Welcome to the Energy Blog

  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.



After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum


Blog powered by Typepad

« The Liquid Chimney Battles CO2 | Main | GM Unveils Volt Plug-in Hybrid »

January 06, 2007


brian hans

wha? special interests are clouding the debate? no way... i surely would have assumed that the companies that made 10B$/quarter would be the good guys and honest brokers in the debate that they are the cause of the most significant biological and atmospherical event in the last 64.99 million years.

Heather Flanagan

Here is a quirky video about global warming I thought you might find interesting:


PO'd Patriot

...Somebody want to explain to me why Mars has been losing it's ice caps?

Doug W

"...Somebody want to explain to me why Mars has been losing it's ice caps?"

It knows we're coming for it so Mars is throwing it out into space.


You want to explain why the stratosphere is cooling and shrinking, Mr. Patriot?

You know, your position isn't very patriotic if the facts are on the other side; you're basically trying to continue damaging your own country for the sake of... what, exactly?

brian hans

PO, would u like earth to become mars? if u think that is such a good deal, why dont u start to build a vacation home on mars.

and anyhow what does mars have to do with Exxon? or are u assuming that the martians version of Exxon broke apart the martian ATM and thwarted the magnetic field?. which if its true, makes my hatred of the company even deeper!


I enjoy the scientific progress usually listed on the Energy Blog. However, posting slander from radical groups like the "Union of Concerned Scientists" taints the reading.

kent beuchert

The globe has been warming for a very long time. When it comes to human effects, I find
it amusing that efforts to rid certain pollutants during the last 30 years have had
the effect of removing some that contribute to global cooling. I also believe that the strategy of simply reducing CO2 emisions, if it succeeds lead s to places unknown. If you are going to attempt to tamper with the
atmosphere's contencts in order to "adjust"
the greenhouse affect, then it should be obvious that you need to make adjustments both ways - to warm as well as to cool. Currently we are viewing the whole process in a very primitive and unworkable fashion.
I wonder what would happen if CO2 emission producing mechanisms (other than us human emitters) disappear and then we decide we ned them. Remember, just a few volcanic erruptions can easily produce emissions that block radiation and cool the planet. People
seem most worried about warming, but by far the greatest danger would be from cooling
trend - that would lead to starvations. Increasing the temperature a few degrees isn't going to have anywhere near the effect
that cooling would have. Those most concerned about cooling haven't even mentioned these unforeseen possibilities.
The earth cooled somewhat during the decade of the 90's. It can happen again and probably will happen again. Current strategies are the result of shallow and tunnel vision thinking. I have no confidence in amateurs like Al Gore out there molding
policy. He was the same guy who was warning about the coming Ice Age during the 1980's.
We need expertise, not eco-religious nutcakes influencing policy. It would also help if climatologists could provide convincing reasons of why warming has been going on since before the Little Ice Age.
I don't like the fact that they can't explain that ongoing event. Makes me wonder just how accurate these people's predictions are going to be.

kent beuchert

As a scientist, attacking another viewpoint
because the person may have non-scientific motives is not a scientifically honorable wy of doing business. Science is based upon evidence, not personal motives, just the sme s in a court of law. If the other's theories and evidence are valid, then they are valid, regardless of whether you like the person who's presenting them. In other words, science has to be about evidence and proofs, not about personalitiem, or the size of someone's wallet, or anything else. I'm absolutey astounded that a supposedly scientific org would make totally unscientifically based arguments against
other opinions. If you can't demonstrate, via evidence or logical argument why the other fellow shouldn't be believed, then
he probably has as much right to be believed as you do. Science is ot a matter of slandering your opponent. If you can't produce convincing scientifically based arguments against the guys, then shut up.
I thought all scientists learned all of this in grammar school. Unbelievable.


According to the data from the Astrophysical Journal and The Marshall Institute , it's the SUN and not greenhouse gasses that are the cause of Global Warming. The anecdotal evidence the so called "scientists" use to attack the Oil industry is rooted in their hatered for all things capitalism. If they want to live in caves and eat organic tofu - I'm not going to stop them, but they need to shut up and leave the rest of us alone. Seriously. Have they ever been right? Ever? Weren't these the same people that said we were going to have another ice age back in the 70's? Now they're saying that global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop man's activity now. "This is the hottest summer in 2000 years!", they say as their mantra. Hey guess what? IT'S HOT DURING THE SUMMER! It'll be hot next summer. It was hot during the summer of 1600. It will be hot during the summer of 2792. Your anecdotal weather evidence isn't enough to base a theory on.

If it was hot 2000 years ago when there were no cars around and no man-made greenhouse gas activity, doen't that right there destroy your argument? If one volcanic eruption from just one volcano spews out more greenhouse gases than all the exahust from all the cars ever in the history of the internal combustion engine - why aren't they trying to ban volcanoes too?

If these people had an actual interest in the truth instead of trying to destroy Capitalism (believe me, this is their true goal) they would see the factual evidence as a better predictor of global warming then a 0.00000004 sampling of data.

Now I don't know about you, but I think it's going to be pretty hard to stop the sun from doing it's thing. So while these environmentalist try to limit your quality of life and try to take us back to the Dark Ages, I'm going to be calling them on the carpet and throwing the facts in their face.

Want to save the environment? Stop the environmentalist movement.


Andy, the George C. Marshall Institute is one of the Exxon-financed denialist organizations.  They are professional liars.

If the sun was behind this, everything would be warming.  Instead, the stratosphere is cooling and shrinking.  The only explanation for this is that greenhouse gases are blocking IR radiation in the wavelengths which warm the stratosphere from below - perfectly consistent with anthropogenic global warming models, but could not possibly be happening if the sun was responsible.

Wise up.

mark c r (chemist), UK

Reading the above comments makes me realise what a situation we find ourselves in - slurs, arguing and personal attacks... i.e. POLITICS!
The fundamental science is beyond dispute in my view. I'm afraid the very convincing presentation by Al Gore in the film "An Inconvenient Truth" has sold it to me beyond any further doubt... and may I add - it would now seem an increasing amount of people in the USA are listening - despite the unethical activities of certain groups putting out deliberately misleading information q.v. the cigarette companies have been found to have done this. I am a scientist by qualification and profession. There is no way I would allow my work to be "SPUN" by UNQUALIFIED NON-SPECIALISTS. This is highly unethical for scientists to allow this to happen with their own work!

Just a point to note:
The ocean temperatures around the UK have increased +1.7C since 2001 due to changes in the circulation of currents in the Atlantic. This is having dramatic impacts on the island ecosystems around the UK. That is not in doubt since plants not native to the islands that can't grow below a certain temperature are now spreading amongst Scotish islands.

Also (some anecdotal evidence) its Sun 7/1/2007 14:14GMT - and the weather in the north of England is mild to say the least. At this time of year - even in my lifetime - the first week of January should be persistantly below freezing or very close to it. Today it is 11C and it feels more like March or September! I'll be looking to see what the weather experts say regarding this change -Does this indicate a change in our climate - this is becoming a trend as last winter was very mild also!
I also note also that American smaller oil-consumption this winter has decreased the Sweet Crude Oil price... due to mild weather...

I've read Exxon-Mobil's Exxon-Mobil The Outlook for Energy: A view to 2030". It was interesting to see a dose of realism of the nature of the energy problem (providing for up to 9 billion people), but I was very disappointed with the fact that climate change was barely mentioned in the report(if at all!), and there seemed to be a "business as usual" view to the whole report.

This just isn't SUSTAINABLE. If Exxon-Mobil continue with this as an unflexible policy - they will certainly start suffering problems as an organisation within 10 years. They'll be increasingly alienated from their consumers/customers... they will have to rely on the US government to secure additional supplies for them... and fundamentally - their profits will probably begin to be affected?

Exxon-Mobil needs to start "thinking out of the box" - to be more constructive or more bad PR is likely to follow from many quarters...

mark c r (chemist), UK

Incidentally, anyone claiming Al Gore was "spinning" anything in his presentation need to remember:

Al Gore was simply saying we need to implement new technologies ASAP to mitigate the CO2 emissions. q.v. the wedges (covered in many blogs thoroughly!)

He was not saying "energy companies need to stop producing energy"... they have a valuable input to society generally.

This IS NOT THE cigarette companies! Energy IS NOT A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT!!

There are alternatives! Exxon-Mobil needs to embrace these whole heartedly... it may actually find that they INVIGOURATE the company.

There are precedents for this - in the implementation of clean technology in other sectors here in Europe.

In the meantime - society needs to look HOW IT USES ENERGY. Exxon-Mobil will help itself it it also contributes to this much like other organisations are doing - in addition.

Stephen Hunter

If people are going to post "facts" please be careful to cite your sources. Also, people on both sides of the issue should be careful to not use ad hominem arguments.

mark c r (chemist), UK

I'll have a look on "DEFRA" and maybe other related "offical" websites for the 1.7C figure - if that was directed at me - I apologise! I didn't think my comments were too outlandish compared to some of the previous ones!!!

What I discussed is recent and impacts are beginning to be recognised now... I only heard about it 4 weeks ago.

I'd seen coverage about it, since a group of conservationists were finding dramatic decreases in Puffin numbers at bird colonies in Scotland (and trying to help - they found a plant not native to cold climates had moved in and prevented Puffin burrows being made due to the "bushy nature" of the plant, and this was due to a sea temperature rise allowing the seed germination - which is usually inhibited below a certain temperature).

The actual figure for the change in sea temperature was from someone at highly respectable Scotish (UK) University (Edinburgh, from memory).

Anyway, I'm a chemist - not a climatologist or ecologist. So really I'm only able to maybe comment on the Exxon-Mobil report I mentioned with authority (See ref above).

I still maintain what I wrote there.Indeed, I know from contacts I have, that the European companies BP & Shell are both looking with a different perspective on this (probably because the European political/consumer scene simply wouldn't allow a "business as usual attitude"). So as I maintained Exxon-Mobil may begin to suffer in future...

Much like GM, Ford and the other major US car makers are suffering in the global car market - because their car model's FUEL ECONOMIES are poor. An UNSUSTAINABLE BUSINESS POLICY WILL LEAVE THE USA AT A DISADVANTAGE ECONOMICALLY! Plus can people not see the opportunities this "problem" creates for innovation?

q.v. "An Inconvenient Truth", Al Gore makes the point that US car makers are at a disadvantage in global markets and compares the fuel economies of US, European, Chinese and another countries cars... he says that some markets won't allow US cars in due to the poor Miles Per Gallon

See Al Gore's slideshow presentation here. *NB the video is 233MB! sorry!

The original source for that was:
Calvin Jones' Blog "Climate Change Action" which I read occasionally, although contrary to the some of it's content - I realise the need to have technological solutions to "support people's quality of life".

Personally, I'm in favour of reducing consumption as far as possible in combination with technological innovations - I think this is the sensible way - and is the same as Al Gore suggests


kent beuchert wrote: I have no confidence in amateurs like Al Gore out there molding policy. He was the same guy who was warning about the coming Ice Age during the 1980's.

Kent, do you have a reference for this? I looked on Google and didn't see anything about Gore warning of a coming ice age. This sounds like more right wing BS like Gore claiming "he invented the internet" (a. he never said that. b. he pushed to come up with money for internet infrastructure before most idiot politicians had ever heard of it, and that's what the comment was about.)

You think that the UCS is "attacking another viewpoint because the person may have non-scientific motives"? The UCS is attacking ExxonMobil because they are spreading LIES. That's the whole point of this thread. What I can't figure out is why deniers, some of whom fancy themselves "scientists", take the position that they do. For the greater good of ExxonMobil? Because you think some evil commies like the UCS want to "destroy capitalism"? Do you think someone is going to take away your SUV, and your guns while they're at it? Honestly, what kind of wierd boogieman delusions are dancing around in the heads of you deniers? You're just good scientists, right? Only interested in the truth, right? Right.

JP Elverding - the Netherlands

Irrespectiveof the truth as described in the report, some of you may have noticed that things are heating up. Yes, nature is a major contributorto global heating, and I'm willing to throw the sun in as well. As we cannot change those variables we shall have to give our best shot to reduce our own emissions.
> OK, suppose GHG are an hoax. Let's say it is just an incident that NY still is snow free; that in my skateloving netherlands we still have no frost and that major Austrian, Swiss and French wintersport events have been cancelled due to slopes being clad with green stuff (no snow..).

We still cannot deny that resources are getting scarce, and that this scarcity leads to higher prices for resources as oil and metals. Oil may have dipped at this moment, half a year ago it was touching 80 dollar a barrel. It may be cheaper now, but do you recall the barrelprice 2 years ago? Not too mention the more palpable price per gallon.

What we can expect, and at a major rate, is a growing shortage of raw materials, or rather affordable (cheap) raw materials.
So companies like exxon that tell you to shut up and fill will fall into their own oilpit. Because without investing in better (and cheaper) materials and alternatives exxon stock will plummet as they have missed the point and are now trying to prevent that plummeting.
(Unlike Shell does, but then they are european based! Still they have to learn and do a lot as sustainability is not their core business yet, but at least they are investing in alternatives!)

So whether you believe in GHG or not, your money will find it harder to sustain most SUV's; either your lungs or your wallet will dictate your actions on feul before long!

mark c r (chemist), UK

Two points I forgot to mention about Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth":

The senator (I forget his name) who said "Global warming is the greastest hoax ever perpatrated on the American people" ... really needs to look into the subject deeper. I think he's doing his electorate a diservice by coming out with things like that. I say this since the other half of the western world i.e. Europe is extremely concerned about it.
If I were him - I'd be concerned THAT "EVERYONE ELSE ARE CONCERNED" - if people catch my drift?

Also the other point George Bush Snr. calling Al Gore along the lines of "Environmental Loony" and some of his other comments.

I find it terribly ironic now - Al Gore's increasingly in the US AND in particular now Europe should probably be considered mainstream in his views - merely because they, if you think about espouse "economic effiency with regard to energy" and "R&D into new technology"

Infact - I think all of his suggestions in the film were positively sensible. Reducing America's $300 BILLION per annum USD, oil imports through new technology is in everyone's interest...


What i do not understand is how our goverments like ours in the UK are always going on about the enviroment but they still insist on driving big cars like the Jag, maybe they should lead by example and start to use hybrids

Harvey D

Mark c.r.

Are you sure that oil and coal based energies are NOT (even more so) defective products (for our health and survival)as are cigarettes?

In this multi-million dollar oil propaganda war, facts will be burried with scientifically supported lies as they were for tobacco/cigarettes during many decades.

It is amazing to see how many scientists (and many others) can be so easily bought. The power of money.....

mark c r (chemist), UK

Well, as far as I know - Oil and Coal: Despite G. W. Bush's claim that "America is addicted to oil..."

what is true is however: is that irresponsible and rampant use of them - with zero concern for CO2 emissions is having a negative environmental impact.
The thing is that this irresponsible use of these resources can be changed - as Al Gore suggests and this is the point I was trying to make.

This change gives us the time to get other technologies up and running.

Time is the commodity we run short of!

This is not like where the cigarette companies got people hooked, the fact they then covered up the fact that there were health damaging components to smoking - that they did know about was the unethical and illegal bit as it turned out

Come on people, what we all know is:
Exxon-Mobil needs to be at the forefront of developing new technologies. As I said - to give a "business at usual approach" - is only going to annoy alot of people (like many readers here - hence some of the comments above)

Incidentally - the government ride around in "big Jags" because ministers need 12" armour plating. Security obviously alone would be the reason why... Yeah I say get a hybrid JAG that would be a good start!!!! There's no reason why not really is there?


"It is amazing to see how many scientists (and many others) can be so easily bought."

We have gotten used to that, science for sale. It rules the drug industry coopted health research.

But the real surprise is that the deniers cannot come up with even one peer reviewed reserach paper denying human GHG caused global climate change.

Next time they start ranting, just ask them. As Al said in the movie. They don't exist.

With all that fat cash in bribes from big oil how can that be? AEI and CATO and their propagandist ilk get the dollars, but they are political not scientific in nature.

On gristmill blog recently a denier when asked to provide even one peer reviewed study opposing climate change, instead challenged the whole concept of peer reviewed research. Now that's desperation! Hehehey.


Those who are AGW skeptics may be right or wrong, or right in part and wrong in part, but to call them "liars" is not a response. It is mere name calling. It is practically a truism to say that those who resort to ad hominem attacks are unable to make a more reasoned response. The UCS argument is a pure ad hominem attack. Boiled down to its basic elements, they are saying the ExxonMobil is a big, fat liar and anyone who agrees with anything EM says it therefore also a big, fat liar and anyone who has any connection to EM, no matter how indirect or remote, must also be a big, fat liar, unless they agree with the UCS, in which case they are telling the true. And how do we know this is true? We know because the UCS says so and they always tell the truth, (or so they tell us.) There is a serious debate about GW and what should be done about it. It is too bad that the UCS has set the debate backward.


"There is a serious debate about GW"

But not even one example of peer reviewed research disputing human GHG caused global climate change.

That so-called "serious debate" is put forward by lobbyists and their client politicians and pundits instead.

It would indeed be serious debate if actual climate scientists put forth evidence disproving the theory of global climate change from human caused GHGs. Do you know of even one actual peer respected climate scientist doing this? If so let us know!


The moral of this story?

Politicians are easily "swiftboated". It's a lot harder to do with whole fields of science, like climatology. Or evolutionary biology. Or physics.


Bde2200 wrote: Those who are AGW skeptics may be right or wrong, or right in part and wrong in part, but to call them "liars" is not a response. It is mere name calling. It is practically a truism to say that those who resort to ad hominem attacks are unable to make a more reasoned response. The UCS argument is a pure ad hominem attack. Boiled down to its basic elements, they are saying the ExxonMobil is a big, fat liar...

Bde2200, the way science works is that when someone proposes something, other scientists critique it. If it is wrong, they say so. That is not an ad hominem attack, it's just science at work. When ExxonMobil pours money into a propaganda mill in order to subvert climate science, and UCS points it out, that is not an ad hominem attack. That is calling a spade a spade.

Science is not just a bunch of "opinions", where everyone's is equally valid. Science is a method for getting at the truth. EM's subversion of that process is quite frankly a crime against humanity, although I'm sure their lawyers made sure that no actual laws were broken.


There are a lot of hysterics on this board who claim to be scientists or engineers. Apparently they were never trained to look before they leap to conclusions. Greenhouse gas warming is not the issue. The issue is whether the warming is primarily anthropogenic and whether it is catastrophic. If the answer to either is "no", then the hysteria is misplaced.

The problem with political advocacy groups such as the UCS, is that many foolish people assume their public policy statements are based on science, because of their name. Sorry. It's politics all the way down.

Labeling the opposing viewpoint as liars or equivalent to holocaust deniers is childish and nonproductive. The debate over "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change" is very much just beginning. Deny it all you like, we won't say we told you so.

Nathan Ritchie

Did you all see this?


If not have a look...


Dr. X wrote: It would indeed be serious debate if actual climate scientists put forth evidence disproving


Dr. X wrote: the theory of global climate change from human caused GHGs. Do you know of even one actual peer respected climate scientist doing this?



Goodness, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.  Here we have an article claiming that the GW denialists (A) raise doubts about the most indisputable scientific evidence, and (B) fund organizations to create the appearance of a broad opposition.

So what do we have here all of a sudden?  A surge of trolls indulging in (A) and (B)!  And not one of them will rebut, or even acknowledge, questions about scientific evidence!

I think Exxon-Mobil's astroturf campaign has hit The Energy Blog.  I think this means they're getting desperate.

Of course, the trolls could prove me wrong by showing me how e.g. non-anthropogenic causes account for the warming of the poles and cooling of Earth's stratosphere.  I'll put $100 that none of them will post a link to a paper.  Anyone want to bet that one will?


Nucbuddy wrote: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

From that widipedia article:
"This page lists scientists, not necessarily involved in climate research, ..."

Yes, some of them do have some claim to being involved in climate research, but many are not obviously trained in the field. I also note that the list, which attempts to be complete, is also very short. Out of thousands of climate scientists, millions of other scientists, they have 22 people on their list. Most, perhaps all scientific fields have their cranks and quacks. Perhaps you are familiar with Dr. Peter Duesberg. He was a respected molecular biologist at Berkeley and first discoverer of an oncogene. He later gained great notoriety for his theory that AIDS was not caused by HIV, but possibly by recreational drug use. He was clearly in error on this, but his stature in the field gave him much credibility. He refused to back down, even to this day. Some listened to him, and "the controversy" wasted a lot of peoples time and energy, and probably cost a lot of lives. Is this wikipedia article a list of Climate Change Duesbergs?

mark c r (chemist), UK

Engineer-Poet wrote: "Of course, the trolls could prove me wrong by showing me how e.g. non-anthropogenic causes account for the warming of the poles and cooling of Earth's stratosphere. I'll put $100 that none of them will post a link to a paper. Anyone want to bet that one will?"

Yes I agree, I'll add £50 sterling to anyone who can give me a DOI number of any article in a respected peer-reviewed article - with the researcher - IN NO WAY CONNECTED TO ANY ENERGY/TRANSPORT or other industry i.e. INDEPENDENT - and I don't wish to get in debates about "levels of independence" ... you either are or arn't.

I'll still listen to researchers from EM and other energy companies - to NOT to listen means you're academically ignorant - just a warning to some people.

On the contrary - here's a report by an economist now everyone's probably heard about, you can say this guy's "an environmental loony"!

I wonder if this was read by EM?

As I keep repeating (and I will continue to do so):

"what we all know is:
Exxon-Mobil needs to be at the forefront of developing new technologies. As I said - to give a "business at usual approach" - is only going to annoy alot of people (like many readers here - hence some of the comments above)"

mark c r (chemist), UK

"On the contrary - here's a report by an economist now everyone's probably heard about, you can say this guy's "an environmental loony"!

That goes to any propective politicans trying to get elected :

q.v. George Bush Sr. quote from An Inconvenient Truth"...

AND sorry for the typo (above)

"Exxon-Mobil needs to be at the forefront of developing new technologies..."
AND not adopting a
"business AS usual approach"


Got a lot of warming around here! I'll take my climate science from scientists and scientific organisations like the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Atmospheric Research ahead of the paid for opinions of the Think Tanks. The debate about the reality of AGW is over, but the debate about what to do about it is just warming up. The solution needs to be new technology and some of that is beginning to emerge despite R&D budgets smaller than what gets spent on a few miles of freeway. The Fossil fuel industries will use their (our) money, their long standing relationships with Political parties and Gov't deparments and money (did I mention money?) to fight policy changes that effect their profitability. Look forward to media campaigns predicting economic disaster, put together by a very competent advertising industry that has no morals or ethics. Expect more spent on that on than developing technological solutions. Hope I'm wrong.


Looks like the bet's up to $200 that nobody will link to a real (peer-reviewed) paper, and no takers yet.  Quelle surprise!

Buddy Ebsen

I continually wonder what the real motivation of the GW deniers is. Are you so addicted to burning hydrocarbons that you fear any suggestion that we should reduce consumption of it by one bit? I mean I understand Exxon's viewpoint, its their livelihood, but I assume the rest of you don't earn your living from oil. What gives? Will we have to pry your gas-powered Hummer from your cold, dead hands?

My viewpoint is that IC engines are disgustingly dirty, smelly, noisy and just a generally poor design to begin with. I look forward to a solar-powered society run by electric motors. Clean, silent, long-running, simple, almost maintenance-free.

Imagine the power of one or more massive electric motors shoving your huge SUV almost silently forward so fast you can't reach the radio knob as you leave a Ferrari in the dust...

Apply now for a job in a wind-turbine company, or a solar panel supplier or installer. Get in on the ground floor! Open your own business selling inverters, turbine towers, or any other related industry. You will soon wonder what your problem was with letting go of the oil era.


Real motive? Crankiness.

They are very cranky and take it out on the internet. Fiber, sunlight, and exersize.

That's what this energy revolution needs!!!

Yep Buddy! And small business to install it all. And plenty of entrepeneurs. And factories with good jobs making it all.

All that free energy from solar, water, and wind impossible to monopolize. Powering a huge economic boom based on real increases in productivity.

Instead of mining, drilling, refining, and contaminating. Devices that collect the free energy manufactured and installed.

Budson Ebby

I continually wonder what the real motivation of the GW alarmists is. Are you so addicted to the adrenalin rush of impending catastrophe that you fear any suggestion that we should rationally examine the methodologies and assumptions of well-financed climate super-stars? I mean I understand Al Gore's viewpoint, it's his livelihood, but I assume the rest of you don't earn your living from alarmist hype. What gives? Will we have to pry your propaganda generators from your cold, dead hands?

Paul Dietz

What gives?

We're disgusted by dishonest pseudoscience of the denialists, mostly. At least, I am. It gets really tiresome to see the same wishfully nonsensical denialist talking points trotted out again and again.

Will we have to pry your propaganda generators from your cold, dead hands?

You just have to stop the dishonesty, such as that exhibited in your 'have you stopped beating your wife'-type question.


Tenured faculty can shift research directions if something doesn't work out, but the fact of anthropogenic global warming is a deadly threat to the business models of wealthy individuals, corporations and even nations.  They could lose billions or even go bankrupt.  Who has the greater incentive to lie?  Cui bono?

Is "Budson Ebby", who has falsely given his homepage as Real Climate, among the paid denialists?  Could he even be taking Exxon-Mobil's money via one of these organizations, or ones not yet known?  Could he be in the pay of even less-savory characters?

I sure would love to have the IP addresses of these trolls, it would make for a fascinating analysis.

C. Cretemaster

The Union of Concerned Soccermoms is accusing other organisations of scientific misconduct? That's just hilarious. Get me more popcorn.

(No, they really aren't scientists, they are a few scientists and a lot of soccermoms, and their own webpage even says so. Some of their most vocal members, notably John Gofman, are not exactly known for scientific integrity, either.)

Mark C R (Chemist) UK

There's nothing wrong with football or "Soccer" as you Americans call it...

I object to the previous comment.

Also, Exxon are "softening" it would seem. Have they "seen the writing on the wall"?
Also I think part of it is that they are sitting on the worlds largest oil reserves of the three Oil majors. Surely they see that legislation (and public & political opinion) will affect the value of these globally? Also the technological progress of BP Alternative Energy may have them worried?

Go see some of the points I made at:
Environmental Economics
Theres a number of recent posts relating to Exxon and some new climate legislation there.

C. Cretemaster

I'm actually German and object to the previous commenter objecting.

Mark C R (Chemist) UK

Well obviously you should know better then shouldn't you...

C. Cretemaster

... know better than associating "Soccermoms" with soccer, the ball game? Duh!


But to get back to the topic: UCS is certainly a union, likely concerned (most probably about their paycheck), but most of them are not scientists.

David Lassiter

Kent Beuchert lives apparently in McLean, VA and my estimate he works for the an oil anti global warming lobby hired to discredit global warming. He has various email addresses listed in Florida also. He can be seen listing comments on literally hundreds of global warming / electric car articles as one of the first or second listers. I am working on a story to track him down and the number of fake reviews he lists on behalf of the lobbying industry. If you have any information, please forward it to me. Regards - David Lassiter.

dissertation writing help

Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!


dissertation writing

Nice post keeps on posting this type of interesting and informative articles.

UK dissertation

Excellent post and wonderful blog, I really like this type of interesting articles keep it up.

Nice work keeps on posting thanks

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .

Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles