Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Exxon CEO: Warming Happening, But Fears Overblown 288

Posted by samzenpus
from the we-didn't-start-the-fire dept.
Freshly Exhumed writes "In a speech Wednesday, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said. Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Exxon CEO: Warming Happening, But Fears Overblown

Comments Filter:
  • C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:33PM (#40487651)

    Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press

    Yes, the public is about as smart as a rock. But that doesn't mean you need to spin it. Desertification of wide swaths of land as well as the acidification of the oceans will be pretty hard to deal with.

    And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain

    Not a concern for Exxon, he means.

    • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:38PM (#40487709) Journal

      Indeed. We are now at the point in the anti-science strategy where you admit some minimalistic version of what the science is saying, but spin it so that the admission isn't a big deal.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ackthpt (218170)

        Indeed. We are now at the point in the anti-science strategy where you admit some minimalistic version of what the science is saying, but spin it so that the admission isn't a big deal.

        It'll only matter to people when they actually feel the pain of their choices - when the waves lap up Wall Street, not due to a storm, but on a fair day, you better believe someone will finally be paying attention .. of course, it'll be too late. But why should the 1% care? They can just move to higher ground. Probably already have houses on higher ground.

        • Re:C'mon (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:04PM (#40488019)

          The 1% should care because if recent history is a guide, anarchy tends to lead to communism. And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps.

          • by Ryanrule (1657199)

            "And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps."

            Frankly, we are not far from having the tech to do both.

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward

              "And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps."

              Frankly, we are not far from having the tech to do both.

              I say we execute them, then put them into labor camps.

            • "And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps."

              Frankly, we are not far from having the tech to do both.

              Kind of like the nazis? Put people into labor camps and work them to death.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by meglon (1001833)
            Yes, and capitalism never would think of usury debt, slavery, imprisoning people for profit, or just simply letting them die.

            Tillerson is both right and wrong, the general public is illiterate in math and science, but also illiterate in sociology, government, and history... as you're post exemplifies; unless of course you're intentionally lying through omission. I suspect though, it's simply that you're too ideologically driven to see much other than what some other asshat told you, or too unwilling to p
        • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

          It'll only matter to people when they actually feel the pain of their choices - when the waves lap up Wall Street, not due to a storm, but on a fair day,

          And in a twist or Irony, DC will be a little damper too.

      • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Schmorgluck (1293264) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:06PM (#40488037)

        Actually, Tillerson cleverly attacks the weakest part of research about climate change: the prospective part, about its consequences. Remember it was in that part of the IPCC report that there was reviewing issues.

        Since the hard sciences part turned out to be rock solid, staying in denial of it would have been disingenuous.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I'm not sure what you mean by "hard sciences" and "rock solid". Yes there are hard physical principles used in the IPCC report, but when applied to a chaotic system such as the climate, I believe their findings more "spongy". In my view Climate Science is science in slow motion. From a public policy point of view it is a tough nut to crack. We know the benefits of cheap plentiful energy, but the future risks have a large amount of uncertainty attached to them. If I were the CEO of Exxon I would argue t

          • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Schmorgluck (1293264) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:11PM (#40488735)
            The atmosphere is a chaotic system, but the climate configuration, is a general property of it. And it's perfectly possible to study the general properties of a chaotic system with good precision. You can predict the general properties of a quantity of water boiling in a pan, even if reliably predicting the trajectory of bubbles is out of reach.
            • On second thought, I'm not sure the boiling water was a very good example of a chaotic system. Not much sensitivity to initial conditions. Oh well... It depends on the scale of observation, I guess.
        • Not Really (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @11:16PM (#40490103)

          Tillerson cleverly attacks the weakest part of research about climate change: the prospective part, about its consequences.

          In general, the short term projections that were included in the 'concensus' report by the IPCC show that the scientists underestimated the effects of global warming, so far.

          Tillerson is combining PR and salesmanship. He acknowledged the objection, and then he minimized it. After which he went on to taught the strengths of his company and it's position and even called to question the intelligence of it's detractors. It was really quite masterful, in a pathological sense, since, if you view his assertions in light of the fact that climate change, if severe enough, could challenge humanity's ability to produce enough agricultural output to support the current population, require the re-engineering of all of our coastal facilities and population centers worldwide, and require the relocation of millions of refugees who exist at subsistence level to begin with.

          Tillerson, on the other hand, is in the enviable of position of being able to outsource his move, off-shore his assets and afford to have staff make all the arrangements.

        • by khallow (566160)

          Actually, Tillerson cleverly attacks the weakest part of research about climate change: the prospective part, about its consequences. Remember it was in that part of the IPCC report that there was reviewing issues.

          It's worth mentioning here that this part is worthy of assault. For if the consequences of AGW aren't serious enough to justify the cost of acting upon them, then well, that's pretty much it. The hard science (eh, ignoring the paleoclimate data and climate models which are yet more squishy parts).

        • by khipu (2511498)

          Since the hard sciences part turned out to be rock solid, staying in denial of it would have been disingenuous.

          I suggest you read the IPCC report: most of its conclusions are at best couched in terms like "likely" (meaning >66% probability estimate by experts). The fact that they need to determine probabilities by expert judgment, rather than by statistics on observations, tells you that they don't have much data to go on. The results are not independently reproducible because most of them are retroacti

      • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:35PM (#40488327)

        In other words, we're at stage two.
        (For the uninitiated:
        - In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
        - Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
        - In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
        - Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.)

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          We should all remember who spent the most money in making the false arguements that climate scientists were only doing this for the money, that there was no truth to manmade global climate change. They should suffer the consequences of their lies and propaganda that kept us from doing something to reverse it when we still could. Look at the Arctic now as an example. Less summer ice, cloud cover diminished, its becoming a disaster, all because a few rich guys want to make more money.

          • by khallow (566160)

            We should all remember who spent the most money in making the false arguements that climate scientists were only doing this for the money, that there was no truth to manmade global climate change.

            Perhaps you should worry less about who's spending the money and more on how come they're getting so much bang for the buck.

            • by meglon (1001833)
              Because they've bred an entire generation of stupid fucking idiots, and are working hard on the next generation. See Texarse, Kansas, and Oklahoma school boards for examples.
            • Scientists: A global disaster may be looming. We can stop it, but it'll need sacrifices. Higher fuel prices. Higher cost of manufactured goods, and fewer cheap imports. You'll need to travel less, buy a smaller car. A lot of you'll be laid off because industry thrives on cheap energy. You'll have to stop eating so much meat. But it's the only way to prevent disaster.

              Exxon: Er... Lets just do nothing and chance it.

              The People: We're going to go with the second guy.
              • by sorak (246725)

                Funny, but a better analogy would be:

                Scientists: A global disaster may be looming. We can stop it, but we'll need to reduce our CO2 emissions. If we start now, it may mean driving smaller cars, planting more trees, and finding small ways to reduce our carbon footprint.

                Exxon: bullshit! There's no global warming.

                GMC: Introducing the new GMC ShitKicker! It's 2 megatons of bad ass! Just imagine yourself driving this thing down the freeway, confederate flags flapping in the wind...That'll show those hippies.

                The

        • by paiute (550198)
          You left out key steps:

          - In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
          Profit!
          - Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
          Profit!
          - In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
          Profit!
          - Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
          Profit!
      • Re:C'mon (Score:4, Informative)

        by joocemann (1273720) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @10:07PM (#40489665)

        Don't take this speech lightly. T was given at the CFR, the think tank that is funded by conservative wealth and includes Bush Sr and ole Rumsfeld at the top.

        The CFR wrote a plan to invade Iraq in 1998 and pushed it through lobbies.

        Scary.

    • Re:C'mon (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shibashaba (683026) <hithereNO@SPAMshibashaba.org> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:46PM (#40488455)

      Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press Yes, the public is about as smart as a rock. But that doesn't mean you need to spin it. Desertification of wide swaths of land as well as the acidification of the oceans will be pretty hard to deal with.

      He may be right, but I'll bet he wonders why people hate oil companies universally with comments like this. It doesn't even sound like he tried to spin it, sounds like he was drunk.

      And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain Not a concern for Exxon, he means.

      Of course it's not a concern for Exxon, when you have the US military, NATO and the UN as your personal mercenaries. Once again, sounds like he's drunk. How else could that be interpreted.

    • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Informative)

      by TapeCutter (624760) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:57PM (#40488575) Journal
      I like the bit about manafacturing fear, that's cute coming from a company that was politely asked to stop funding climate FUD by the Royal Society [guardian.co.uk].
    • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dahamma (304068) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:22PM (#40488845)

      Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press

      The irony is the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. It's the scientifically illiterate who keep trying to claim (with their scientifically illiterate arguments, of course) that it's all a big conspiracy with no scientific support...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mister_dave (1613441)

        the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it.

        Not true.

        • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Informative)

          by tbannist (230135) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:39AM (#40493091)

          That article is completely untrustworthy, here's an article [yalescientific.org] about the same study that doesn't ramble incoherently and use pejorative slang every other sentence.

          You might notice that the main point of the study has been distorted in the article you linked, only one group of people actually became more sceptical as their knowledge of science and math increased. That's "heirarchical individualists", or more plainly speaking they're capitalist libertarians. It's may even be more accurate to say that scientifically illiterate conservatives are not concerned as much about climate change because there are issues with how the study measured scientifically literate. The "higher levels" of scientific knowledge included such skill testing questions as "How long does it take the earth to rotate around the sun? A) 1 year, B) 1 month, C) 1 day", which if I remember correctly from the actual paper, only 34% of the responders were able to answer correctly.
          It seems that the bar "scientifically literate" seems to be set really, really low.

    • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kermidge (2221646) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:25PM (#40488873) Journal

      "....society will be able to adapt."

      really means, "I've got mine. Screw everybody else."

      • by khallow (566160)
        Or it could really mean society will be able to adapt. There's a lot of talk about how fragile society is, three meals away from the end of civilization and all that, but there's not a lot of evidence that civilization actually is fragile. When you have AGW effects that take centuries to manifest you have ask not if we can adapt to them, but whether we would even notice.
      • Re:C'mon (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tbannist (230135) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:46AM (#40493169)

        You've got it pretty spot on. Although I think it's more like "As long as I don't have the pay the bills, why the hell should I care?". And that's the real message, humanity will adapt to the changes (barring genocidal wars) but society will pay the cost for Exxon's pollution. Anyone who doesn't like the bank bailouts should pay attention: Rex Tillerson just said "We're too big fail, the government will pay the Global Warming bills when they come due".

        They're planning on having tax payers cover the costs for their actions over the next two centuries. We're talking estimated costs of around 75 trillion (2012) dollars over the next 200 years (that covers us until oil, coal, and natural gas supplies are exhausted and the post-oil climate stabilizes) to adapt to climate change.

    • by Maritz (1829006)
      Preserving the biosphere for ourselves and later generations looks pretty fucking low on his agenda, but hey you don't get a job like that by giving a fuck about anyone or anything, ever. ;)
  • Standard PR (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dnaltropnidad'> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:35PM (#40487669) Homepage Journal

    Deny
    Undervalue impact
    Disassociate
    Imply fix.

    On the plus side,now that the CEO of Exxon has also said that the increase in temperatures over standard cycles i.e. Global Warming, is man made, I'm sure all you deniers will now apologize fro being wrong.

    haha, of course you want. You entrenched into an emotional opinion, so actual facts will never change you mind.

    • Re:Standard PR (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:42PM (#40487775) Journal

      I'm sure they'll do the same thing the Creationists did with Evolution; admit to some very small degree that the theory is correct, but insist that theory only explains minor phenomena.

      • I'm sure they'll do the same thing the Creationists did with Evolution; admit to some very small degree that the theory is correct, but insist that theory only explains minor phenomena.

        Global micro-warming! [ncse.com] Lol.

  • Here it comes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:36PM (#40487679)

    The natural progression:

    1. There is no such thing as global warming!
    2. Global warming is theoretically possible, but it's not happening.
    3. Global warming is happening, but it's no big deal.
    4. Ok, we should probably do something about this global warming before it gets worse.
    5. We're really f*cked now.

    • No, no, no! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StefanJ (88986) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:52PM (#40487889) Homepage Journal

      4. Huh . . . well, look at that. Hurricanes in January. Hey, this is not a time to play the blame game. No one could have foreseen this would happen.
      5. Something must be done. Level headed people like us. Introducing Exxon Atmospheric Engineering Associates.
      6. OK, that didn't work. But hey, neon green sunsets . . . cool!
      7. Look you'all knew for decades that our product could lead to this, but you CHOSE to ignore the warnings by scientists rather than taking responsibility and choosing to use renewable energy. We were just selling a product people wanted and freely chose to use.

    • by NoKaOi (1415755) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:13PM (#40488101)

      2.5. Global warming is happening, but humans couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
      3. Global warming is happening, and humans are causing it, but it's no big deal and we'll adapt. The serfs can either grow flippers or move to higher ground. And we can burn even more fossil fuel to generate electricity for air conditioning!

    • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

      5. We're really f*cked now.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong. 5. No one knew the time. 6. It's liberals fault, they kept giving us bad data - who can blame us?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Ah, the Margaritaville Progression.

      1) Its nobodys fault.
      2) It could be my fault.
      3) Its my own damn fault.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by formfeed (703859)

      The natural progression:

      Not really. They are playing it more like this:

      1. There is no such thing as global warming!

      2. Something is happening, but it is a good thing. (i.e. CO2 is life)

      3. Global warming is happening, but it is a good thing (i.e. Warming helps plants grow and therefor our food supply.)

      4. Global warming is happening, but it's no big deal

      - and we're working on cool technology that will solve all the problems [and make us rich] (sequestering, artificial trees,..)

      5. Our company has always been at the forefront in the fight against global warming.

  • So... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ayvee (1125639) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:36PM (#40487685)

    Apparently we're past denial and anger, and are now in the middle of bargaining.

    This is going to get rough. Before we get to acceptance, we have depression to go through first.

    Ahem, sorry. I meant Fr1st!!!!

  • Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SoftwareArtist (1472499) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:37PM (#40487707)

    The CEO of an oil company tells us that burning oil isn't such a big problem! Well, I guess we can all stop worrying about that then.

  • by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:47PM (#40487831)


    We're actually entering an Ice Age.

    Global warming isn't happening.

    It's happening, but we didn't cause it.

    It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it.

    It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it at a price we're willing to pay.

    We don't know what's going to happen, so we need to wait until more evidence is in.

    The first few are often accompanied by:

    It's just a liberal plot to destroy industry

    (as if offshoring hasn't already destroyed it).

  • by dex22 (239643) <plasticuser@gm a i l . c om> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:47PM (#40487837) Homepage

    The coral reefs off Australia and New Zealand announced their Climate Transition Plans in Adelaide, Thursday. The reefs, known for their outstanding beauty and fragile ecosystems, have decided to move further south. They announced their plans, which involve a 600 mile hike, as Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil CEO, announced plans to survey the ground they abandoned each year for new oil and gas fields.

    • by rossdee (243626)

      There are not a lot of coral reefs off the coast of NZ
      Of course with global warming this may change.

      Most of NZ is further south than Australia

  • relocation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phoenix666 (184391) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @06:54PM (#40487925)

    Can we relocate this guy's mouth to 1 inch above sea level? If sea level remains the same, he has nothing to worry about. If not, well, the world will be less one asshole.

  • by Eponymous Hero (2090636) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:02PM (#40488011)

    And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

    but it's not. if it were we wouldn't need to exercise our fifth freedom to ensure our oil-consuming way of life. case closed, exxon douchebag. this is, of course, forgetting that oil supply is finite, while biomass/solar fuels are sustainable.

    Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions

    why would advocacy groups do that? is there a profit motive? is it a bigger profit motive than exxon's?

  • Spoken by someone who is not up for re-election this year.
  • by ErnoWindt (301103) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:12PM (#40488085)

    What's really nutty about ExxonMobil is that on the one hand, they are spending millions on TV, radio and print ads on how the US needs to improve math and science education, but at the same time roughly two-thirds of their political contributions (corporation and employees) are to Republican candidates. To a person, Republicans have conducted an all-out war on free public education, teachers, and teachers unions over the last 30 years. The leading US scientists over the last 100 years did not, in general, attend tony prep schools or come from wealthy families. If ExxonMobil is actually serious about improving math and science education in the US, they'll stop funding Republican candidates and start funding Democrats, as well as making targeted gifts to grammar and high school math and science programs around the country.

    • by XanC (644172)

      Free public education and teachers' unions are not equivalent to math and science education. It's possible to support the some and not others.

  • "Last July I discussed another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite their public pledge to âoediscontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner" link [thinkprogress.org]
  • Naturally (Score:2, Funny)

    by PopeRatzo (965947)

    Of course the Exxon CEO thinks global warming is "overblown". How long do you think it's been since he's set foot somewhere that doesn't have air conditioning?

    When he was 10 years old, his Dominican nanny was carrying him through Neiman Marcus and someone asked his mother, "Gee, your son is certainly too big to still be carried. Can't he walk?" and his mom answered, "Of course, he can walk. But thank God he doesn't have to".

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:40PM (#40488377)
    And let's hope while he's spouting off all that BS, he's investing in solar and wind or he'll ride that company all the way to Juno and Kodak land. Those aren't drilling sites, I mean Juno that old dialup company and Kodak, the company that just declared bankruptcy lol.
  • by DaMattster (977781) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @07:41PM (#40488393)
    This statement is coming from a company with a net worth in the billions and a vested interest in remaining profitable. Of course, they are going to downplay global warming fears. Hopefully more people see through this very thinly veiled reassurance.
  • I really don't understand the stubborness of oil companies. Oil is not infinite, they know it. They also know that, as time goes on, people are getting more and more conscious of their footprint on the environment AND/OR the footprint of fossil fuels on their wallets.

    Oil companies surely understand that, just because oil may not be used as fuel, it's use as other products such as plastics will endure.

    why can't they corner the market on alternative fuels? They're still going to gouge you, whether it's $1.50/

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Seems to me its in their best interests, and the shareholder's best interests, to do this.

      Disruptive technologies cause problems. "Better" for the oil companies to pretty much stick with what they're doing until the oil runs out or they're not allowed to pump it any more. With that said, every oil company has some kind of biofuel program, many of them fairly multifaceted.

    • by Jeremi (14640)

      why can't they corner the market on alternative fuels? They're still going to gouge you, whether it's $1.50/litre of gas, or a $1.50/litre of hydrogen or $1.50/kWh or whatever.

      I suspect they'll do just what you recommend, but not until they calculate that conditions are right to do so. Starting their transition to renewables "too soon" would cost them development and infrastructure money, while also decreasing demand for their current product, thus reducing their profits two different ways.

      Or to put it another way, when you see the oil companies pushing energy technologies other than oil in a significant way, that's when you'll know the world's oil supply really has started to s

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:06PM (#40488671)
    We're going to hear lots of lamenting and hating of Exxon, but they're just a business providing what their customers want. And sad to say... all of you that are bitching about them ARE their customers. I've got one question for you: Have you stopped driving you car yet? Stopped using busses? Stopped using electricity? No? The problem isn't Exxon, the problem is we the people. We WILL use all of the fossil fuels. We'll burn them till their gone. Even if the US and Europe banned their use tomorrow, China, Russia, and Africa would gladly take up the slack.

    So the question isn't "How do we find alternatives to fossil fuels" because we aren't going to find anything nearly as cheap and easy in the near future. The question is "how can we deal with whatever problems using them is going to cause?" If they really are going to cause so much damage it ends the world, then we're fucked. Cause it's going to happen. If, instead, it's going to gradually raise the tempureture of the planet over the next 200 year, then we'll likely be able to come up with some technology to help mitigate the effects. If we can't we'd better at least learn to deal with them... because the fact is, it's going to happen... no matter how much you complain on an internet forum using your computer with it's 500 watt power supply that you left on all day while you were at work.
    • by bunratty (545641)
      Reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not mean we stop driving cars. It means the cars will be powered by something other than fossil fuels. We need cars that run on electricity, fuel cells, or biofuels. We need power plants that run on nuclear, solar, or wind. That's a change that cannot be done on an individual basis. If the US and Europe ban fossil fuels, we can tax imports from China, Russia, and Africa until they do the same. If you consider the cost of dealing with the warming that results from fossi
    • by Ryanrule (1657199)

      Take your boomer/genx apologist bs and GTFO.

    • by Lennie (16154)

      I don't drive a car, I have a bike. I life nearby my work and the shops.

      How about you ?

  • Best part (Score:4, Insightful)

    by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:13PM (#40488749) Journal

    And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain [...]

    And we will spend trillions of dollars of tax money to keep that access available.

    • And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain [...]

      And we will spend trillions of dollars of tax money and hundreds of thousands of lives to keep that access available.

      FTFY.

  • ...Anthropogenic Global Warming coalition.

  • by davydagger (2566757) on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:33PM (#40488973)
    If the same people who believe that creationism is a drop in replacement for science were also the ones objecting to unobstructed consumption, manufacture and/or sale of oil/gas products, and the global warming theory

    However its generally, but not always the more scientificly aware people who come out against fossil fuel usage as a whole, and global warming. There has really yet to be a good scientific study against global warming other than soley industry funded research.(like a bunch of scared CEOs desperately trying to keep stock prices from tanking in a panic)

    <quote>have you stopped driving your car yet</quote>

    This argument is a fallicy, our society is set up around automobile usage, and it'd be difficult if not impossible in most places to continue your life without an automobile. A better argument would be why aren't people buying more efficeint cars. Many are, but I still see a steady parade of people communiting to office buildings in SUVs. The worst part, is since they consume more fuel, they increase demand driving prices up.
  • The man's favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged. All credibility voided by that fact alone.
  • Of course not... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Master Control P (655590) <[ejkeever] [at] [nerdshack.com]> on Thursday June 28, 2012 @08:49PM (#40489109)
    And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

    Of course not, it's not as if it's your boys who are going to get sent off to get killed, maimed for life, and left with memories that will haunt them forever, you goddamn plutocrat fuck. It's not as if nearly all of our current national security headaches (and nearly all the people killed by terrorism in the world for the last 20 years) can be traced to our meddling in the middle east AT YOUR BEHEST AND ON YOUR BEHALF. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick, don't you people pay handlers to prevent us from seeing just what massive assholes you are?

    Notice how we never, ever hear this kind of despicable statement from people like Joe Biden, or the English royals, both of of whom have family serving? You will find no record of President Eisenhower blithely insulting the difficult job the men in Korea faced (I wonder why!). Yet there is a word that specifically refers to the kind of twunts who don't serve, then loudly cheer to have others sent to die (especially if they use privilege to avoid serving after being called to): chickenhawks. They are despicable and should be loudly shamed at every opportunity.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Think "Colorado Springs." Adaptation sounds wonderful but it'll be fueled by burning houses, with hopes damped by submerged homes. It's all part of the deal.

  • Sadly, this was inevitable because the people trying to educate us about the reality of global climate change have a lunatic fringe which *does* overstate the situation, and that's as unhelpful and dishonest as the people pretending that there is no global climate change.

    • by bunratty (545641)
      Doesn't every large group of people have a lunatic fringe? Should I be turned off Christianity because of Westboro Baptist Church? Should I be turned off Islam because of a handful of terrorists? Why not just ignore the crazies when evaluating the big picture?
  • by cplusplus (782679) on Friday June 29, 2012 @12:51PM (#40496649) Journal
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" It's funny because it's true. It's also sad because it's true.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...