Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle"

Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SuzanneKneeling -> Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 1:42:58 PM)
Oh my. It just keeps getting worse and worse for the anti-science crowd. Just when you thought it was safe to write off the national and international scientific consensus (concenses?) - that the recent climate change (in the last 50 years) is mostly due to human activity - as a gigantic, well-coordinated liberal plot to tear your oversized SUV from your cold braindead hands (I mean, that British judge did find some statements in Gore's film he didn't agree with, right?), along comes this. Actually, it's been four years already (at least for Shell), but I just noticed it. Even the oil companies (with the notable exception of Exxon, which is still busy pumping money into disinformation websites/think tanks) are "on board". I tell you, this huge conpiracy just keeps on growing. Soon you won't know who you can trust! It's shocking how these environmental groups - outfunded some 1,000,000-to-1 or more by the oil industry PR bankrolls - somehow have bought out not only the world's scientists, but now those companies themselves. It's amazing what a little thing called irrefutable scientific evidence will do. Would any of the Flat Earth folks like to comment? British Petroleum says: http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=9012335&contentId=7025781 quote: "There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels, alternative actions are required now to avoid further emissions in the future." Shell Oil says: http://www.shell.com/static/au-en/downloads/corporate/annual_review_2003.pdf (note - big PDF file) quote: Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate. We believe that action is required now to lay the foundation for eventually stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in an equitable and economically responsible manner. * Oh, in case you'd missed them, here are a couple different compilations of the statements from every major climate-related scientific organization known to humankind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/gw_faq_hoax.htm (their links to the Shell and BP statements are outdated or have been moved by those companies; I had to google for what I posted above)

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 2:08:08 PM)
Crickets. I guess it's sobering to read that the companies previously funding the handful of "maverick" scientists the denial crowd likes to quote are now defecting over to the science side.

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 2:21:13 PM)
Sounds like they are just trying to preempt restrictive legislation against them. I've had a good laugh over BP's recent slew of TV commercials about how they are cleaning up the world. If they had initiated the idea of climate cleanup it would have been laudable, but let's face it their new public image is all consumer driven.

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 2:33:33 PM)
Actually to be fair BP is one oil company I have at least a mixed impression of. It's hard to tell if I'm just falling for their "green" PR campaign, but I do know they are on the forefront of solar energy research. There's a big plant outside DC devoted to that. Again, it's right next to the interstate and probably at least in part for the benefit of politicians and voters who drive by (can't be too careful when Congress is handing out billions in welfare checks to these companies every year!). But I think at least they are trying to be on the cutting edge when the inevitable shift away from fossils begins in earnest. Exxon on the other hand, will hopefully take its deserved place on the rotting dungheap of defunct corporations. They do not even pretend to give a damn, and actively work to mislead the public - http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html

Pernicious -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 2:34:46 PM)
Shell and BP have been bleating on about their work in finding alternative fuel sources for years in Europe. Them trying to play the sustainability and climate change card is nothing new to me. Maybe its news to the US but you’d have to ask your government why that is rather than the multinationals. Shock horror, multinationals have different approaches to advertising and ethics in different regions of operation based on the local level of public acceptability and legal framework. In short they'll act in a way your govenment allows them to. [8\|]

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 2:43:32 PM)
Yes, I thought it was interesting that I had to search for those two broken links (on the Gristmill page), and one of them ended up found on the "BP Australia" website. No public in the world is still as misled and defensive as Americans when it comes to climate change - not surprising given that we're causing more of it per capita (though China and India are gaining on us).

Archer -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 3:01:22 PM)
Morelike just tiering to have to repeat the same thing and be misquoted time after time. I buy that man has some influence, however I still find question as to how much is man and how much is nature or even external causes. Sun burns hotter. Documented scientific evidence. However nobody in the Global Warming Crowd want to give a number to how much the sun's hotter temperature is accountable for in the overall warming. The removal of several hundred polar stations in Russia from the average temp calculations (not intentionally for the global warming reason rather a budget concern in Russia. But the effect on the averages of removng X% of the polar stations is going to have an effect. The many stations in the NASA GISS system that are not meeting the standards that NASA themselves set and NASA's refusal to perform an internal audit of all their stations to make sure the data collected is acurate. Items like incandecent lightbulbs inside the intrument box burning 24/7, Stations set up at airports in direct line with the jetwash for airliner take off, Stations set up outside a bulding directly next to the outside AC unit heat exchanger, etc. Think those things might invalidate the data collected at that station? Guess what they have used the data anyway with no micro effect corrections. http://www.surfacestations.org/ I'm all for solutions that are feasible but I am also all for finding out what part is actually man's influence and what part is natural geologic/ atmospheric cycle. Do we need solutions regardless of cause? Certainly but we need solutions that are not going to crash the economy. CO2 scrubbers (Man Made Trees) was an interesting concept that I actually saw on TV last night. 8'x8'x15' (my estimate visual) unit cleans the same amount of CO2 out of the air in a day as a real live tree does in many years. Solar energy Love it waiting for this new generation of solar film that generates electricity to come out of testing with great hope. They are hoping for efficiencies in the 40% range which would make it feasable for real competition in the market. (Grätzel) cells are printed on film. The trouble I have is not with the idea of reduction of emmissions it's with the ALL OR NOTHING approach that so many have taken. OK Bush exempted some electrical plants from having to install the latest and greatest scrubbers and allowed them to istall new burners without them. Made headlines and sent folks screaming about how he was destroying the environment. Carefull study of the facts shows that the total emmissions per megawatt hour was REDUCED by allowing them to do this. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Clean Coal is not completely clean. OK true. Is it cleaner than what we are currently doing? Yes and by a reasonable margin. The problem is the no compromise political ground. Nobody on either side is willing to accept half a loaf.

philosophy -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 3:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer I buy that man has some influence, however I still find question as to how much is man and how much is nature or even external causes. Sun burns hotter. Documented scientific evidence. However nobody in the Global Warming Crowd want to give a number to how much the sun's hotter temperature is accountable for in the overall warming. ...aye and there's the rub. The argument is not whether or not there is a man-made component, the issue is what to do about it...if anything. Problem is, when those of us who early on said something should be done, there were many who said 'problem, what problem'. That attitude is still out there, fed by politicians and corporations that don't want to pay the short term cost (if any) of actually doing something. These boards tend towards a fairly representative range of opinions on the matter and it is easy to point at posters who still don't think there is a man made component to global warming. How did they arrive at these conclusions? Because a lot of money was spent on making sure that they did.....a hell of a lot more money than was spent on telling them the truth. You say you recognise that man has some influence on the issue.....good. It is, frankly, quite obviously true. However then you state that "nobody in the Global Warming Crowd want to give a number to how much the sun's hotter temperature is accountable for in the overall warming.". Are you quite sure that is true? Are you completely convinced that no scientist has made a stab at measuring that? Because i am equally convinced that some have......and that the idea that they haven't is propaganda designed to cast doubt on those of us who recognise that man can affect the climate. Let's wait a page or two.....let someone link to a scholarly page on the subject. Because then you may see how much propaganda you have, unwittingly i'm sure, fallen for........

Rule -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 4:27:40 PM)
If the global climate is getting warmer, then global evaporation and hence global cloud cover should have increased. I have just looked at this random local site: http://www.grotonutilities.com/water_welcome_rainfall.asp In 2006 there was an annual increased rainfall that was 18 per cent larger than the average rainfall - 47.89 - over 76 years. In 2001 the average rainfall over 71 years was 47.85; the in between years were lower than that. At this one site I see no significant evidence of an increase in rainfall over six years, just natural fluctuations. I quote from this site: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=403 "a tiny increase in average global cloud cover, less than 1%, is all that would be required to entirely wipe out the effect of CO2 doubling." The average global cloud cover these days seems to be between fifty and seventy per cent. (I haven't looked for exact numbers, but year statistics should be known.) So an increase of one per cent would not be noticable. Perhaps there is an increase in average global temperatures. In that case I would like to see the irrefutable scientific evidence: graphs of the average annual global cloud cover and the average global rainfall since the first satellites went up. In fact it may very well be that both were reduced as a consequence of exponential deforestation.

Alumbrado -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 5:01:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling Crickets. I guess it's sobering to read that the companies previously funding the handful of "maverick" scientists the denial crowd likes to quote are now defecting over to the science side. Crickets would be your response to questions about Occidental Petroleum. That gives every appearance of not being against Big Oil, just against anyone funding the 'team' you don't root for. Big Oil, Big Money, and Big Politics aren't partisan...and only partisans fail to see that...[:D]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 9:17:38 PM)
Suzanne... Why do the likes of Al Gore still run around in private Lear jets?

DomKen -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 9:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Suzanne... Why do the likes of Al Gore still run around in private Lear jets? Because the Secret Service won't allow protected individuals to fly commercial. Next question.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/23/2007 9:41:34 PM)
Umm...are we talking about global warming, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/24/2007 5:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Suzanne... Why do the likes of Al Gore still run around in private Lear jets? Because the Secret Service won't allow protected individuals to fly commercial. Next question. Not true... but,,, Then why does the likes of Lynn David?

Owner59 -> RE: Shell, BP now part of the "great climate change swindle" (10/24/2007 8:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Suzanne... Why do the likes of Al Gore still run around in private Lear jets? Because the Secret Service won't allow protected individuals to fly commercial. Next question. Not true... but,,, Then why does the likes of Lynn David? Any evidence,that "Al Gore still runs around in private Lear jets" Sounds like a phony right-wind jab. I heard Sean Hanity repeat that line,which sends up the bullshit-flag,every time.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125