Global warming is a litmus test for US Republicans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... epublicans
Global Warming/Climate Change 2
-
sandman67
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4398
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:11 pm
- Location: I thought you had the map?
Re: Global Warming 2
A few more relevant articles based in FACT rather than dumbass opinionating from the right wing echo chamber
Climate change arguments incite 'weird religiosity', says Greg Barker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... reg-barker
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... illie-soon
NB: He is just one on a long list of such paid for opinionators linked to energy companies
BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... e-coverage
Science and truth have been cast aside by our desire for controversy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-sceptics
In an open letter to the University of Notre Dame, signatories say the climate sceptic stands for 'ignorance and superstition'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... y-lecture1
NB: The phony Lord is now the subject of a cease and desist action by the House of Lords
Why Australia is vulnerable to both climate change and climate sceptics - The 'lucky country' may feel the impacts of global warming particularly harshly, but the world's biggest coal exporter remains a haven for sceptics. Now scientists are fighting back
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... -australia
Climate sceptics flirt with intelligent design and Islamophobic group - American Freedom Alliance invites prominent climate sceptics to Los Angeles to debate 'green tyranny'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ulturalism
NB: - The AFA is classed as a hate group and ID is, by court ruling, creationism v3
Climate 'trutherism': the conspiracy theory that's no joke - To its eternal shame, the Republican party has taken climate change denial out of the crank fringe and made it mainstream
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... acy-theory
and the list goes on and on and on......
Over 90% of scientists with relevant qualifications agree that man made climate change is fact.
To set yourself against that body of opinion puts you in the same category of people who deny evolution as fact (supported again by over 95% of the relevant scientific community).....as Lewis Black said....pure f*cknuts.
There is an ongoing debate in the rationalist community about what is termed "Black Knight Syndrome" after the Monty Python and the Holy Grail sketch.
Black Knights are the people who have gone beyond what can be classed as ignorance and now choose willful ignorance - the deliberate denial of reality and fact in preference to irrational belief based on unqualified opinion. The concensus is that evolution deniars and climate change deniars are Black Knights...no amount of rational debate and evidence will change their viewpoint. Ignorance can be changed, wilfull ignorance can not.
Climate change denialists should just start every argument with "Tis but a scratch".
And I will leave you with this nutmeg care of our US chums...the country where "God Did It" is seen as an acceptable answer on biology test papers.....here is the reason we are doomed....because the Black Knights are running their government
Tis But A Scratch!!!!
Climate change arguments incite 'weird religiosity', says Greg Barker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... reg-barker
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... illie-soon
NB: He is just one on a long list of such paid for opinionators linked to energy companies
BBC gives too much weight to fringe views on issues such as climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... e-coverage
Science and truth have been cast aside by our desire for controversy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... e-sceptics
In an open letter to the University of Notre Dame, signatories say the climate sceptic stands for 'ignorance and superstition'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... y-lecture1
NB: The phony Lord is now the subject of a cease and desist action by the House of Lords
Why Australia is vulnerable to both climate change and climate sceptics - The 'lucky country' may feel the impacts of global warming particularly harshly, but the world's biggest coal exporter remains a haven for sceptics. Now scientists are fighting back
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... -australia
Climate sceptics flirt with intelligent design and Islamophobic group - American Freedom Alliance invites prominent climate sceptics to Los Angeles to debate 'green tyranny'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ulturalism
NB: - The AFA is classed as a hate group and ID is, by court ruling, creationism v3
Climate 'trutherism': the conspiracy theory that's no joke - To its eternal shame, the Republican party has taken climate change denial out of the crank fringe and made it mainstream
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... acy-theory
and the list goes on and on and on......
Over 90% of scientists with relevant qualifications agree that man made climate change is fact.
To set yourself against that body of opinion puts you in the same category of people who deny evolution as fact (supported again by over 95% of the relevant scientific community).....as Lewis Black said....pure f*cknuts.
There is an ongoing debate in the rationalist community about what is termed "Black Knight Syndrome" after the Monty Python and the Holy Grail sketch.
Black Knights are the people who have gone beyond what can be classed as ignorance and now choose willful ignorance - the deliberate denial of reality and fact in preference to irrational belief based on unqualified opinion. The concensus is that evolution deniars and climate change deniars are Black Knights...no amount of rational debate and evidence will change their viewpoint. Ignorance can be changed, wilfull ignorance can not.
Climate change denialists should just start every argument with "Tis but a scratch".
And I will leave you with this nutmeg care of our US chums...the country where "God Did It" is seen as an acceptable answer on biology test papers.....here is the reason we are doomed....because the Black Knights are running their government
Tis But A Scratch!!!!
"Science flew men to the moon. Religion flew men into buildings."
"To sin by silence makes cowards of men."
"To sin by silence makes cowards of men."
Re: Global Warming 2
"All right, we'll call it a draw!"
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?
Re: Global Warming 2
Meet the critters running away from global warming
ANIMALS across the world are fleeing global warming by heading north much faster than they were less than a decade ago, a new study says.
About 2000 species examined are moving away from the equator at an average rate of more than 15 feet per day, or about a mile per year, according to new research published in the journal Science which analysed previous studies.
Species are also moving up mountains to escape the heat, but more slowly, averaging about 4 feet a year.
The species — mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and including plants — moved in fits and starts, but over several decades it averages to about 8 inches an hour away from the equator.
"The speed is an important issue," said study main author Chris Thomas of the University of York.
"It is faster than we thought."
Included in the analysis was a 2003 study that found species moving north at a rate of just more than a third of a mile per year and up at a rate of 2 feet a year.
Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas, who conducted that study, said the new research makes sense because her data ended around the late 1990s and the 2000s were far hotter.
US weather data shows the last decade was the hottest on record, and 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record.
Gases from the burning of fossil fuel, especially carbon dioxide, are trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth and changing the climate in several ways, according to the overwhelming majority of scientists and the world's top scientific organisations.
As the temperatures soared in the 2000s, the species studied moved faster to cooler places, Dr Parmesan said. She pointed specifically to the city copper butterfly in Europe and the purple emperor butterfly in Sweden.
The comma butterfly in Great Britain has moved more than 135 miles in 21 years, said Prof Thomas.
It's "independent confirmation that the climate is changing", Dr Parmesan said.
One of the faster moving species is the British spider silometopus, Prof Thomas said. In 25 years, the small spider has moved its home range more than 200 miles north, averaging 8 miles a year, he said.
Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who wasn't part of this study but praised it as clever and conservative, points to another species, the American pika, a rabbitlike creature that has been studied in Yellowstone National Park for more than a century. The pika didn't go higher than 7800 feet in 1900, but in 2004 they were seen at 9500 feet, she said.
For Prof Thomas, this is something he notices every time he returns to his childhood home in southern England. The 51-year-old biologist didn't see the egret, a rather warm climate bird, in the Cuckmere Valley while growing up.
But now, he said: "All the ditches have little egrets. It was just a bizarre sight."
Prof Thomas plotted the movement of the species and compared it to how much they would move based on temperature changes. It was a near perfect match, showing that temperature changes explain what's happening to the critters and plants, he said.
The match wasn't quite as exact with the movement up mountains and Prof Thomas thinks that's because species went north instead or they were blocked from going up.
Prof Thomas found that the further north the species live, the faster they moved their home base. That makes sense because in general northern regions are warming more than those closer to the equator..
Conservation biologist Mike Dombeck, a former US Forest Service chief, said changes in where species live — especially movements up mountains — was a problem for many threatened species.
Prof Thomas said what he's studied isn't about some far off problem.
"It's already affected the entire planet's wildlife," he said in a phone interview.
"It's not a matter that might happen in the lifetime of our children and our grandchildren. If you look in your garden you can see the effects of climate change already."
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-t ... 6118077644
ANIMALS across the world are fleeing global warming by heading north much faster than they were less than a decade ago, a new study says.
About 2000 species examined are moving away from the equator at an average rate of more than 15 feet per day, or about a mile per year, according to new research published in the journal Science which analysed previous studies.
Species are also moving up mountains to escape the heat, but more slowly, averaging about 4 feet a year.
The species — mostly from the Northern Hemisphere and including plants — moved in fits and starts, but over several decades it averages to about 8 inches an hour away from the equator.
"The speed is an important issue," said study main author Chris Thomas of the University of York.
"It is faster than we thought."
Included in the analysis was a 2003 study that found species moving north at a rate of just more than a third of a mile per year and up at a rate of 2 feet a year.
Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas, who conducted that study, said the new research makes sense because her data ended around the late 1990s and the 2000s were far hotter.
US weather data shows the last decade was the hottest on record, and 2010 tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record.
Gases from the burning of fossil fuel, especially carbon dioxide, are trapping heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth and changing the climate in several ways, according to the overwhelming majority of scientists and the world's top scientific organisations.
As the temperatures soared in the 2000s, the species studied moved faster to cooler places, Dr Parmesan said. She pointed specifically to the city copper butterfly in Europe and the purple emperor butterfly in Sweden.
The comma butterfly in Great Britain has moved more than 135 miles in 21 years, said Prof Thomas.
It's "independent confirmation that the climate is changing", Dr Parmesan said.
One of the faster moving species is the British spider silometopus, Prof Thomas said. In 25 years, the small spider has moved its home range more than 200 miles north, averaging 8 miles a year, he said.
Stanford University biologist Terry Root, who wasn't part of this study but praised it as clever and conservative, points to another species, the American pika, a rabbitlike creature that has been studied in Yellowstone National Park for more than a century. The pika didn't go higher than 7800 feet in 1900, but in 2004 they were seen at 9500 feet, she said.
For Prof Thomas, this is something he notices every time he returns to his childhood home in southern England. The 51-year-old biologist didn't see the egret, a rather warm climate bird, in the Cuckmere Valley while growing up.
But now, he said: "All the ditches have little egrets. It was just a bizarre sight."
Prof Thomas plotted the movement of the species and compared it to how much they would move based on temperature changes. It was a near perfect match, showing that temperature changes explain what's happening to the critters and plants, he said.
The match wasn't quite as exact with the movement up mountains and Prof Thomas thinks that's because species went north instead or they were blocked from going up.
Prof Thomas found that the further north the species live, the faster they moved their home base. That makes sense because in general northern regions are warming more than those closer to the equator..
Conservation biologist Mike Dombeck, a former US Forest Service chief, said changes in where species live — especially movements up mountains — was a problem for many threatened species.
Prof Thomas said what he's studied isn't about some far off problem.
"It's already affected the entire planet's wildlife," he said in a phone interview.
"It's not a matter that might happen in the lifetime of our children and our grandchildren. If you look in your garden you can see the effects of climate change already."
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-t ... 6118077644
Re: Global Warming 2
I'm with 'em! I would like to move at least 15 feet per day further from the equator!
Animals have once again proven that they are smarter than us humans!
Animals have once again proven that they are smarter than us humans!
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?
-
dtaai-maai
- Hero
- Posts: 14882
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:00 pm
- Location: UK, Robin Hood country
Re: Global Warming 2
Certainly smarter than the humans who insist global warming is a left wing conspiracy!hhfarang wrote:Animals have once again proved that they are smarter than us humans!
This is the way
Re: Global Warming 2
Arctic ice cover nears record lows
Driven by an unprecedented meltdown across much of the Canadian North, the planet's Arctic ice cover has retreated this summer to its second-smallest extent in the 30-year satellite era — and may yet shrink beyond the record-setting thaw that alarmed scientists around the world in 2007.
The opening up in August of both the southern and northern routes of the Northwest Passage through Canada's Arctic islands, along with the clearing out of ice from much of the Beaufort Sea north of the Yukon-Alaska border, are among the highlights of a new report on the state of Arctic ice issued this week by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The Colorado-based centre, which closely tracks the seasonal ebb and flow of Arctic ice, said it expects this year's ice minimum — a state typically reached in mid-September — to come close to matching the 2007 super-thaw.
That event simultaneously raised concerns about global climate change but also fuelled increased interest among polar countries in Arctic navigation, tourism and oil and gas exploration.
Each winter, Arctic Ocean ice builds up to a maximum of about 14 million square kilometres, covering the central sea surrounding the North Pole and freezing over the many bays and straits throughout Canada's vast Arctic archipelago.
Since satellite monitoring began in 1979, the summer melt has seen total Arctic ice cover diminish, on average, to about seven million square kilometres by mid-September, before dropping temperatures restart the winter buildup.
But beginning in 2007, when the end-of-summer ice minimum hit a modern-day low of 4.13 million square kilometres, scientists have recorded the five greatest ice retreats of the satellite era in the past five years. The latest data from the NSIDC has this year's retreat at about 4.5 million square kilometres, with another week or two still left to go before the melt season ends.
"Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea route appear to be open," the centre stated in its Sept. 6 report, referring to the fabled shipping route through Canada's Arctic and its Eurasian counterpart along the northern coast of Russia.
"Throughout August, sea ice extent tracked near the record lows of 2007, underscoring the continued decline in Arctic ice cover," the report added.
Citing data from the Canadian Ice Service, a branch of Environment Canada that conducts research on Arctic ice and monitors transportation conditions in the North, the NSIDC report noted that "sea ice extent in the western Parry Channel — a key stretch of the northern route of the Northwest Passage — is now the lowest at this time of year since record keeping began in 1966, and very little multi-year ice remains."
The disappearing supply of the Arctic's multi-year ice — the oldest and thickest slabs that traditionally withstood annual melting — is what has many scientists speculating about the likelihood of ice-free Arctic summers in the coming years.
While Arctic ice continues to re-grow each winter to about its usual full extent, the younger and thinner ice cover now taking hold in northern waters is resulting in faster and more prolonged melts each summer — as well as significantly altered habitats for species such as polar bears, which have evolved to exploit certain ice conditions for hunting the seals that serve as their principal food supply.
"The melt season for Arctic sea ice will soon draw to a close," notes the NSIDC report. "Surface melt has already largely ended and the ocean waters are cooling. Air temperatures at the North Pole have fallen below freezing."
However, the centre noted: "With the ice cover now thinner than in years past, there is a greater potential for late-season ice loss, caused by warm water melting ice from below or winds that push the ice together."
(The Vancouver Sun)
Driven by an unprecedented meltdown across much of the Canadian North, the planet's Arctic ice cover has retreated this summer to its second-smallest extent in the 30-year satellite era — and may yet shrink beyond the record-setting thaw that alarmed scientists around the world in 2007.
The opening up in August of both the southern and northern routes of the Northwest Passage through Canada's Arctic islands, along with the clearing out of ice from much of the Beaufort Sea north of the Yukon-Alaska border, are among the highlights of a new report on the state of Arctic ice issued this week by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
The Colorado-based centre, which closely tracks the seasonal ebb and flow of Arctic ice, said it expects this year's ice minimum — a state typically reached in mid-September — to come close to matching the 2007 super-thaw.
That event simultaneously raised concerns about global climate change but also fuelled increased interest among polar countries in Arctic navigation, tourism and oil and gas exploration.
Each winter, Arctic Ocean ice builds up to a maximum of about 14 million square kilometres, covering the central sea surrounding the North Pole and freezing over the many bays and straits throughout Canada's vast Arctic archipelago.
Since satellite monitoring began in 1979, the summer melt has seen total Arctic ice cover diminish, on average, to about seven million square kilometres by mid-September, before dropping temperatures restart the winter buildup.
But beginning in 2007, when the end-of-summer ice minimum hit a modern-day low of 4.13 million square kilometres, scientists have recorded the five greatest ice retreats of the satellite era in the past five years. The latest data from the NSIDC has this year's retreat at about 4.5 million square kilometres, with another week or two still left to go before the melt season ends.
"Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea route appear to be open," the centre stated in its Sept. 6 report, referring to the fabled shipping route through Canada's Arctic and its Eurasian counterpart along the northern coast of Russia.
"Throughout August, sea ice extent tracked near the record lows of 2007, underscoring the continued decline in Arctic ice cover," the report added.
Citing data from the Canadian Ice Service, a branch of Environment Canada that conducts research on Arctic ice and monitors transportation conditions in the North, the NSIDC report noted that "sea ice extent in the western Parry Channel — a key stretch of the northern route of the Northwest Passage — is now the lowest at this time of year since record keeping began in 1966, and very little multi-year ice remains."
The disappearing supply of the Arctic's multi-year ice — the oldest and thickest slabs that traditionally withstood annual melting — is what has many scientists speculating about the likelihood of ice-free Arctic summers in the coming years.
While Arctic ice continues to re-grow each winter to about its usual full extent, the younger and thinner ice cover now taking hold in northern waters is resulting in faster and more prolonged melts each summer — as well as significantly altered habitats for species such as polar bears, which have evolved to exploit certain ice conditions for hunting the seals that serve as their principal food supply.
"The melt season for Arctic sea ice will soon draw to a close," notes the NSIDC report. "Surface melt has already largely ended and the ocean waters are cooling. Air temperatures at the North Pole have fallen below freezing."
However, the centre noted: "With the ice cover now thinner than in years past, there is a greater potential for late-season ice loss, caused by warm water melting ice from below or winds that push the ice together."
(The Vancouver Sun)
Re: Global Warming 2
(Reuters) - This year's scorching Texas summer heat, in a dubious honor, broke a national record once held by Oklahoma that had stood since the Dust Bowl changed the face of the country in the 1930s.
On Thursday, the National Weather Service confirmed what Texas climatologists and residents already suspected: The Texas months of June through August were the hottest three months ever recorded in the history of the United States.
The record was formerly held by Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl of 1934, said state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
The average 24-hour statewide temperature during that time, including overnight lows and blistering daytime highs, was 86.8 degrees, he said.
That is more than a degree hotter than the 77-year record of 85.2 degrees. Oklahoma broke its own records this year, but held its average to two-tenths of a degree cooler than Texas, Nielson-Gammon said.
Texas is not generally known as one of America's hottest states. There are several areas in the country which routinely record hotter daily temperatures than Texas, such as southern Arizona and southeastern California. But those states also have higher elevations that bring down the statewide average.
Not so with Texas.
"It has been scary hot from one end of Texas to the other," Nielson-Gammon said, adding that Texas has been so hot essentially because it has been so dry.
"The dryer it is, the hotter the ground gets during the summer, and it becomes a cycle that feeds on itself," he said. "It gets dryer, and it gets hotter."
The 12 months ending on August 31 were the driest 12 months in Texas history, with most of the state receiving just 21 percent of its annual average rainfall.
The drought itself, which started for most of the state last September following Tropical Storm Hermine, is now the second worst in the state's history behind a drought in the mid 1950s that lasted for several years.
"This historic drought has depleted water resources, leaving our state's farmers and ranchers in a state of dire need. The damage to our economy is already measured in billions of dollars and continues to mount," Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said.
Figures released last month put the losses to the state's farming and ranching industry at $5.2 billion, and even if plentiful rains begin falling now, that figure would still balloon to $8 billion.
But plentiful rain was not expected in Texas, which is suffering through a destructive and deadly flurry of drought-fueled wildfires.
"The forecast is for bright, sunny, clear, nice weather," Nielson-Gammon said. "Unfortunately."
On Thursday, the National Weather Service confirmed what Texas climatologists and residents already suspected: The Texas months of June through August were the hottest three months ever recorded in the history of the United States.
The record was formerly held by Oklahoma during the Dust Bowl of 1934, said state climatologist John Nielson-Gammon, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.
The average 24-hour statewide temperature during that time, including overnight lows and blistering daytime highs, was 86.8 degrees, he said.
That is more than a degree hotter than the 77-year record of 85.2 degrees. Oklahoma broke its own records this year, but held its average to two-tenths of a degree cooler than Texas, Nielson-Gammon said.
Texas is not generally known as one of America's hottest states. There are several areas in the country which routinely record hotter daily temperatures than Texas, such as southern Arizona and southeastern California. But those states also have higher elevations that bring down the statewide average.
Not so with Texas.
"It has been scary hot from one end of Texas to the other," Nielson-Gammon said, adding that Texas has been so hot essentially because it has been so dry.
"The dryer it is, the hotter the ground gets during the summer, and it becomes a cycle that feeds on itself," he said. "It gets dryer, and it gets hotter."
The 12 months ending on August 31 were the driest 12 months in Texas history, with most of the state receiving just 21 percent of its annual average rainfall.
The drought itself, which started for most of the state last September following Tropical Storm Hermine, is now the second worst in the state's history behind a drought in the mid 1950s that lasted for several years.
"This historic drought has depleted water resources, leaving our state's farmers and ranchers in a state of dire need. The damage to our economy is already measured in billions of dollars and continues to mount," Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples said.
Figures released last month put the losses to the state's farming and ranching industry at $5.2 billion, and even if plentiful rains begin falling now, that figure would still balloon to $8 billion.
But plentiful rain was not expected in Texas, which is suffering through a destructive and deadly flurry of drought-fueled wildfires.
"The forecast is for bright, sunny, clear, nice weather," Nielson-Gammon said. "Unfortunately."
Re: Global Warming 2
Dtai-mai it is no longer called global warming because of the uncertainty in the so called science. Have a squizz at the emphasis placed on results of 30 years (yes 30) on satellite pics directly above. Now (today) called climate change and is a 2/- each way bet. Historical records might also tell you animals have a tendency to migrate - all part of the natural cycle and perhaps in some way affected by the destruction of their eco system (by overpopulation and human encroachment) and the search for food/mates!
PS the Anasazi abandoned their homes in Texas approx 1000 years ago (before satellites)!
Looks liek we are all f-cked!!!!!
PS the Anasazi abandoned their homes in Texas approx 1000 years ago (before satellites)!
Looks liek we are all f-cked!!!!!
Re: Global Warming 2
Exxon Mobil has made a multi-billion dollar acknowledgement that climate change is real and is happening now.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit this, though. Exxon would like you to believe that climate change is neither real nor urgent. That is why they have spent millions of dollars over the last several years funding climate skeptics and fighting legislation that would regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. When you hear climate skeptics speak, there’s a good chance that Exxon money is in their pocket.
Actions, however, speak louder than words. And Exxon’s most recent action was a thunderclap. According to reports, Exxon has just signed an extensive deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, to develop promising offshore oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The companies will begin by investing $3.2 billion to explore in the Kara Sea, with the potential of increasing the investment to $500 billion in the future. Exxon is so convinced of the potential of these sites that it is giving Rosneft ownership rights in several of its global properties to complete the deal.
Large deposits of gas and oil have been known to exist in the Arctic Ocean for decades. So why did they make this deal now? One key thing has changed: the arctic ice is melting rapidly. The Kara Sea has typically been covered by ice floes nine months of the year or more, making commercial development of its resources unprofitable. But for the last several years, the extent and duration of the arctic ice has been diminishing, a phenomenon the vast majority of scientists believe to be caused by climate change. Suddenly, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean is looking far more attractive. Exxon has realized that a warming planet offers some new opportunities for profit and is adjusting its strategic decisions accordingly.
Exxon is not the only big oil company whose actions show it believes climate change to be real. British Petroleum made a major play for developing the same resources several months ago, but the proposed deal was rejected by a coalition of BP’s other Russian business partners. Not only does big oil know climate change is happening, it is planning its future around it.
That does not mean Exxon is likely to publicize this knowledge. Despite issuing a tepid statement acknowledging anthropogenic climate change in 2007 and promising to cease funding anti-climate change groups in 2008, Exxon remains up to its old tricks. Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed a continued pattern of funding for climate skeptics as well as collaborations with the conservative Koch Industries to support legislation that removes any restrictions on carbon emissions.
We should no longer be distracted by these words. Exxon is a smart and savvy company, and even if its actions are reprehensible, they make sense in a political system that allows corporations to pay millions of dollars to avoid costly regulations. Blaming Exxon for these activities is like blaming a raccoon for going through your trash. They’re simply responding to available opportunities.
This is exactly why we should focus on actions, not words. This deal is a multi-billion dollar investment predicated on Exxon’s belief that the planet is warming. It is one of the most powerful admissions of the reality of climate change imaginable. Michele Bachmann and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot blame this on disconnected academic scientists or members of a liberal conspiracy. This is the embodiment of free market American capitalism saying climate change is real.
All this begs the question: If Exxon Mobil believes climate change is worth acting on now, isn’t it time for the rest of us to follow suit?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/1 ... e-deniers/
Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to admit this, though. Exxon would like you to believe that climate change is neither real nor urgent. That is why they have spent millions of dollars over the last several years funding climate skeptics and fighting legislation that would regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases. When you hear climate skeptics speak, there’s a good chance that Exxon money is in their pocket.
Actions, however, speak louder than words. And Exxon’s most recent action was a thunderclap. According to reports, Exxon has just signed an extensive deal with Rosneft, the Russian state oil company, to develop promising offshore oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The companies will begin by investing $3.2 billion to explore in the Kara Sea, with the potential of increasing the investment to $500 billion in the future. Exxon is so convinced of the potential of these sites that it is giving Rosneft ownership rights in several of its global properties to complete the deal.
Large deposits of gas and oil have been known to exist in the Arctic Ocean for decades. So why did they make this deal now? One key thing has changed: the arctic ice is melting rapidly. The Kara Sea has typically been covered by ice floes nine months of the year or more, making commercial development of its resources unprofitable. But for the last several years, the extent and duration of the arctic ice has been diminishing, a phenomenon the vast majority of scientists believe to be caused by climate change. Suddenly, oil and gas exploration in the Arctic Ocean is looking far more attractive. Exxon has realized that a warming planet offers some new opportunities for profit and is adjusting its strategic decisions accordingly.
Exxon is not the only big oil company whose actions show it believes climate change to be real. British Petroleum made a major play for developing the same resources several months ago, but the proposed deal was rejected by a coalition of BP’s other Russian business partners. Not only does big oil know climate change is happening, it is planning its future around it.
That does not mean Exxon is likely to publicize this knowledge. Despite issuing a tepid statement acknowledging anthropogenic climate change in 2007 and promising to cease funding anti-climate change groups in 2008, Exxon remains up to its old tricks. Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed a continued pattern of funding for climate skeptics as well as collaborations with the conservative Koch Industries to support legislation that removes any restrictions on carbon emissions.
We should no longer be distracted by these words. Exxon is a smart and savvy company, and even if its actions are reprehensible, they make sense in a political system that allows corporations to pay millions of dollars to avoid costly regulations. Blaming Exxon for these activities is like blaming a raccoon for going through your trash. They’re simply responding to available opportunities.
This is exactly why we should focus on actions, not words. This deal is a multi-billion dollar investment predicated on Exxon’s belief that the planet is warming. It is one of the most powerful admissions of the reality of climate change imaginable. Michele Bachmann and the other Republican presidential candidates cannot blame this on disconnected academic scientists or members of a liberal conspiracy. This is the embodiment of free market American capitalism saying climate change is real.
All this begs the question: If Exxon Mobil believes climate change is worth acting on now, isn’t it time for the rest of us to follow suit?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/1 ... e-deniers/
Re: Global Warming 2
Sandman67 wrote:Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies papers show
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ...
Documents obtained by Greenpeace show prominent opponent of climate change was funded by ExxonMobil, among others.
Yes, climate sceptics and conspiracy theorists who automatically took the opposing position to Western governments in the usual knee-jerk fashion, must have been quite irked to discover themselves supporting the exploits of big oil. With governments and big oil committing hundreds of billions of dollars to this perhaps CT's should become less distracted by examples of dodgy science and start wising up to the bigger picture, taking heed of their much used mantra... 'follow the money'STEVE G wrote:Exxon Mobil has made a multi-billion dollar acknowledgement that climate change is real and is happening now. Actions, however, speak louder than words. Exxon has just signed an extensive deal to develop promising offshore oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean. The companies will begin by investing $3.2 billion to explore in the Kara Sea, with the potential of increasing the investment to $500 billion in the future.
.
So why did they make this deal now? One key thing has changed: the arctic ice is melting rapidly. The Kara Sea has typically been covered by ice floes nine months of the year or more, making commercial development of its resources unprofitable. Exxon has realized that a warming planet offers some new opportunities for profit and is adjusting its strategic decisions accordingly.
SJ
Re: Global Warming 2
Must be the heat but where does it say that Exxon has acknowledged global warming/climate change ??
Re: Global Warming 2
Exxon Mobil has no more doubts on warmingcharlesh wrote:Must be the heat but where does it say that Exxon has acknowledged global warming/climate change ??
(2007)
Big Oil behemoth Exxon Mobil Corp. has dropped any pretense of questioning whether global warming is real. Now the company is seeking to position itself as an active player in efforts to lower greenhouse gases.
"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it," Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs, told reporters on a conference call Thursday.
The call came less than a week after an international panel of hundreds of scientists said new research showed global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was primarily responsible for the most significant factor in temperature change — greenhouse gases.
"Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there," Cohen said on the call, which was arranged in part to allow Exxon to state its position on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report.
When pressed, Cohen said "there is no question that human activity is the source of carbon dioxide emissions," and emphasized that Exxon is working with various policy groups and universities to find ways to produce energy while lowering greenhouse gases.
Cohen's statements appeared to be the most definitive yet in the company's effort to show Exxon cares about climate change and wants to do something about it.
It's a far cry from former CEO Lee Raymond's rigid stance on the issue in the late 1990s, when he questioned science that linked fossil fuels to global warming. Raymond acknowledged in a 2000 speech that climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions was a "legitimate concern."
'Certainly have mellowed'
Upon succeeding Raymond as CEO last year, Rex Tillerson labeled climate change a serious issue. He later said the company needed to soften its public image and better explain its stance on global warming.
"They certainly have mellowed somewhat," said Art Smith, chairman and CEO of John S. Herold, an energy research and consulting firm. "They took a pretty hard stance that everyone else was wrong about this."
Chris Miller, a global warming campaigner for Greenpeace, said Exxon had little choice but to embrace climate change as genuine because too much scientific data exists for the company to credibly say otherwise.
"It just became too difficult for them to say that with a straight face given everything we know," Miller said. "They are finessing this position, and they have done so since Tillerson took over."
Cohen, who oversees Exxon's charitable giving, also addressed Exxon's funding for think tanks.
The company came under fire when environmental groups said that one think tank that received Exxon funding, the American Enterprise Institute, had offered scientists $10,000 to critique the IPCC study. AEI said it was focused on global warming policy, not science.
But Cohen said Thursday that Exxon has stopped funding a "small handful" of think tanks involved in climate change policy discussions because the ensuing criticism was a distraction.
"We did that because we felt some of the attention being devoted to the issue was diverting attention from what we wanted to be focusing on," which Cohen said was a need for global action to reduce emissions.
Not focusing on renewables
In a speech last year, Tillerson promoted reducing emissions through coal-fired plants that spit fewer gases into the air and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The company also is studying the viability of carbon storage and dedicating scientists to find technologies to cut emissions.
Cohen said that's Exxon's focus because 80 percent of the world's energy comes from oil, natural gas and coal, a situation that isn't expected to change in the next 20 years despite the growth of renewables backed by government subsidies.
Sherri Stuewer, Exxon's global vice president of health, safety and environment, who joined Cohen on the call, said Exxon isn't seeking to pour money into renewables despite such efforts by its peers because they aren't currently viable without subsidies. Stuewer said Exxon has had solar and nuclear initiatives in the past that proved unprofitable.
"Our interest is in being in energy options that are successful," she said.
Re: Global Warming 2
Thanks Steve. Nice read though I would have liked a bit more comment on the role of "human activity" and the etiology of the relationship which I personally maintain as overpopulation and destruction of the natural web of life.
Re: Global Warming 2
Whether you are a nay or yay, has any evidence been presented that change the previous acknowledgement the solutions, currently on the table, won't work?