Comments on: Exxon believes in global warming, but pays shills to lie about it

By: bi

bi — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:36:38 +0000

I have a suspicion that aaron is really some sort of bizarre bot. Here’s something from his blog:

“Many people blame Bush policy for our troubles in Iraq. I think these people are incredibly narrow-minded. Our greatest weakness in Iraq is policy.”

It’s a Zen koan, I say.

By: JJ

JJ — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:04:20 +0000

Yawn. Aaron, We've had proof for a long time that CO2 causes climate change. Click here (commissioned by the White House). And here. Here. I am so tired of playing wackamole.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:25:00 +0000

Fred Singer told him

By: Steve LaBonne

Steve LaBonne — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:32:19 +0000

And you know this how, aaron?

By: aaron

aaron — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:22:24 +0000

Our impact on the climate is insignicant to the natural variation. That we can even measure it is a feat.

By: bi

bi — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:29:12 +0000

aaron:

Round and round the cobbler’s bench
The monkey chased the weasel,
The monkey thought ‘twas all in fun
Pop! Goes the weasel.

A penny for a spool of thread
A penny for a needle,
That’s the way the money goes,
Pop! Goes the weasel.

By: neil

neil — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:26:04 +0000

This company does not deny the contribution of carbon emissions to climate change! Does anyone know of a company nearby that does?

By: Christopher Walker

Christopher Walker — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:13:48 +0000

If anyone would like to see Exxon/Mobil’s political clout eroded a little, you might want to look at the ActBlue page below:

http://www.actblue.com/page/defeat-exxon-pac-incumbents?refcode=timber

Where I have profiled about a dozen candidates running for the US House and Senate against incumbents who take money from Exxon/Mobil’s PAC.

By: david tiley

david tiley — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:46:47 +0000

The model is not uncommon. Denialist shills behave like lawyers. But of course lawyers act in an explicit frame of reference, by clear rules, in which they are not expected to believe their case.

As citizens, the denialists are expected to believe their argument, and trade on their “integrity”.

By: aaron

aaron — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:39:55 +0000

Believing in climate change doesn’t mean that you believe it is important or catastrophic.

By: Walt

Walt — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:22:59 +0000

Noumenalself: There is no countervailing invested interest in regulating carbon emissions. The only invested interest is on the other side.

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:05:46 +0000

The shills aren’t vital as long as Bush is in the White House, and he’s already moved to Plan B, which is to appear to do something about global warming while not actually doing so. It only takes a slightly careful reading of his speeches to see that he has defined the problem as excess dependence on foreign oil and not global warming, and that all his policy proposals involve pie-in-the-sky technologies and place zero emphasis on behavioural changes. Particularly telling is the absence of any proposal to absorb the recent decline in oil prices in higher petroleum taxes.

By: NoumenalSelf

NoumenalSelf — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:27:27 +0000

Acknowledging that carbon emission are a factor contributing to climate change is hardly the same thing as acknowledging the full-blown theory that there is a global warming crisis and that it is being caused, fundamentally, by human industry.

It may very well be true that, all things being equal, carbon emissions contribute to atmospheric warming. But all things may not be equal. Critics of the warming hypothesis contend that there are countervailing factors and feedback mechanisms that check this causal factor.

Also, the fact that these critics may receive support from industry does not by itself impugn the integrity of their arguments. To say otherwise is gross ad hominem. Why is it that when scientists take money from industry, they are attacked as non-objective, but when they take money from bureaucrats with a vested interest in regulation, they are regarded as above suspicion? Neither source of money necessarily corrupts the objectivity of judgment.

By: Joey D

Joey D — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:28:35 +0000

It’s scary how these people will say whatever the owner of the so called spigot wants them to, as long as the price is right.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:33:30 +0000

I know two sisters who have inherited their father’s Exxon Valdez 17 years ago. As far as I know, after the cosmetic cleanup (wiping off visible oil, etc.), the company has successfully dragged its feet on settling. Their strategy was to wait till the news lost interest.