So you don't believe in Global Warming? Exxon would be very happy to hear it.?

Question

Material shows weakening of climate reports
By Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. Wald Published: March 20, 2007

WASHINGTON: A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President George W. Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

They were the first public statements on the issue by Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the "climate team leader" for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures.

Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the White House. "When I came to the White House," he testified, "my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration."

Answer 1

Every report that claims the human population is not accelerating global warming to temperatures higher than the world has experienced for more than 5000 years, is not a peer reviewed article. 100% of the articles that do claim this are peer reviewed.

This simply means that those which do not claim it are merely unsupported claims of opinion. Those which are peer reviewed have been supported by fellow scientists, who understand what is happening. I have to believe the peer reviewed articles, because they meet the criteria of true science.

Answer 2

There is a lot of money riding on the global warming issue...no matter what side or opinion you support. Most people believe that global warming is real right now. It almost seems common sense. Yet, it is not clear what MUST be done, vs. what can be done. Are the studies unbiased? Is this clean science evidence or tainted with opinion?

Should we in the USA pour billions into reducing carbon dioxide without understanding the benefits? Should we do nothing because there is nothing that will solve the problem? Is the phenominon a natural part of the world environment and self correcting? Or must we do whatever we can a fast as we can? There is no clear direction.

Act in haste, repent in leisure.

That said, those who pollute the discussion with biased disinformation should be jailed.

Answer 3

Blaming the oil companies is like the drug addict blaming the drug dealer and drug lord for his addiction.

When are we going to learn that most pollution is caused by population growth and the world's demand for goods and services. The globe is warming. We have known that for many years. We just don't know exactly why. If it is being caused by population growth and world demand for energy, then the only thing that will stop it is cut population, or cut our usage of energy. The real question is - are you willing to have a smaller house, smaller car, travel less, use less lights, etc.

We could have had nuclear power but the libs killed it. We could have more alternative forms of energy, but it just has not been cost-effective in the past. We certainly haven't been willing to limit population our energy usage. No- we will just blame the corporations and oil companies for the problem.

A perfect example is Al Gore's huge homes and high amount of energy use. He is supposed to be aware of the problem.

Answer 4

toph, Really? The earth hasn't been this warm for at least the last 5000 years? What is your basis for this remarkable statement?

The IPCC in their latest report said the northern hemisphere temperature (they say northern hemispere because there is cooling in the southern hemisphere, especially at antarctica) is very likely the warmest in the last 500 years and likely the warmest in the last 1300 years. Are you suggesting that the IPCC report is not peer reviewed and should be discarded? They don't subscribe to your 5000 year theory.

Here is a study by a scientist at Virginia Polytechnic, L. David Roper, about temperatures in the antarctic and greenland in the recent past. His data shows that antarctic temperatures were warmer than present 400 years ago, 600 years ago, 1400 years ago, 1700 years ago, 2600 years ago, etc. This is certainly a lot sooner than 5000 years ago.

His study also shows that the greenland temperature has only been colder than present in about 300 years of the last 5000 years. In other words, greenland has been warmer than present in 4700 of the last 5000 years. If you think Roper is obviously paid by exxon to put out this data, you'd be wrong. He makes it clear on his website that he is a proponent of man-made global warming.

Answer 5

Try watching a recent British documentary called, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and get back to us on that. There are every bit as many organizations happy to get people like you to totally embrace the global warming religion. Science is supposed to be about open discussion of theories, but if instead, you accept a theory as your god, you won't allow heretics to question your theology.

Thankfully, after many years of being threatened with sanctions, highly respectable scientists are coming out of the shadows and speaking up. You will soon see the error of your ways.

Answer 6

I'm 36 yrs old. I was frist taught about Global Warming when I was in Catholic middle school. I've always known about this. I've known it's 'seriousiness' has come and gone over the years. But I've read about it in National Geographic magazines over the past 20 years every once in while and even in the Ranger magazine I was subscribed to as a child. I don't get why people in 2007 are saying it doesn't exist?!?! It does!

Answer 7

And yet Al Gore and his minions didn't start their anti-gw campaign until AFTER he started a company to make money off it.

Game, set, match. Their all crooks putting out reports that are based on where they get their money.

Global Warming is a fact, just not like what the alarmists on either side are saying. But I will make a deal with ya, I will totally go along with what your side wants, we will force the whole world to your whims. But, in 30 years, if no change for the cooler occurs, we get to take you all and hang you at the nearest tree, both you, your kids, grandkids etc. Do we have a deal?

Answer 8

Oh my flipping word, human beings, worldwide warming? Who cares, stay spontaneously, do no longer think of of whats going to ensue. No offense, yet worldwide warming is merely a bunch of tripe approximately no longer something. particular people who think of we are ruining our international attempt to make us sense undesirable. :)

Answer 9

You answered your own propaganda statement in the first line. The global temperature has risen and fallen dozens of times throughout its history, warming markedly as recently as 1000 A.D. The 'global warming' referred to today is nothing more than a myth, utilized by liberal extremists to further their agenda.

Answer 10

Al Gore is re-opening his zinc mine