE food? It's a political arguement with little to no basis in reality. This is the same food that can solve world hunger and put a dent in the deforestation that is a problem by again, producing more food per acre, with less susceptability to disease, and draining fewer resources from the soil allowing for faster re-use of the same land.

Behind the vast majority of "environmentalists" is an anti-globalization or "corporate greed" arguement waiting to happen. You've done it yourself going on about cheap coffee and burgers (even though, for example, McDonalds is sourced predominately from established American farms).

There's a place for anti-corporation arguements. The environment is not one of them.

Indy, You're making a mistake here.
Firstly, I never mentoned any environmental groups that I am "fond of"
Actually, I am not fond of any particular ones.
Then back to the trees....
While you said this:
"Lumber will continue to be cheap, at least for Americans, because of the way logging businesses operate. Using lumber leads to more trees being planted, because owners are greedy and want their profits to continue indefinately."
..There are some things already there. The important thing IMHO is that the "owners" usually are looking at VERY short time profit, and instead of indefinate you can put "within a persons lifespan".
As for the coffee, I belive my argument stands quite well. You'd be surprized perhaps to realize how big a business it is. Then to burgers - well, I said "burgers", should have said "beef", - you said McDonald's and I didn't.
Anyway, the cheapest beef of the world as well as coffe and lumber is produced with a short term profit of huge deforestation. And exactly that is worth quite a concern, it's not all about the car you drive and how much the emission is, it's the other end as well.

[Elfie]

I didn't say the global warming issue was unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists (although it does seem to be the majority). I said that the Royal Society, as the premier group of scientists in the UK, is entitled to its opinion that Exxon is funding bad science, and is thus entitled to write and tell them so, because science is a universal rather than regional thing.

I dont believe I ever said they werent entitled to their opinion. They most certainly are. Just because they have an opinion doesnt mean anyone wants to hear it, or that they should voice it.

The irony that I see isnt because they voiced their opinion to an American company. I would see the same irony if a group of scientists in say...Nigeria voiced their opinion to a company based in say....Japan.

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Angus
It is well established (as well as described in this thread) how greenhouse effect works.
So, the wobbly factor is our earth,- this is all a big and complex thing, and the mass and sizes we are dealing with are enormous.
Bottom line though is that if we just carry on pumping and deforesting, that blue globe is one day hitting the boiling point. From that one there is no return.
Wanna have that land on your grandchildren? Me not.

I don't believe everything I read from one source as gospel truth on any subject, especially something as contentious as global warming.

The issue is not too big and complex for a lot of people to realize that they're being herded like sheep into believing in absolute answers, when science can't even agree on the equations to use to make a consistent and convincing educated guess.

And if that aint enough reason to be sceptical, then the tactics used by highly politicised global warming alarmists of muting  the nay sayers (and people in general that ask lots of awkward questions) for the apparent effect of giving the appearance of consensus amoungst the scientific fraternity, should at least raise a flag.

[Angus]

An abslolute occurance is that if you put a pint of water in a pot, then put it on fire, or on an electric heater, the water will at one time be influenced enough with the invisible forces at work, and...BOIL.
Be sceptic, but it will.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Angus
An abslolute occurance is that if you put a pint of water in a pot, then put it on fire, or on an electric heater, the water will at one time be influenced enough with the invisible forces at work, and...BOIL.
Be sceptic, but it will.

Unless you watch it.

[AKH]

Watching it won't stop it boiling