Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

I agree that we are to be stewards of Creation. I agree we haven't done a good job. That may or may not mean the sky is falling due to man-made global warming.

your last sentence is the first half of the story...the good part is the whole redemption thing. read on.

 

Here's my take: My father worked for Exxon for 36 years. He was the environmental supervisor. He was even portrayed in a movie. "Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster."

At the time in 89, it was called Exxon Shipping. It has since been changed to Seariver Maritime. I won't give my last name, but in the movie, and in any book you read on it, my Dad's name was Craig.

First off, let me explain to some of you drones that I am proud as hell of my dad. He was incredible, even when Iarossi quit and left my dad to hold the fort. My dad had to go to the captain of the Coast guard during a hellacious storm and tell him he wasn't willing to risk one human life for a bunch of animals.

Sadly, that decision cost him any real promotion. My dad became the scapegoat, which was r****ded, because he valued humans more than animals. Ironically, had he chosen to send the boom out that night, and a few people died, Valdez might not be as memorable as it is now.

As for Global warming, and considering my dad is also an expert, I tend to follow his obvious rationing. We are trying to look at geological history when we have perhaps 1000 years of recorded history and less than 100 years of data.

As my dad says, regardless of who the scientist is, they simply don't have the data to make a sound judgement, and any scientist that says otherwise is simply lying.

OK. off of my soapbox. My father is an incredible guy. I envy him.


EDIT: And by no means am I saying we don't need to look at other means of fuel. I grew up in Baytown. I had constant nosebleeds, as did my other siblings. When we moved away (ironically, to Valdez, Alaska in 84), the nosebleeds stopped.

This country, and this world needs to produce a cleanlier energy. But the global warming thing simply doesn't stand up.

Nobody can try to deduce anything when you have .00000000000000000001% of knowledge.

Not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying they haven't even passed the hypothesis stage yet.

To anyone who should care to read: here is a report:

http://www.oilspilltaskforce.org/docs/project_reports/Finalfog.pdf

To anyone else who wants to call my dad's report out?

I'm always available.

 

I agree that we cannot know for sure if global warming is caused by humans.
That being said i am not for taking chances.

We should do something about the way we use the earth. We are destroying nature, and if we continue the way we are now at some point mammals will not make it and almost get extinct (including Humans). after that happens other animals will propably be the dominant animals on earth we will just not be around to see it.

I believe we as humans are not able to destroy the earth(and make it impossible for any organism to life on it). however we are able to make it impossible for mammals to life on, and like i said if that happens we as humans are screwed. And that might serve us right since we do not take care of this earth.

 

See..no offense, but this is the kind of rhetoric that turns people off.

You start by saying you "agree that we cannot know for sure if global warming is caused by humans," and end with the extinction of mankind at the hand of global warming.

This is the Chicken Little stuff that makes people doubt the real science that's out there. Because we've been sold this stuff so many times before. And you want to make policy on this stuff. Sorry, but that isn't reasonable.

Pollution is bad in and of itself. We all agree on that. Let's work to change it. Let's demand that our politicans get serious about cleaning it up. We don't need doomsday predictions based on computer models with umpteen assumptions to do that.

 

I understand what you are saying. But i think i as not completly clear what i meant.

Ok like i said i believe we cannot KNOW for sure that global warming is caused by humans. But like i said i do not want to take any chances. We as humans should do everything possible to be gentle with the nature. Because even though i think Mammals will get extinct eventually, i prefer it if it is rather later then sooner (but like i said before it will probably take a long time before we mammals get extinct).

Oh and one last thing i do not think Global warming will be the reason mammals get extinct. I do not like the way humans treat nature, but global warming is just a small part of it. (and even one that is not proven). it is much worse how we destroy the habitat of animals(just look at the amount of animal species getting extinct, the rate species get extinct at is higher then when the Dinosaurus got extinct). so my post was related to the way humans treat nature in general not just global warming(since we cannot know if it is true).

 

sorry if i offended you...clearly i didn't understand entirely what you were saying previously. would be a lot easier to discuss over a beer than over the net!

 

Oh you didn't offend me . I do not get offended easily (and like I have said before I respect you as a poster to much to offend me). I just wanted to make sure you understood what i said. I know my english writing isn't my best quality. I'm always better in discussing in person with people.

You do understand what i meant?

 

This "debunking" by Monckton was subsequently debunked .

And (not picking on you Max) the comment that you think it is "widely rebutted" is exactly what global warming deniers are hoping for. It's not some conspiracy of silence, as halfbreed and hayes are portraying - it's exactly the opposite. Cliamte change opponents get far more coverage than they ever deserved. Every debate is tacitly kept 50-50, when the data is not even remotely close to supporting such a division in thinking.

 

I disagree with this. The hypothesis that forms the backbone of global warming - the greenhouse effect - is accepted. There is no easy way to ignore physics in that way, unless you just flat out deny the absorptive capability of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which would definitely put you in the "crazy" camp.

Global warming is hard to deny either - the temperatures have gone up. And that is a big deal - a VERY big deal - when you consider that the earth's oceans are an ENORMOUS heatsink. The lagtimes can be thousands of years. We can totally stop producing any GHGs right now and the temperature will still go up for 100s or thousands of years because of the carbon we produced in the last century.

And the effects - which some here have said are hypothetical - are also not based on wild overpredicitions. There is an enormous impact to ecology with only a few degrees of warming. How soon and how drastic the eventual effects will be is an open question - and one that requires policy for 100s of years into the future. Present day politicians and corporations have a hard time sacrificing anything today for something that far in the future, especially if a mantra of "prediction" is hung on the research.

But that's a moot point IMO. The effect of temperature change is documented - it's biology, and it's physics. The issue is whether it will be so bad that we'll regret it. Why take that chance when all indications are that it will get worse before it gets better? That's just stupid planning - especially considering all the other hazards brought upon humanity via the use of fossil fuels.

The main problem serious people have about global warming is the reactionary solutions, most of which seem to primarily be a kind of retroactive success-tax on Americans. Example: Kyoto didn't deal with emerging countries who are both 1) ramping up energy use, and 2) aren't saddled with any of the green regulations that 1st world nations put on themselves (to put it very simply).

 

As my father has stated, there simply isn't enough data by a long shot to possibly create a "theory". Scientists can't even begin to explain why the last ice age occured.

Geologic time is hard for our society to comprehend. It works in millenia rather than years. I know that it's a bucket load o' fun to try and monday-morning quarterback everything, but this is a topic that anyone who has studied knows is impossible to know with any modicum of certainty.

 

No offense to your father, but that's a weird thing to say.

This is physics. It's the way it works. Your father would be correct to say that there is not enough to data to accurately predict the effects of said physics.

And the causes for the ice ages is pretty darn well understood, particularly the last one, the mini-ice-age in Europe.

Your comment regarding millenia is pertinent, as it is indicative of our inability to "last-second-fix" this problem. By the time people finally admit that the effects are bad - it will be too late - heck it may already be too late.

Why bet against yourself? Especially when (As you have pointed out) it would be nice to clean up the air a bit anyhow?

 

I've skimmed this thread and there is a few basic problems with this argument. The argument is that well since Exxon has funded global warming doubters which put their research into doubt then since other interested parties on the other side have funded global warming proponents then that research must be in doubt. The problem with this fallacy is that while there is conflict of interest on both sides the widely held consensus opinion does matter becasue the nature of peer reviewed science is to weed out those biases. As people correctly note scientists have turf battles and as part of those turf battles they like nothing more than to debunk other scientists. Therefore a widely held view is one rather than being the product of collusion but rather one that has survived enough challenges to become widely held.

For instance many here have brought up the point that global warming should be suspect since a few decades ago there was a widely held scientific view that global cooling was happening. The fact that global warming is now widely held though proves that the scientific community does change when presented with strong theories that can be rationally and empiracally supported. If the scientific community was as political and stubborn as portrayed then global warming would be the fringe view as climate scientists would be unwilling to consider the counter argument and evidence of warming.

The other major fallacy here is that the minority scientific view should be considered as valid as the majority scientific view. While minority views shouldn't be silenced they are still suspect to the burden of proof. Further given the nature of peer reviewed science they have a greater burden of proof since the prevailing view is there because there is a wide body of research supporting it. Much of the articles cited here arguing against global warming though have shown little evidence or rational argument about why global warming isn't happening but have instead dwelt mainly on how many credentials the scientist offering them have and how they are being persecuted by the rest of the scientific community. Whether they are being persecuted or not that still doesn't mean that their arguments are valid unless they support them with a rational argument and empiracal evidence.

Just because a scientist is going counter to a widely held opinion doesn't mean that scientist is right.

To be fair climate science is fraught with uncertainties and most climatologists will admit that its impossible to accurately model the Earth's climate and there are a lot of unknowns, otherwise we would have perfectly accurate whether forecast. The Earth's climate is incredibly complicated and our knowledge very limited. That said the argument for global warming is widely accepted because it rationally makes sense and there is a large amount of evidence supporting it and most new evidence, ice core samples, satellite data and other tends to support it. As MadMax cited it is true that there is a lot of uncertainty in it and there is backpedalling on many predictions. Those shouldn't be surprising as all of us know weather prediction is still very inexact. To assess the validity of global warming though shouldn't be based on hitting specific numbers but looking at broader trends. For global warming its obvious that there is a rapid increase in gases that are known to affect heat retention and at the same time average rises in temperature on a global scale. That right off from the start indicates that there might be a correlation.

 

Problems emerge even in the way you are describing the debate. There is plenty of data to suggest that this is a man made occurance, that it is a natural occurance, and even enough room to say there isn't enough data. If you simply lined up the 'scientists' who believed it was man made then you might have more numbers that believe it is man made, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the contrary opinion 'deserves' coverage. There is certainly a presumption against anyone challenging or opposing an alleged 'consensus' especially within the scientific community. This isn't a new phenomenon but rather one thousands of years old. That is an effect less of the 'hey we know we're wrong but let's smash this guy' conspiracy than the 'we all agree it is clear so there must be some other motivation' groupthink that has plagued consensus's (?) for a long time.

I don't think people can dispute it is getting warmer. Even Exxon admits this in case you guys didn't realize it. But there is plenty of dispute over the rest of the debate including whether or not this is man made or natural or from some other effect.

I also think it is important to note that there are vast differences of opinions even among the IPCC 'scientists' over these issues AND that those involved in such reports come from a wide variety of disciplines. While the issue is portrayed as 'settled' and findings like those from the IPCC are trumpeted as a consensus those differences of opinion seem to get lost in a generalized conclusion. When some of those IPCC 'scientists' come out against the conclusions that is certainly something we should take note of, and investigate, and be open to considering. Rather that writing off contrary opinions as conspiracy and 'bought and sold' testimony.

SC,

I agree that the gw/cooling debate shows the community can change, it also shows that a consensus can be incorrect and that the portrayal of the gw theory as the product of 'multiple decades' of work is at best an exaggeration.

I agree that there is a greater burden on the minority. My main point is not to be dismissive out of hand. I don't think anyone has said that because someone is going counter to a 'consensus' they are therefore right.

 

HayesStreet,

You are ignoring the fact that legitimate scientists get their work reviewed by other experts in their field.

 

Hayes, that is wholly incorrect. The IPCC report specifically rules out natural occurences as the primary driver for GHG accumulation. Their simply have not been enough eruptions/forest fires/etc. There is little "controversy" in this regard, since natural occurrences of such an extent are well documented surprisingly far back in history.

Opinions deserve coverage in newspapers - which is what happens. Opinions contrary to science or without appropriate data do not belong in peer-reviewed journals. That is the point of a "peer-reviewed" journal. Law schools apparently have other standards...

No argument.

It would be hard to, since the data indicates exactly that.

Hooray for Exxon. There is only debate in the effect. Natural cycles cannot account for the massive increases in GHGs since the 1800s, when *surprise* the industrial revolution just happened to take place.

No argument. If the arguments and the data are sound, they should be heard.

 

Fat's dad is correct. Our models are incomplete. We heavily rely upon these models extrapolation to confirm gw.

I take the pragmatic approach in these discussions and support err on the side of caution.

Most of these proposed green technologies can produce side benefits, so it's not a zero sum proposition like its opponents are ratcheting up. It's funny how both sides attack extremes. "Chicken Little" vs. "Economy/free market killer"

AFAIK, a weakened Gulf Stream was the best fit explaination for that mini ice age. There were also some large volcano eruptions that expelled tons of particulates into the atmosphere. Both the Gulf Stream (and the Global conveyor it belongs to) and the impact of volcanoes upon the atmosphere isn't darn well understood enough.

I totally agree. The biosphere is a well run machine. It can take up kinks and still be fairly balanced. We are definitely impacting the planet in more ways than one. It's unfortunate that gw is probably the only issue among the minds of the general public.

 

According to ol' fatty - that's not what his dad said. The hypothesis of climate change via man, i.e. that GHGs are causing global warmign via the greenhouse effect is proven physics. The extent and effect are the debate - so in that regard I agree with you about the models - they are tricky, particularly with guaging the effect of carbon sinks and the thermodynamics of the oceans. But the physics is undeniable - which is what I interpreted fatty's dad was denying.

 

While the models are incomplete as more information is being plugged into them the overall theory of global warming caused by CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases is holding up.

 

I think it'd be a remarkable event if we discovered how to impact one fundamental aspect of weather, but there's too many other variables to account for it. Researchers know some feedback mechanisms and those that they don't know fully, they don't put in their models.

There's convincing evidence that it holds up, but with precision comes accuracy. How much is an acceptable balance between CO2 abatement and economic interest? There are a lot of interested parties who need a model that can give a greater detail of how much the temp will rise. None such model exists. These decision makers are businessmen and politicians who listen to businessmen. Without a sufficient grasp upon risk, we're set in a deadlock where the deciding factor is based upon mood swings in public sentiment.

I totally despise this debate because it's only a tip of a greater issue of environmental awareness. Even if we somehow make the world less warm, it doesn't avert the threat of regional biomes collapsing. Despite that, the public's alarms stop ringing and it's business as usual.