[ExI] The big wta riot

[BillK]

On 11/26/09, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>
> In general in this context I would tend to agree with James (in spite of the
> fact that by and large I do not agree with some of his perspectives).  One
> only watch the Sunday morning news shows where various companies who
> control the oil and gas reserves are trying to make those energy sources
> appear "green".  For example, "America has more than 100 years of clean
> ("green") natural gas supplies that it owns" (or something roughly equivalent).
> Ignoring the fact that if you are taking stored carbon out of the ground and
> placing it into the atmosphere as CO2 (which is what burning coal, oil, *or*
> natural gas does) -- *IS* contributing to global warming.  IMO, there should
> be a massive demonstrations in front of every board meeting of every coail,
> oil, natural gas and electricity producing/using company/utility every year
> favoring stopping the consumption of these fuels or the addition of the
> carbon to the atmosphere.  Its either that or we seriously embrace a
> significant geoengineering process (reflection of heat onto the earth, etc.)
> (either way energy becomes more expensive).  What better solution than to
> tax the problem creating companies to directly contribute to the
> solutions???
>
> So one can view James' perspective as simply an awareness of the public not
> wanting to change the status quo (cheap energy) or the corporates not
> wanting to change their profits/bonuses (and more importantly significantly
> devalue their balance sheets based on their reserves.  The corporate CEO or
> board members who enable the devaluation of billions of $ in value/profits
> -- they are toast IMO -- and they tend to know it.)
<snip>
>

Funding of global warming skeptics
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics>

ExxonMobil has drawn criticism from the environmental lobby for
funding organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and skeptical of
the scientific opinion that global warming is caused by the burning of
fossil fuels. According to the left-wing Mother Jones Magazine, the
company was a member of one of the first such skeptic groups, the
Global Climate Coalition, founded in 1989.
According to The Guardian, ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups
skeptical of global warming, the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Congress on Racial
Equality, TechCentralStation.com, and International Policy Network.
ExxonMobil's support for these organizations has drawn criticism from
the Royal Society, the academy of sciences of the United Kingdom.

The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2007 accusing
ExxonMobil of spending $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43
advocacy organizations which dispute the impact of global warming. The
report argued that ExxonMobil used disinformation tactics similar to
those used by the tobacco industry in its denials of the link between
lung cancer and smoking, saying that the company used "many of the
same organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific understanding
of climate change and delay action on the issue."
--------------------

Yes, I know it is Wikipedia, but they quote references for what the
article claims.
Do a search for:
'ExxonMobil Funding Disinformation Groups About Global Warming'


BillK