Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Elfie
I just find it ironic that an English society feels the need to try to tell a company in another country what they should/should not fund.

Mo Money!

Let`s divide the resources up between the properous countries and the less properous countries. Level the playing field and start over. (Read that as taking away from those who have worked for it it and contributed to it and giving it to those who have and will never contribute to aything) Pretty clear to see some still have not taken the time to see what the global warming for lunch bunch is really about.
How many little offbeat countries do you think would be chomping at the bits to take in industry that was not allowed in our and other countries if the more than lame guidelines of Kyoto were actualy followed? Kyoto be damned.
I noticed one poster even went so far as to ask what it would hurt to follow the lame  guidelines. Open your eyes. Jesse James at least had the integrity to use a gun. Sheeeeesh!

[lazs2]

I am not a fan of world socialism.

If world socialism is the only thing that will save the planet then I would rather lose the planet.

lazs

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
I am not a fan of world socialism.

If world socialism is the only thing that will save the planet then I would rather lose the planet.

lazs

Then you're being daft.

BTW, I am not a socialist.

[lazs2]

now you are making sense to me....  you feel that the act of taking your next breath is so important to you that you don't care what you have to do to get it?

I say, nope... some things I won't do.  and..  come up with another solution.

I am all for doing what we can to not polute.   I am in the business actualy.

I am also well aware that many of the solutions are ill thought out and punitive for no reason at all.   I see it every day.  I see the Water Quality Control Board using junk science and an iron fist to make bizzare regulations that have no grounding in anything but.... PC and a hunch.   the scientists are not alone.. they have an army of buerocrats who make the regulations based on theory.  

In just a few decades... I have seen "science backed" regulations in the Water/wastewater industry that have been completly reversed... regulations that caused harm and huge amounts of expense.   I have seen them use panic mongering to get their way.

So no... I am not gonna buy it until the proof and the solution are a lot more clear.   This looks dishonest and fishy to me.

lazs

[Angus]

So, give another solution.
It seems to be floating near if you compare the US vs Europe Emissions, the efficiency with GNP pr cubic of CO2 etc. The difference is too great to ignore, and how much of it is contributed because of one arm working more than the other?

And now, Lazs, for the surprize:

"I am also well aware that many of the solutions are ill thought out and punitive for no reason at all. I see it every day. I see the Water Quality Control Board using junk science and an iron fist to make bizzare regulations that have no grounding in anything but.... PC and a hunch. the scientists are not alone.. they have an army of buerocrats who make the regulations based on theory.

In just a few decades... I have seen "science backed" regulations in the Water/wastewater industry that have been completly reversed... regulations that caused harm and huge amounts of expense. I have seen them use panic mongering to get their way."

The surprize is: I think you are right. There is too much of this.
Take a single thing, the catalyzator..........

[lazs2]

Give another solution?   to what?  the possibility that our contribution to the natural global weather cycles is enough to get excieted about?

Ok... my solution?   We wait for free enterprise to come up with at way to make it cheaper to use another type of power over the $70 a barrel oil.

seems to me tho that the anti nuke "scientists" were screaming a different tale of doom and gloom and forsaw nuclear power as the real world ender.... "whatever will we do with the waste?"

seems that hybrid and electric cars are a net loss so far as pollution in manufacture and creating hazardous waste and the creation of electricity to run em... along with the battery waste.

Seems a lot of the solutions are pretty bad... we might not want to rush into an ill thought out and complex solution to a problem that may or may not exist in any dire way.

lazs

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Elfie
I just find it ironic that an English society feels the need to try to tell a company in another country what they should/should not fund.

Maybe they feel the need because ExxonMobil are in their country too?

Multinationals do tend to have offices and sell products in more than one country. Otherwise they can't be called their called multinationals. It's a tradition or an old charter or something.

If you read the letter the Royal Society sent to Esso (ExxonMobil's UK division), their problem with Exxon funding includes their funding of the UK-based think tank, International Policy Network, so they have a local interest. And the Royal Society has had the odd US member too - Benjamin Franklin for one.

The Royal Society is specifically a scientific organisation, so if they feel Exxon is funding bad science, then why shouldn't they write to them? Science isn't localised -- bad science in the US is equally bad science anywhere else.

[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.

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.

[Angus]

Lazs:
"Give another solution? to what? the possibility that our contribution to the natural global weather cycles is enough to get excieted about?"

It is. Again, - was calculated, predicted and is now being measured.

And Elfie:

"The global warming issue isn't something that is unanimously agreed upon by the worlds scientists"

Not quite but almost. This cuts across many parts of science and research, (such as metreology, oceanology, physics, and even agriculture).
Bottom line is that MOST scientists agree upon it. MOST people also agree upon the earth being round, but there are some who still belive it's flat.

[lazs2]

angus if that is true then it should be simple to just spell it all out for everyone.... not some charts that show a two degree difference but are 12" high.  

Even you must admit that the global warming guys are playing kinda dirty with the "facts"

When the facts become more apparent then we can do something... it will probly be the wrong thing considering sciences record for avoiding doom... but.. something.

Right now... I don't see any problem worth the horrible solutions being suggested...

akh says we pay too much for oil for what we get out of it...  but... offers no solution..  Why is that?  would a ban on houses no bigger than say 1500 square feet go over?  How bout a ban on living more than 2 miles from a major city?

let's hear some of the solutions besides "we need to make less Co2

lazs

[Angus]

Two degrees on a global scale are hard to "feel", but none the less, ENORMOUS.
Two degrees jumping at the speed they did, and while being parallell with CO2 emissions (and methane emissions, and deforestation) are UNIQUE.
To top that, this was being predicted from calculations.

So?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
To top that, this was being predicted from calculations.

So?

I've seen climate models that show rises of 2 to 7 degrees by 2100.  

If the rize is actually the lower end model, a skeptic that predicts a zero degree rize is closer than the model which predicts 7.

I am not skeptic that the climate is warming, as I know it is changing.  To remain static would be very strange indeed.  What I am skeptical about are all the divergent expert opinions as to how much things will change, and all are confident about their precision.

[Angus]

That is the hard side with metreology. Even seeing the weather tomorrow.
Yet there will be some weather tomorrow, and in most cases the guess is pretty close.

[Excel1]

Not close enough to predict what the climate will be like in 10.. 20 or 50 years. Meteorologists are often wrong even though they have solid historic records to base their predictions on. In comparison, global warming alarmists have gas bubbles in old ice and blind faith in their cause, and not much else as far as I can see, to base their unfounded speculat err predictions on.
 
Six months after the weather gurus predicted a warm and relatively dry winter we just got through the coldest wettest winter we have had in decades. And now they are predicting a dry El Nino summer... I think I'll ask santa for an umbrella to go with my socks.

[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.