Environment and the right

[AnGrYcRoW]

Delete

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

What it tells me is that they are no different than any other major corporation in the Western World. They pay lip service to the radical fringe Left because they fear the bad publicity if they don't, and/or their board members are just as deluded as you.

What it tells me about you is that you believe in narrative, not truth. Your failure to answer my question is evidence enough of that.

What this tells me is that you conspiracy theorists are completely crazy if you think that a giant like Exxon that developed the models for AGW would fear bad publicity over losing trillions in a per barrel carbon tax. Does that really make sense to you, they spent 10's of millions on the science over the past 40 years, if the "truth" as you put it was actually against man-made climate change why wouldn't they release it and save themselves trillions?

 

[Starman]

What this tells me is that you conspiracy theorists are completely crazy if you think that a giant like Exxon that developed the models for AGW would fear bad publicity over losing trillions in a per barrel carbon tax. Does that really make sense to you, they spent 10's of millions on the science over the past 40 years, if the "truth" as you put it was actually against man-made climate change why wouldn't they release it and save themselves trillions?

What "AGW models" are you referring to, specifically? And what "trillions" of dollars in losses are they incurring that they need to save themselves from?

 

[Starman]

Delete

Most intelligent response on the argument I've seen yet.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

What "AGW models" are you referring to, specifically? And what "trillions" of dollars in losses are they incurring that they need to save themselves from?

The bottom of this page highlights their papers

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/En...imate-science-research#mediareportedDocuments

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/...-documents/13_Exxon-Climate-Modeling-1984.pdf

The "trillions" is a the per barrel carbon tax on their hundreds of billions of barrels of reserves.

 

[Starman]

The bottom of this page highlights their papers

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/En...imate-science-research#mediareportedDocuments

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/...-documents/13_Exxon-Climate-Modeling-1984.pdf

The "trillions" is a the per barrel carbon tax on their hundreds of billions of barrels of reserves.

Don’t just vomit links out. They are not substitutes for arguments. You can cite sources, but again, in your own words, which “AGW models” were you specifically referring to, and who uses them?

Ditto for my second question, How many trillions of dollars has Exxon paid because of carbon taxes?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Don’t just vomit links out. They are not substitutes for arguments. You can cite sources, but again, in your own words, which “AGW models” were you specifically referring to, and who uses them?

Ditto for my second question, How many trillions of dollars has Exxon paid because of carbon taxes?

The AGW models are there in the bottom of the page, specifically:

13_Exxon-Climate-Modelling-1984.pdf - It shows the heat exchange and carbon cycle with the oceans and a model of the atmospheric effects of CO2 increases on the climate.

09_Exxon-Modeling-1982.pdf - Which models average temperatures due to CO2 concentrations.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/15/exxonmobils-commitment-to-climate-science/

Here is what they say about their contributions to climate science:

"As I’ve noted in prior posts, our scientists and researchers were among the first to grapple with the fact there might be a connection between the carbon dioxide emissions from humanity’s use of fossil fuels and climate fluctuations.

It should surprise no one that we have remained committed to pursuing climate change research since that initial discovery."

So everyone that is studying AGW today has been influenced by Exxon's early research.

The US currently does not have a per barrel carbon tax but there is looming bill in the house:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763

If they add a per barrel tax (as produced) to the the billions of barrels of reserves US Energy giants own... well you know how multiplication works don't you? For example $1 per barrel x 1 trillion barrels in reserves equals how much?

 

[MidnightSnacks**]

I have no idea why right wingers or anyone would be as anti environment as the republican party

They are shilling for oil companies to poison them, just to take the opposite stance from liberals. Its mind boggling

 

[no fat chicks]

Don’t just vomit links out. They are not substitutes for arguments. You can cite sources, but again, in your own words, which “AGW models” were you specifically referring to, and who uses them?

Ditto for my second question, How many trillions of dollars has Exxon paid because of carbon taxes?

Do you acknowledge co2 is a greenhouses gas?

 

[ShadowRun]

I have no idea why right wingers or anyone would be as anti environment as the republican party

They are shilling for oil companies to poison them, just to take the opposite stance from liberals. Its mind boggling

Not generally,

I think most agree we have to protect the environment, it's the solutions is where the disagreement is and how to transition to that.

 

[no fat chicks]

Not generally,

I think most agree we have to protect the environment, it's the solutions is where the disagreement is and how to transition to that.

I always hear this, but then no solutions from you guys

 

[Starman]

The AGW models are there in the bottom of the page, specifically:

13_Exxon-Climate-Modelling-1984.pdf - It shows the heat exchange and carbon cycle with the oceans and a model of the atmospheric effects of CO2 increases on the climate.

09_Exxon-Modeling-1982.pdf - Which models average temperatures due to CO2 concentrations.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/15/exxonmobils-commitment-to-climate-science/

Here is what they say about their contributions to climate science:

"As I’ve noted in prior posts, our scientists and researchers were among the first to grapple with the fact there might be a connection between the carbon dioxide emissions from humanity’s use of fossil fuels and climate fluctuations.

It should surprise no one that we have remained committed to pursuing climate change research since that initial discovery."

So everyone that is studying AGW today has been influenced by Exxon's early research.

The US currently does not have a per barrel carbon tax but there is looming bill in the house:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/763

If they add a per barrel tax (as produced) to the the billions of barrels of reserves US Energy giants own... well you know how multiplication works don't you? For example $1 per barrel x 1 trillion barrels in reserves equals how much?

The operative word used in the first sentence is might. Anyway, I digress.

Just so we’re clear, you think Exxon jumped on the climate change bandwagon to avoid a carbon tax that doesn’t yet exist, but would if they could prove climate change exists? They want to save trillions by pushing bunk science that could cost them billions?

Assuming this is true, why does Exxon donate millions to climate realists (skeptics, deniers, whatever word you want to use)?

 

[Starman]

Do you acknowledge co2 is a greenhouses gas?

I acknowledge that it is a necessary component for life on earth.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The operative word used in the first sentence is might. Anyway, I digress.

Just so we’re clear, you think Exxon jumped on the climate change bandwagon to avoid a carbon tax that doesn’t yet exist, but would if they could prove climate change exists? They want to save trillions by pushing bunk science that could cost them billions?

Assuming this is true, why does Exxon donate millions to climate realists (skeptics, deniers, whatever word you want to use)?

No, Exxon, Shell and other energy giants have been conducting their own research for decades as they should as this effects their bottom line. They've known since the beginning that the science behind AGW was sound but of course did not make their position public as environmental government regulations would cost them a lot of money. All of their data was conducted in obscure peer reviewed journals so no one in the media or government really knew.

And yes, for decades they did try and muddy the waters and paid for campaigns doubting the consensus and AGW theory itself. They did this of course to try and avoid government environmental regulations as it would cost them billions.

They finally PUBLICLY jumped on the climate bandwagon because they didn't have a choice, the data that was coming in from NASA/NOAA and other climate organizations was confirming what their early models predicted and people started finding their published data. There's no real way outside of AGW being disproven to avoid regulation now.

So I'm asking, if the science from NASA/NOAA and others was "bunk" why would Exxon, Shell and other energy giants not call them out on it now as they've been studying AGW and CO2 for decades and have poured 10's of millions into their own research. They could easily overturn the consensus by providing the "real" unbiased data and save themselves from costly regulation. Why instead have they changed their public position and agreed that the data and science is pointing to man made climate change being real?

 

[Starman]

No, Exxon, Shell and other energy giants have been conducting their own research for decades as they should as this effects their bottom line. They've known since the beginning that the science behind AGW was sound but of course did not make their position public as environmental government regulations would cost them a lot of money. All of their data was conducted in obscure peer reviewed journals so no one in the media or government really knew.

And yes, for decades they did try and muddy the waters and paid for campaigns doubting the consensus and AGW theory itself. They did this of course to try and avoid government environmental regulations as it would cost them billions.

They finally PUBLICLY jumped on the climate bandwagon because they didn't have a choice, the data that was coming in from NASA/NOAA and other climate organizations was confirming what their early models predicted and people started finding their published data. There's no real way outside of AGW being disproven to avoid regulation now.

So I'm asking, if the science from NASA/NOAA and others was "bunk" why would Exxon, Shell and other energy giants not call them out on it now as they've been studying AGW and CO2 for decades and have poured 10's of millions into their own research. They could easily overturn the consensus by providing the "real" unbiased data and save themselves from costly regulation. Why instead have they changed their public position and agreed that the data and science is pointing to man made climate change being real?

No, they couldn't overturn the consensus and it's ridiculous to suggest so. No one on the Left, including you, gives a DAMN what Exxon thinks. As far as you all are concerned they are the scum of the Earth. The only reason you are using Exxon as your example is because it aligns with your narrative. If they said the opposite, that it was all a bunch of horseshit, you and every one like you would (a) say well they're an oil company getting rich off destroying the environment, of course they don't agree, and (b) blast them daily on every media platform in existence today, worse than they already are and were.

The overwhelming majority of large companies who climbed aboard the climate alarmist train did so because they felt it was corporate suicide to go against the narrative being crafted by the activist media. It's beyond absurd to believe that Exxon is trying to save trillions by pushing an agenda that will eventually cost them billions if the Left is able to implement their plan to stop air travel, murder farting cows, and shut down oil wells. It's equally absurd to think they really believe in man-made climate change, yet donate millions to climate skeptics, because why?

That said, I have no doubt many of these companies have been infiltrated by retard "experts" who actually believe this shit, just like they believed the earth was headed for the next ice age before they decided that California would be underwater by 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, and whatever other ridiculous time-frame you jokers are now putting on it.

It's all horse shit. The Left has been trying to dupe the public with this for nearly 50 years with their climatic, catastrophic, existential weather apocalypse that just never seems to come true. Like I said earlier, call me when coastal cities are underwater and the ice caps have melted. Then we'll talk.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

First with Ronald Reagan triggering the 80s libs by taking down the Whitehouse solar panels and now Trump taking away basically every protection for the environment he can.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html

Can we return to a balance where our environment isn't a bi partisan issue?

I dunno, can we?

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I acknowledge that it is a necessary component for life on earth.

Annnd this is why I stopped conversing with this airhead .

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

No, they couldn't overturn the consensus and it's ridiculous to suggest so. No one on the Left, including you, gives a DAMN what Exxon thinks. As far as you all are concerned they are the scum of the Earth. The only reason you are using Exxon as your example is because it aligns with your narrative. If they said the opposite, that it was all a bunch of horseshit, you and every one like you would (a) say well they're an oil company getting rich off destroying the environment, of course they don't agree, and (b) blast them daily on every media platform in existence today, worse than they already are and were.

The overwhelming majority of large companies who climbed aboard the climate alarmist train did so because they felt it was corporate suicide to go against the narrative being crafted by the activist media. It's beyond absurd to believe that Exxon is trying to save trillions by pushing an agenda that will eventually cost them billions if the Left is able to implement their plan to stop air travel, murder farting cows, and shut down oil wells. It's equally absurd to think they really believe in man-made climate change, yet donate millions to climate skeptics, because why?

That said, I have no doubt many of these companies have been infiltrated by retard "experts" who actually believe this shit, just like they believed the earth was headed for the next ice age before they decided that California would be underwater by 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, and whatever other ridiculous time-frame you jokers are now putting on it.

It's all horse shit. The Left has been trying to dupe the public with this for nearly 50 years with their climatic, catastrophic, existential weather apocalypse that just never seems to come true. Like I said earlier, call me when coastal cities are underwater and the ice caps have melted. Then we'll talk.

Further and further down the conspiracy rabbit hole you go, looks like you've really lost it LOL. Why can't they overturn the consensus with data even though it's been done countless times in the past?

 

[jx820]

My investments are up.

The Market is up, which is nice, but most people are financially suffering.

Despite making up nearly a quarter of the population, millennials — defined as those born between 1981 and 1996 — own a scant 3% of the country's wealth, according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances. In comparison, when baby boomers were the age millennials are today (around 1989), they controlled 21% of all national wealth. Generation-X'ers at the same age (in 2004) held 6%.​

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/millennials-have-just-3-of-us-wealth-boomers-at-their-age-had-21/

The economic "boom" has provided very little benefit to the average american. Most people don't live off dividend income, and the soaring share prices of the past 10 years has been almost meainingless as average Americans and specifically younger Americans are poorer. Talking about the S&P at this point is "let them eat cake" territory.

Although with that stated, it's been trending in a slightly positive direction overall and specifically in the last 2ish years. It's still insufficient, but credit should be given where it's due.

 

[Starman]

Annnd this is why I stopped conversing with this airhead .

Carbon isn't a necessary component for all life? Are you not a carbon-based lifeform? Is carbon dioxide not necessary for the growth of plants and trees? This is not a controversial statement. The benefits of carbon dioxide are uncontroversial, scientific facts. The harms are speculative and unproven, and grow more doubtful with each predicted and impending doom that never comes to pass.

A recent study was done on the net positives of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You won't read at all, and you certainly won't read it before you pass judgement, but I'll leave it here for anyone who is an objective observer, instead of a religious fanatic. (Because that's what you are.)

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf