Comments on: Exxon’s New Position On Global Warming, Same As Its Old Position On Global Warming

By: appletree » Blog Archive » Thursday Links: Sadr City Edition

appletree » Blog Archive » Thursday Links: Sadr City Edition — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:06:39 +0000

[...] like what scientists have to say about the weather. Katie of Liberal Debutante points us to this article about Exxon in Think Progress. As it turns out, Exxon is still clinging to the notion that the [...]

By: Think Progress » Exxon finally admits global warming is real.

Think Progress » Exxon finally admits global warming is real. — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:03:34 +0000

[...] that nations should adopt to combat climate change.” While Exxon has recently embarked on a campaign to “soften” its public image on global warming. 1:03 pm | [...]

By: l- unit

l- unit — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:19:04 +0000

w/e you are all evil conspiritors who just want something to yell at. and you are wasting your time!!!! i hate all of you!!!
I LOVE EXXON

By: l- unit

l- unit — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 18:16:43 +0000

w/e

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:47:22 +0000

I’m complety agree with you, u can see my page talking about

globalwarning awareness2007

thank u

By: Moose

Moose — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 03:16:49 +0000

Ahhh, Al Gore, you silly little liberal. Stand up for your party to put them back on the map through fear and panic. Your one step below screaming FIRE in a crowded movie theater.
Yes, I am sure there is global warming. The ice has been melting since, hmmmm, the ice age ended!! By the way, what did you and your butt buddy Bill do to correct this problem while you were in office, aside from receiving blow jobs?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Relax tree huggers, the end is coming, but not as soon as you and your lefty buddies would like us to believe.

Yes, we should take better care of our home planet, but freaking out the masses isn’t the way!

Can’t we all just get along?

By: Remember, Democrats are Politicians, Too at After Gutenberg

Remember, Democrats are Politicians, Too at After Gutenberg — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:14:46 +0000

[...] 1Exxonâ€™s New Position On Global Warming, Same As Its Old Position On Global Warming [...]

By: hippie with a pistol

hippie with a pistol — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:43:41 +0000

Realscientist, see the data and specifically the graph 1990-2004 trends in the latest emissions report to the UN. Something you should have read before you called me a liar.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/RAMR6P5M5M/$File/06FastFacts.pdf

By: Squidbilly

Squidbilly — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:57:23 +0000

If Rex Tillerson found a means to make a profit from non carbon emission fuels, maybe he’d change his mind. More R&D bucks…less profit..

In the meantime he can stay the course and always buy more air conditioning if needed with his huge profits.

By: ForTruth

ForTruth — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:14:05 +0000

Solitaire, you hit it.

By: Solitaire

Solitaire — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:14:40 +0000

I can only think of one position when I think of what Exxon has been doing to the people of this country, their land, and their resources. But, if we continue to bend over by electing texas oil cartels to masquerade as an administration and allowing CEO’s to direct PAC money to politicians and parties, then really who is to blame? The outrageously greedy blind-rich oil profiteers or the average American who idolizes and believes in them? The longer I live, the more it seems to me like the playing ground is anything BUT level, the new American Dream is to stay solvent, and the fox is in the Big White henhouse.

By: hippies_pistol_shoots_blanks

hippies_pistol_shoots_blanks — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:38:13 +0000

Aren’t these *oil guys* funny? You have *hippie* shooting blanks, and Cheney shooting his friends? Bad aim, bad follow through, and just complete dumba$$ idiots. Which is more sad, if Hippie lies for money, or Hippie is *so stupid* he lies to himself? Either way you, *hippie* is a dumba$$ loser!

By: VerbalKint

VerbalKint — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:08:24 +0000

I’m not a scientist? You are the guy who doesn’t understand the difference between rate, and rate of change of rate (i.e. first derivative vs. second derivative). Or who does understand it, but obfuscates the issue in the service of your fossil-fuel industry funded employer, whoever that is.

By the way, read comment #56.

By: hippie with a pistol

hippie with a pistol — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:00:03 +0000

Realscientist, that weighty government document that you have refused to read is the US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions that all Annex 1 countries provide the UNFCCC every year. You have lied about my position on climate change and the information that I provided directly from this document. The data shows that US GHG emissions increased at a much larger rate in the 90’s than they have in this decade.

But your not a scientist. All you have is name calling and false representations of other people’s arguments.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares the official U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks to comply with existing commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).1 Under decision 3/CP.5 of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, national inventories for UNFCCC Annex I parties should be provided to the UNFCCC Secretariat each year by April 15.

By: VerbalKint

VerbalKint — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:23:51 +0000

Hippie, look at comment #47. You are a determined propagandist.

As for 100 million, let’s put this into perspective. This amount of money equals 1% of Exxon’s profit in a single quarter. It equals 1% of the money spent annually in missile defense, a transparently fraudulent weapons program. This is just Exxon throwing a few pennies around to impress the ignorant and confused. Alternative energy research needs many billions of dollars if we are to any hope at all of saving ourselves from the climate disaster that lies ahead.

By: hippie with a pistol

hippie with a pistol — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:54:09 +0000

If you call me a liar, you should at least tell us what those lies are, mr verbalkint.

You’re right. 1.6 million doesn’t but mcuh research, but 100 million does.

You’ll be retracting your name calling soon I’m sure.

By: Miss Megan [billnyefreakk]

Miss Megan [billnyefreakk] — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:50:42 +0000

yeaa. verbalkint is rightt. even though happy guy seems cool. i guess. but like seriusly, hippie: obviously yerr juss plain stupid.

By: VerbalKint

VerbalKint — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:11:53 +0000

WAIT!!! I NEED TO POST AN URGENT CORRECTION!!!

Throughout today I have mistaken Happy Guy for Hippie. Thank you for coming around to clear up my confusion, Hippie.

As for you Happy Guy, I must retract several comments in which I claimed that you have told specific lies here about global warming. These are comments #27, #37, and #47. So I am truly sorry about that.

As for you Hippie, you are clearly a professional liar working for an Exxon proxy somewhere. The George C. Marshall Institute, perhaps? A public relations firm secretly hire by Exxon? Let us know.

As for the money issue you mention, $1.6 million wouldn’t buy much research, but Exxon gives CEI this money to simply manufacture lies. $1.6 million buys an awful lot of lies. So really you are comparing apples and oranges.

By: hippie with a pistol

hippie with a pistol — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:56:02 +0000

1.6 million to CEI pales in comparison to the 100 million Exxon is funding Stanford University’s Global Climate & Energy Project.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/

Not to mention the contributions to the 2001 IPCC report in which an Exxon employee, Mr. Kheshgi, is a lead and contributing author.

So much for TP research. Falls short as usual.

By: VerbalKint

VerbalKint — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 21:41:01 +0000

If you think that all major oil companies are the same

Good point. They aren’t the same. Exxon has been far more intransigent about global warming than some of the other oil companies, and deserves special scorn for it.