Scientists tell Exxon to stop climate change denial

2

Comments

  • Eva7
    Eva7 Posts: 226
    surferdude wrote:
    Nothing taken personally.

    Just a small, quick question. What make syou think that major media is biased in reporting environmental issue but not the European media?

    The European are biased as well, especially because the US media affect all the world media. But in Europe we have some sort of small "freedom paradises" in the press, somehow, more than in US lately, a few more independent outlets that once they "leak" something, all the others cannot pretend the news don't exist anymore (this happened, for exemple, in the case of the white phosphorous use in Falluja....) ... so, while the majority of the media also in Europe have tried to avoid talking of climate change, lately there was a sort of "rebellion", like documentaries and in-depth news programs which seem to have "escaped" from the higher control, and it was hard to ignore by all the other ones...
    http://www.myspace.com/stoikaestinta
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What? Tabacco companies do pump money into PR compaigns that highlights the affects of smoking.

    I'm saying what if they pumped money into campaigns that said that everyone who smoked doesn't get cancer ... it would be the truth but we accept it to be morally wrong ...
  • breakmarysfall
    breakmarysfall Posts: 368
    surferdude wrote:

    But the last thing I need as a Canadian is to hear a German talk about the sanctity of our old-growth forests when I see what they've done to their's.

    ...maybe because we learned out of our mistakes? at least some krauts did.

    ...and that is maybe the reason I am just not quiet on this subject anymore.
    there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
    ...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    I'm saying what if they pumped money into campaigns that said that everyone who smoked doesn't get cancer ... it would be the truth but we accept it to be morally wrong ...

    Spreading the truth cannot be morally wrong. If some people think it is, that's their problem.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The truth cannot be morally wrong.

    it is when the aim is to deceive other truths but feel free to see it your way.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    it is when the aim is to deceive other truths but feel free to see it your way.

    Truths cannot be contradictory. You cannot "aim to deceive" a truth by spreading another truth.
  • breakmarysfall
    breakmarysfall Posts: 368
    Eva7 wrote:
    The European are biased as well, especially because the US media affect all the world media. But in Europe we have some sort of small "freedom paradises" in the press, somehow, more than in US lately, a few more independent outlets that once they "leak" something, all the others cannot pretend the news don't exist anymore (this happened, for exemple, in the case of the white phosphorous use in Falluja....) ... so, while the majority of the media also in Europe have tried to avoid talking of climate change, lately there was a sort of "rebellion", like documentaries and in-depth news programs which seem to have "escaped" from the higher control, and it was hard to ignore by all the other ones...


    ...I need to double post this.
    thanks again Eva for explaining so well... :)

    and I do agree: some of us are just getting tired after so many years going on in discussion of this subject around here... it seems it is a hopeless case, nearly.
    there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
    ...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
  • Eva7
    Eva7 Posts: 226
    breakmarysfall wrote:
    ...I need to double post this.
    thanks again Eva for explaining so well... :)

    and I do agree: some of us are just getting tired after so many years going on in discussion of this subject around here... it seems it is a hopeless case, nearly.

    wellll.......... that was only the positive answer. there is also a negative one.
    Lobbies controlling the media are also in Europe, not only in the US. Europe is way more interested than the US to get independent from fossil fuels like gas and oil. Alternative energy corporations are quite less powerful than the nuclear lobby, that's why the nuclear energy supporters are "riding the horse" of climate change....
    http://www.myspace.com/stoikaestinta
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Truths cannot be contradictory. You cannot "aim to deceive" a truth by spreading another truth.

    again ... believe what you want ... that statement is absurd to me ...
  • breakmarysfall
    breakmarysfall Posts: 368
    Eva7 wrote:
    wellll.......... that was only the positive answer. there is also a negative one.
    Lobbies controlling the media are also in Europe, not only in the US. Europe is way more interested than the US to get independent from fossil fuels like gas and oil. Alternative energy corporations are quite less powerful than the nuclear lobby, that's why the nuclear energy supporters are "riding the horse" of climate change....


    ...seriously, don't think it is the reason here in Germ.
    we have an agreement to stop any kind of atomic power winning by the year... let me think.
    well, I don't know exactly when, but we have a common agreement, still,
    that atomic power is by no means the power of the future.
    the last government decided it (8-5 years ago), and the new one did not take it back but confirmed it.

    ...so, but still, I fully agree that our lobbiest also influence the media big times. big big times, but we still do have some sort of good journalism, one you can trust... as you said, niches,
    and to me those are national TV and the spiegel :)
    there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
    ...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    again ... believe what you want ... that statement is absurd to me ...

    You find it "absurd" to suggest that two truths cannot be contradictory?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    yes, and they do it of their own free will, right?

    In some cases, yes. In other cases they do it at the point of a gun against their free will.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Here's the point:

    You emit greenhouse gasses everytime you exhale. Therefore you should stop breathing

    Understand now?

    That is not even relevant in what I was saying.....plus CO2 is the least of my concerns (but still a concern for sure though) when compared to NOx's that create smog and also disrupt the natural synthesis of O3 (Ozone) in the atmosphere by creating free radicals.....which disrupts a very natural and important chemical process in our atmosphere....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    That is not even relevant in what I was saying.....

    Yes it is. You're demanding action to accomplish a goal and completely disgregarding the very distinct possibility that the action and the goal are not linked.
    plus CO2 is the least of my concerns (but still a concern for sure though) when compared to NOx's that create smog and also disrupt the natural synthesis of O3 (Ozone) in the atmosphere by creating free radicals.....which disrupts a very natural and important chemical process in our atmosphere....

    Ok. Feel free to combine both! In total you're talking about less than one percent of greenhouse gases of which human industry contributes less than 10%.

    I love how something is "natural" as long as people don't contribute to it.
  • RockinInCanada
    RockinInCanada Posts: 2,016
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes it is. You're demanding action to accomplish a goal and completely disgregarding the very distinct possibility that the action and the goal are not linked.



    Ok. Feel free to combine both! In total you're talking about less than one percent of greenhouse gases of which human industry contributes less than 10%.

    I love how something is "natural" as long as people don't contribute to it.

    There is a natural process in the atmosphere that is severely disrupted by NO'x which are emitted from vehicles...that is known...and is not natural occuring (meaning it requires a human element).....

    As for the breathing...trees take in CO2...so it may balance each other out....

    But my point was it is ignorant to disregard the environment...even if 100% proven we were not contributing to global warming.....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    There is a natural process in the atmosphere that is severely disrupted by NO'x which are emitted from vehicles...that is known...and is not natural occuring (meaning it requires a human element).....

    Of course. The extent of that affect is, however, unknown.

    The roads you drive on disrupt existing "natural processes" as well. The food you ate today disrupted existing "natural processes" too.
    As for the breathing...trees take in CO2...so it may balance each other out....

    But my point was it is ignorant to disregard the environment...even if 100% proven we were not contributing to global warming.....

    Of course! It is always ignorant to disregard the environment, regardless of the reason. But that's what you're proposing when you say something like:

    "I do not understand why we need any sort of proof in order to combat emissions....what is the real point of waiting for the proof?"

    As I stated earlier, you create emissions when you breathe. Killing you off in some kind of emissions witchhunt ignores the very real environmental fact that your breathing doesn't harm the environment or anyone who lives in it.
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    I'm gonna ask again...what's the worst thing that could happen if we take global warming seriously? An alternative fuel source? Breaking free of middle eastern oil? Oh no.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:
    I'm gonna ask again...what's the worst thing that could happen if we take global warming seriously? An alternative fuel source? Breaking free of middle eastern oil? Oh no.

    Both those things would be great. But global warming isn't the only or even the best reason to do them. Furthermore, you forgot to mention industry-crippling laws, higher prices, excessive taxation and a lot of other things that can stem out of an overzealous focus on global warming.

    By none of this do I want to imply that global warming shouldn't be a huge focus for our future. But to pretend that it's harmless to rely on politio-science for technical decisions is not very smart.
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Both those things would be great. But global warming isn't the only or even the best reason to do them. Furthermore, you forgot to mention industry-crippling laws, higher prices, excessive taxation and a lot of other things that can stem out of an overzealous focus on global warming.

    By none of this do I want to imply that global warming shouldn't be a huge focus for our future. But to pretend that it's harmless to rely on politio-science for technical decisions is not very smart.

    Yea. Good point.

    ::Sigh::

    It's always something.
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Truths cannot be contradictory. You cannot "aim to deceive" a truth by spreading another truth.

    Truth can be presented by design to elicit false perceptions.

Categories