Some of these "uneconomic investments" do make a decent return with the right climate (expensive gas prices) but are slammed by "market forces" for either not giving a high enough relative yield or distracting attention away from the main focus of the company. Those are other factors to the focus on short term stock price, but in principle, "uneconomic investments" generally serve in the form of R&D, whose department budgets have shrunk for many mainstream non-tech corporations. My point is that demand is largely driven by huge institutional investors that could quickly overshadow and outpace any "eco-minded investment proposition" on the other side of that transaction. If dollars were individual votes, society would be driven by a small minority group that heavily skews and biases the rest of the voters.
Having time to read the articles, this is seems to call into question doubt over the "scientific non-concensus, doesn't it? It's not that the truth is out there, Scully. The best available truth is there. You just don't want to believe.
Umm, that's the thing - there is no evidence here that Exxon knew that global temperatures were rising when even NASA's top scientist were uncertain. That's a mighty hard claim to believe without any substantial evidence. CO2 counters and boardroom presentations aside, even James Hansen notes in his 1988 testimony that clear evidence had not been available until "recent years". We get it - Exxon is a big and powerful corporation but they are not all knowing.
Reading fail again. You act like a blind chick waiting for mama bird to vomit out the nice tidbits for you. They're not blamed for failing to be all knowing. They're blamed for taking the data and conclusions their own scientists reached in the 70s, then absolutely ignoring it to incite a campaign of fear, uncertainty, and doubt with proven lobbyists in the tobacco industry in order to promote the opposite conclusion to the public. Are you even reading the thread or are you entering some fugue-like state on a post-by-post basis?
You are debating something completely different. I'm not saying Exxon has lead any sort of campaign of fear(?). I'm saying the notion that they knew that the earth was warming before NASA is not convincing. Like I said - Exxon is a big and powerful organization but let's get back to reality. I am just saying that with what has been presented, I am unconvinced that Exxon knew the earth was warming in 1977.
There is no such thing as all knowing. If that's the criteria that must be met, you just asked that they be God. They knew plenty enough. After going for almost a decade of research to answer some of the earlier uncertainty which strengthen their knowledge that CO2 heat up the planet and increasing their consensus, Exxon decided to just not be quiet about it, but actively start a disinformation campaign.
I'll bite. //retches <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2yxodqzzzZo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> And yes fear(!). I'm saying it, while you're not saying it. For most of the last 25 years, the fear for acting towards removing fossil fuel emissions has been the potential economic costs in carrying out the reductions scientists at the time suggested. At this point in time, it's not that significant and could potentially be beneficial. Would you like me to read the papers embedded in the links for you? I know a great old school leader when I see one.
Like I said - Svante Arrhenius discovered CO2's greenhouse effect in 1896. What did Exxon discovery through its own research?
Since it's within a relatively small community in the early 80s, I would said it's not general consensus. I think it's accurate to said it was moving toward consensus among those that worked on it at that time. It certainly misleading to said they don't believe CO2 causes earth to warm... they had enough and knew enough to certainty believe that.
This is beyond silly. I initially ignored it as trolling by you. Arrhenius didn't go through near a decade to actual hand-on research using 1977-1981 equipment and computer and collaborating with multiple experts and scientists among multiple public/private departments and disciplines.
Cohete isn't crazy. I don't think he was attacking me either. My attitude to Cohete projects that he doesn't want to debate, but he's definitely human. This is a sports forum and I'd still drink with everyone of you.
There are many humans who are crazy. And they are many crazy people worth having a drink with. Look, just read his thread: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=268856
Of course they knew about CO2's greenhouse effect, and knew about climate change. Exxon wanted to confirm if the increase in CO2 was anthropogenic. As far as I know, Exxon has not denied that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. Exxon used it's knowledge to leverage itself in a world in which they felt CO2 would be regulated. They are now the largest natural gas producer in the US. To say they "knew about climate change" isn't surprising or startling.
Hey, just because I can read between the lines and cast aside "saving face" doesn't make me crazy. It might make me different. I did rescind my original comments about Ahmed's clock.
You're right, you are not crazy. Just a moron. That thread about Nazis and climate change shows that you don't just read between the lines, you make **** up between the lines.
Satire? God I hope so. The price of oil has absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand. Neither does much of modern economics.
