Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Jul '15 19:12
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156373/Exxon-knew-climate-change-1981-funded-deniers-27-years.html

    They have known about this since at least 1981.

    Just like the tobacco industry knew all about the dangers of tobacco but paid scientists to deny deny deny.
  2. 10 Jul '15 20:26
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html
  3. 10 Jul '15 20:57
    1896
    Standard Oil contributes $250,000 to Republican William McKinley's presidential campaign against Democrat William Jennings Bryan, a supporter of antitrust legislation. The candidates' opposing views about trusts polarize public opinion on the issue.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/rockefellers/

    McKinley launched American Imperialism. The Rockefellers are extremely corrupt and power hungry.

    1946
    The Rockefellers offer the United Nations a tract of land on their Pocantico estate as a site for its headquarters. When that plan falls through, Nelson persuades John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to purchase land on New York City's East River and donate it to the United Nations.

    Now you think they support carbon taxes because they are good people? Don't be naive!
  4. 10 Jul '15 21:01
    Rockefellers to switch investments to 'clean energy'

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475

    When they get their carbon tax they will profit from it.
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Jul '15 19:14
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Rockefellers to switch investments to 'clean energy'

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29310475

    When they get their carbon tax they will profit from it.
    You said it was a pittance what they funded but did you notice the part where that funding lasted 27 years?
  6. 15 Jul '15 01:21
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You said it was a pittance what they funded but did you notice the part where that funding lasted 27 years?
    So? It was still less than half what they funded Stanford according to The Guardian. We were talking amount, not length of time. You still have not said who they supposedly funded on the skeptics side. Until we know it is hard to know it is even really true. Have you looked into it yet?
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    15 Jul '15 19:57
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    So? It was still less than half what they funded Stanford according to The Guardian. We were talking amount, not length of time. You still have not said who they supposedly funded on the skeptics side. Until we know it is hard to know it is even really true. Have you looked into it yet?
    On the other hand, you are quite willing to believe Exxon funded climatologists, why do you believe the Guardian?
  8. 15 Jul '15 21:07
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    On the other hand, you are quite willing to believe Exxon funded climatologists, why do you believe the Guardian?
    The Guardian link I looked at is at the bottom of the OP link you posted. It says this:

    "According to Greenpeace, the company spent more than $30m on think tanks and researchers that promoted climate denial over the years."

    The link I posted says this:

    "Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming."

    When I wrote less than half I should have said about 7 times less. Notice that they are getting their information from Greenpeace. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund donates money to Greenpeace.

    http://www.undueinfluence.com/greenpeace.htm

    It isn't about believing The Guardian, it is Greenpeace since that is their source of information. That is why I am skeptical that Exxonmobile really funded climate deniers at all. It is all alleged by a leaked e-mail. For all we know Exxonmobile wanted the leak.

    Why would Exxonmobile have even felt threatened by a carbon tax? The tax would affect all carbon containing fossil fuels which would harm coal the most leaving less competition from that heavy carbon fuel. Aside from that increase in profit all oil would be taxed equally so the tax would simply be passed to the consumer. Same thing with Natural gas, but natural gas would be taxed less than the other fossil fuels because it contains less carbon than all the other fossil fuels. Exxonmobile produces more natural gas than any other company in the USA. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

    What company produces the most natural gas in the world?