Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
97 days ago.
by slinky
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Kunectdots

"Everyone Chill Out: The North Pole Is Not Really a Lake"

h ttp://news.yahoo.c om/everyone-chill-north-pole-not-really-lake-193542663.html

Posted 926 days ago.

Kunectdots

Methane hydrate burp??? Don't worry about it!

h ttp://news.yahoo.c om/arctic-methane-claims-questioned-165849114.html

Posted 926 days ago.

harryanderson

Although Pete Rose struck out sometimes, he still got more hits than any other major leaguer.

Posted 926 days ago.

Kendall78

You can't judge climate change by how cold or hot any given day or week is around your local area. You have to look at the big picture. Climate change is a global phenomenon that finds its cause also at a global level.

Posted 926 days ago.

mythravere

Guess we all know where the cold went then since the north pole had a melt water lake/pond around it this past week!

Bet you didn't hear about that did you? And if you did. Why....no mention of it?:)

Posted 926 days ago.

*******en.wikiarquitectura****/images/c/c9/Brooklyn_Bridge_1.jpg

Posted 933 days ago.

harryanderson

Show me something worth buying.

Posted 934 days ago.

I'm curious Harry, I've got the title to this bridge I'm thinking of selling...I'm curious, would you be interested???

Posted 934 days ago.

harryanderson

And, AaronS, you wrote, “The decision to allow such a comment was not made lightly, included many individuals in many different roles and included the cost of paying for carbon emissions via a carbon tax versus paying for those same emissions in the form of an EPA fine or penalty.”

By what authority do you claim to know so much about the decision-making processes of Exxon-Mobile and Shell? Are you an executive of either corporation?

One could just as easily say that Exxon Mobil and Shell made their statements because their own scientists are convinced that greenhouse gas emissions are harmful.

Of course, I’m not privy to their decision-making, so I can’t say for sure. Can you?

Posted 934 days ago.

harryanderson

“…according to the sources you cited, certain high level executives have publicly stated a belief in climate change.

This belief doesn’t come only from “certain high level executives.” The corporations state them. Note that the statement from Shell comes from their official website, and no individual is mentioned as the source.

And read again the quote in Reuters. It says, “Exxon Mobil (not Tillerson)…has acknowledged that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet’s climate.”

Furthermore, Exxon-Mobile’s web site contains this statement: “Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems.”

ww w.exxonmobil.c om/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx

Exxon’s statement, like Shell’s, cites neither Tillerson nor any other high level executive. It’s from the company.

Posted 934 days ago.

No Harry, according to the sources you cited, certain high level executives have publicly stated a belief in climate change. Whether they do or not is of little relevance as one person, even the President and/or CEO has the authority to make such bold, public statements on behalf of the corporation. The decision to allow such a comment was not made lightly, included many individuals in many different roles and included the cost of paying for carbon emissions via a carbon tax versus paying for those same emissions in the form of an EPA fine or penalty.

Regardless of what one individual believes about climate change and exactly what or who is responsible took a back seat to the bottom line in all three corporations.

Posted 934 days ago.

harryanderson

AaronS wrote, “This is not about whether Shell, Exxon, or Appalachian Power suddenly believes in climate change.”

According to the sources I cited previously, Shell and Exxon certainly do believe that CO2 emissions cause climate change. In order to refresh everybody’s memory, I’ll repost excerpts from the two quotes I posted before.

From Shell’s website: “At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.”

And as to Exxon, as reported by Reuters: “Exxon Mobil, once one of the staunchest critics of climate change research, has acknowledged under Tillerson's leadership that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate.”

They know that you don’t dig your corner office for long when you dig a quicksand foundation under it.

Posted 937 days ago.

Of course Shell and Exxon now support pricing CO2. Appalachian Power has taken the same stance. The EPA has classified CO2 a pollutant and therefore, will regulate emissions. They can do so either up front with a “Cap and Trade” carbon TAX (call it what it is) or after the fact with fines for emission violations that exceed allowed amounts.

The energy companies that face fines if CO2 is regulated vie emission fines do not want that because they cannot account for the cost and pass it along to their customers. If they know the cost then they can classify the tax as part of their contribution margin and pass it along to the customer.

This is not about whether Shell, Exxon, or Appalachian Power suddenly believes in climate change. It is nothing more than a business decision based on economics and what is best for their bottom line.

Posted 937 days ago.

Thatsabsurd

Plenty of repukins believe in the climate change farce. Many democraps do not believe in the farce.......only the imbeciles from either party believe it and tout it after its been "PROVEN" time after time to be farce.

Stupid imbeciles

Posted 937 days ago.

heywoodjablowme

If you read his post, you'll see it isn't Harry being quoted.

Harry, Have you ever claimed to be a scientist?

Posted 942 days ago.

harryanderson

What does the creation of earth have to do with the issue under discussion?

Posted 942 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m not yet endorsing the position of Exxon-Mobile and Shell that we need to, in Shell’s words, “put a price on CO2.”

But we do need to have a reasonable discussion about it. We need to stop calling the science a hoax. We need to stop calling those who propose solutions frauds and hypocrites, and instead focus on the relative merits of their solutions.

Here’s another idea: Former Bush advisor Samuel Thernstrom has advocated that we explore the efficacy of geoengineering as a partial solution. He has mentioned letting fine sulfur particles into the atmosphere to block some sunlight from reaching the earth.

Posted 942 days ago.

harryanderson

Well, mythravere, I believe that both the Republican Party and American businesses will keep moving toward more reasonable approaches.

“Exxon Mobil, once one of the staunchest critics of climate change research, has acknowledged under Tillerson's leadership that human-made emissions have contributed to altering the planet's climate. The company now supports taxing carbon emissions.”

ww w.reuters.co m/article/2012/06/27/us-exxon-climate-idUSBRE85Q1C820120627

And from Shell Oil: “All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies.”

ww w.shell.co m/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

Posted 942 days ago.

How did you get to be such an expert on how the republican party "is ran", myth? Do you get up every morning thinking about what lies you can make up today? You know nothing about how conservatives think.

But we do know that the democrat party is RUN by having dead people, illegals, and Mickey Mouse characters vote. And by having a corrupt IRS, EPA, and Justice Dept.

Posted 942 days ago.

mythravere

They cant discuss it! No two ways to it. They acknowledge it as a problem in need of solutions and several things will happen. They get branded a RINO. The corporations opposed to the facts surrounding climate change will start throwing money at the person bringing it up to knock them out of office. And the "conservative" voters will go all ape crap on them.

Its a really big mess in how the Republican party is ran right now.

Tow the party line or get out. Simple as that. Group think or nothing else.

Whats even more messed up is where the objecting voice on climate change is coming from. The very same corporations that have a hand in causing the issue.

Posted 942 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or