Since people here love to disagree about climate change and how the USA should proceed, here is some more fresh meat. CNN Paris Climate Pact Opinion Piece
And I seem to agree with Tillerson.
And I seem to agree with Tillerson.
“It’s important that the US maintain its seat at the table,” Tillerson told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations during his confirmation hearing on 11 January. The threat of global warming is real and “requires a global response”, he added. “No one country is going to solve this on its own.”I mean ExxonMobil certainly seems to believe.
When asked whether greenhouse-gas emissions from human activities cause climate change, Tillerson said that “the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere [is] having effect”. But, he added, “our ability to predict that effect is very limited”.
"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.It often amazes me how many people want to deny the potential catastrophic risks, defund the research and stop the measured improvements. The good news is that apparently the big business are driving change at the request of their customers. I just heard that report yesterday and found it interesting.
9 comments:
I did pretty good for writing this in the middle of the night...
Changing my clock back and forth 13 hours over a week screws me up for a few days... :-)
I can only re-iterate: "The most successful pseudo-scientific hoax in history." I also re-iterate: other than those terribly flawed climate models, what evidence do you have that tells me the "global temperature" (in itself a flawed concept) 100 years from now? Do you think Galileo, back in 1592, given these computer models, could have accurately predicted the temperature in 2017?
I applaud any company (or individual) wanting to save money on energy. Too bad renewables are so expensive.
I understand the caution of those who want to "further study and quantify" the matter, even though it has already been done and conclusively proven that human CO2 doesn't matter much.
And I agree we need to "keep a seat at the table." I don't think the US should "withdraw" from the Paris agreement. It should be sent to the US Senate and defeated, just as Kyoto was, 99-0. Or, we simply let it sit, do what we want to do (except for paying our "protection money" to the "climate fund" since the US never ratified the treaty) and pretend we're "doing something." If it's like Kyoto, the US will actually do better than those who signed the agreement, because we increase the efficiency of our power system.
Well, I am happy that Exxon Mobil disagrees with you. :-)
"The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks."
But maybe they are just a bunch of naïve tree huggers... :-)
No, they are trying to make a profit. Agreeing with the most successful hoax in history keeps their buildings from being burned down-- literally and figuratively-- and calling for "further study to quantify" is just preserving their options should we suddenly wake up to the hoax being perpetrated. Notice it is all cant-- statements with no supporting scientific evidence whatsoever.
Make yourself at home... Here is some of the Exxon Mobil Science...
From this page.
And here is BPs Climate website.
BP Report
Let's see..... I see lip service to the idea. I see planning for government to drive up the price of coal and gas. I see companies trying to get rich by selling alternative energy sources to those gullible enough to believe we need them, and I see Exxon trying to stem the lies that it somehow is not being "responsible" to its shareholders by "hiding" their research on climate change.
It proves nothing. All I hear is that "CO2 must be curbed to stop Global Warming," with no scientific basis whatsoever for that conclusion. For example, what is the answer to this question: If the US Government spends $40 billion to "fight climate change," how much will global temperatures be reduced by the year 2017. Surely such a large expenditure must be subject to cost-benefit analysis, yes? And yet the question is not only never posed, but cannot be answered! The notion we are going to "fight climate change" is a pipe dream-- we do not control the climate!! Now, if you want to go back to saying "global warming" is the problem-- the ONLY thing those grossly erroneous models show-- feel free, but the same thing applies. If you ask how much a given level of CO2 reduction will alter the temperature, you find it isn't worth doing at all. THAT is my complaint, that the most oft-cited, even zealously-promoted, reason for lowering CO2 makes no sense.
Jerry, You still are not doing much to convince us...
Thankfully many folks disagree with you.
"Despite some skepticism about climate scientists and their motives, majorities of Americans among all party/ideology groups say climate scientists should have at least a minor role in policy decisions about climate issues. More than three-quarters of Democrats and most Republicans (69% among moderate or liberal Republicans and 48% of conservative Republicans) say climate scientists should have a major role in policy decisions related to the climate. Few in either party say climate scientists should have no role in policy decisions.
To the extent there are political differences among Americans on these issues, those variances are largely concentrated when it comes to their views about climate scientists, per se, rather than scientists, generally. Majorities of all political groups report a fair amount of confidence in scientists, overall, to act in the public interest. And to the extent that Republicans are personally concerned about climate issues, they tend to hold more positive views about climate research."
I cannot convince you. You have to convince yourself, but you seem to have been hopelessly propagandized. You have been hoaxed, flim-flammed, and had your eye-teeth stolen on this issue.
The proof is out there, and these so-called scientists are doing their absolute darnedest (see "Climategate" or the more recent "warmest year in history" hype) to keep the truth away from you.
Fortunately, among issues people care about, the climate still ranks dead last, as it should. How many times must I quote the head of the EPA saying that radical curbs of CO2 will have no effect on the climate? Which scientists, specifically, will you trust on this issue? How about Drs. Curry, Soon, Christy, Lindzen, McKittrick, Singer, Marohasy, et al? How about these guys? CO2 sensitivity
Are you struck silent by hearing the truth?
Post a Comment