backtop


Print 101 comment(s) - last by PittmanKen18.. on Jul 7 at 12:03 AM


Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO
He also addressed fears associated with drilling techniques and oil dependency

ExxonMobil's CEO defended oil and gas drilling by saying that climate change is something humans can adapt to.

Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, said issues like climate change, energy dependence and oil/gas drilling are blown out of proportion. He blames a lazy press, illiterate public and fear-mongering advocacy groups for the bad light placed on the oil industry.

Climate change is a controversial topic that has been subjected to much debate. Tillerson said that fossil fuels may cause global warming, but argued that humans can easily adapt to the warmer climate. More specifically, he said that humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he doubts the validity of climate modeling, which predicts the magnitude of impact associated with climate change.

"We have spent our entire existence adapting," said Tillerson. "We'll adapt. It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution."

Others, however, disagree with Tillerson's assessment. Andrew Weaver, chairman of climate modeling and analysis at Canada's University of Victoria, said that adapting to climate change would be much harder than just preventing it in the first place.

In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of global warming.

An example of such a measure is the proposed fuel standards for 2017-2025, which will require automakers to create vehicles capable of 54.5 MPG by 2025. The effort aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the country's dependency on foreign oil. These standards will cost the auto industry $157.3 billion and add an extra $2,000 to the sticker price of new autos, but it will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will finalize the fuel efficiency standards by the end of July 2012. Such measures could hit ExxonMobil's wallet with less gas used.

Tillerson also addressed the topic of consequences related to oil/gas drilling techniques, saying that drilling will always present possible risks like spills and accidents. But he mentioned that such risks are manageable and worth the end result, which is the energy provided.

Tillerson also said that drilling in shale formations doesn't pose life-threatening risks to those living nearby. However, drilling mixes millions of gallons of water with sand and chemicals that creates drilling wastewater. If this water is not treated, it can contaminate drinking water through cracked drilling pipes.

Tillerson also mentioned his problem with views on oil dependency. He said that there will always be access to oil, and that it doesn't matter where the U.S. gets oil because it is priced globally. Tillerson added that the U.S. only receiving oil from North America would still increase gas prices in the U.S. because it would cause a "disruption" in the Middle East.

Source: The Hook



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Talk about BS
By nolisi on 6/29/2012 6:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
A) Adaptation- this usually takes time and is a painful process when a species threatening event occurs. Mammals didn't immediately develop thicker flesh and fur immediately in the onset of the ice age, adaptation took time and killed off many before a species adapted. Is it better to avert a danger before it reaches critical mass, or adapt at a time of emergency? We attack countries before they develop nukes, so why do conservatives say something different with regards to oil? Oh yeah, there's money to be made...

B)There's risk with everything, yes. But existing risk doesn't excuse you the responsibility of properly managing it. I accept oil spills can happen, but we shouldn't have to accept the impact on countless fishing business in the Gulf when you didn't spend the money or properly manage the resources to accomplish the task; let alone the waste of revenue, loss of needed usable energy and increase in oil/gas prices when you spilled it all over the gulf.

C)Thank you for admitting Global Warming is occurring.




RE: Talk about BS
By nolisi on 6/29/2012 6:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
Apologies- BP committed the spill, I realize. But regardless of my misstating facts (which I recognize are misstated), I think my point stands regarding properly managing risk. It's not like Exxon itself hasn't had its own issues.


RE: Talk about BS
By ClownPuncher on 6/29/2012 7:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
You do something about it, I'm busy.


RE: Talk about BS
By amanojaku on 6/30/2012 12:47:16 AM , Rating: 5
Uh uh, you're not weaseling your way out of this one. It's your job to punch clowns!!!


RE: Talk about BS
By bupkus on 7/1/2012 12:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
Busy doing what? Watching porn?


RE: Talk about BS
By danjw1 on 6/30/2012 1:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
But let us not forget the Exxon Valdez oil spill.


RE: Talk about BS
By stm1185 on 6/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: Talk about BS
By JediJeb on 6/29/2012 7:23:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
A) Adaptation- this usually takes time and is a painful process when a species threatening event occurs. Mammals didn't immediately develop thicker flesh and fur immediately in the onset of the ice age, adaptation took time and killed off many before a species adapted. Is it better to avert a danger before it reaches critical mass, or adapt at a time of emergency? We attack countries before they develop nukes, so why do conservatives say something different with regards to oil? Oh yeah, there's money to be made...


This is assuming that there actually is something to be done to avert the danger. What happens if all our resources are spent trying to avert the outcome, then we find out that the planet is going to have its way no matter what we do? Then we are even further behind in or rush to adapt than we were before.

Another thing to consider is we have something that early mammals did not have when they needed to adapt, intelligence and the ability to make changes faster than simple natural selection can. But then, equating the current warming trend to an asteroid impacting the Earth out of the blue is rather sensational at the least. The Earth warms and cools over time and yet we want to force it to remain as we like it, which is as it is now. The continents are moving also, maybe we should pass legislation to keep North America from eventually sliding into Asia? Sounds silly, but it may be just as silly an idea as trying to control the climate to our liking.


RE: Talk about BS
By StevoLincolnite on 6/30/12, Rating: -1
RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By JediJeb on 7/2/2012 4:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
First off, resources are time, money and manpower. Also I have never said we should not try to find alternatives to oil in all my posts here over the years, only that using man made global warming as the excuse to do so is misguided. We should move to cleaner alternatives because they are, well, cleaner, and more efficient, but forcing that change before we are ready or able to do it is also wasting time, money and manpower. Forcing it before it is fiscally and physically possible will do nothing to help the world.


RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/29/2012 8:12:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A) Adaptation- this usually takes time and is a painful process when a species threatening event occurs.


False. You're making a statement that implies adaptation only happens when there is an imminent threat. Adaptation is constantly finding newer and better ways to survive. That is why some forms of life go extinct while others thrive. The dog, a domesticated wolf, has adapted on its own as well as with the assistance of breeders to coexist with humans...this happened over a relatively short period of time - hundreds of years, not thousands or millions.

quote:
Mammals didn't immediately develop thicker flesh and fur immediately in the onset of the ice age, adaptation took time and killed off many before a species adapted.


Up until modern humans, mammals had to primarily rely on their own natural attributes. They lacked to ability to use technology, even in primitive forms, to deal with rapid changes. We can. If an ice age hit tomorrow, we would be able to survive because we know how to make a fire and stay warm.

quote:
Is it better to avert a danger before it reaches critical mass, or adapt at a time of emergency? We attack countries before they develop nukes, so why do conservatives say something different with regards to oil? Oh yeah, there's money to be made...


Please provide some evidence of this impending doomsday disaster you're talking about...oh...wait, you're not different than the guy standing in the street with a sign telling us to repent because the sky is going to fall tomorrow.

Who the hell cares? SOONER OR LATER THE WORLD IS GOING TO END, so you might as well enjoy it while it lasts. Do you go on a "dream vacation" and spend your entire time on vacation worrying about what you are going to do when you get home? No...well, maybe you do, but I don't. I enjoy the vacation.

quote:
B)There's risk with everything, yes. But existing risk doesn't excuse you the responsibility of properly managing it.


Considering the proliferation of the human species across this planet I'd say that most countries are doing a decent job of managing risk. Most people are able to sustain a quality of life that is quite a bit better than it would be if we were still living in the hunter-gatherer days...and we're so good that some people can choose to live like primates and be cool with it.

quote:
I accept oil spills can happen, but we shouldn't have to accept the impact on countless fishing business in the Gulf when you didn't spend the money or properly manage the resources to accomplish the task; let alone the waste of revenue, loss of needed usable energy and increase in oil/gas prices when you spilled it all over the gulf.


What are you talking about? We did. It happened, it was dealt with...get over it.

BTW an eruption of the super volcano under yellowstone park will cause a disaster on a global scale that makes any man-made disaster pale in comparsion...but that's how it is - a cycle of creation and destruction that keeps things interesting.

quote:
C)Thank you for admitting Global Warming is occurring.


What's not occuring is man-made global warming or climate change. The processes that are occuring are largely natural. Man can affect localized areas, i.e. the way LA was covered in smog...but even with LA as bad as it was in the 80s, all that pollution failed to have an effect on even the state of California.

Thank you for continuing to remain ignorant and ensuring we never have a surplus of kool aid.


RE: Talk about BS
By boeush on 6/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By boeush on 6/29/2012 8:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
manmade global warming / climate change is a lie fabricated by people who receive funding for environmental research and need to keep the dollars flowing
No, it is far more likely an alien plot to prepare the planet for colonization. After all, the various "think tanks" spreading the putrid BS you just regurgitated aren't receiving funding from organizations like ExxonMobil, who need to keep the dollars flowing...
quote:
you didn't even try to take a position
Didn't I? I'm with science and reality on this one. Sorry: that means I'm not with you, I'm afraid...
quote:
America has been dumbed down enough
Speak for yourself there, Professor.


RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 3:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, it is far more likely an alien plot to prepare the planet for colonization. After all, the various "think tanks" spreading the putrid BS you just regurgitated aren't receiving funding from organizations like ExxonMobil, who need to keep the dollars flowing...


Choosing not to accept fact simply because it doesn't sound nice or doesn't fit into your ideal agenda doesn't make it any less true. Idiots want to believe manmade global warming exists because it means man can do something to stop or fix it. The "putrid BS" reality is that there is very little man can do in the grand scheme of things, so making life miserable for everyone under the guise of averting a non-existent cataclysmic event is idiotic...never mind the dimwitted McScientists that keep popping up every other day claiming that the end is near while holding out their hand asking for more research funding.

quote:
Didn't I? I'm with science and reality on this one. Sorry: that means I'm not with you, I'm afraid.


Science and reality do not conclusively support or even hint at man made global warming unless the data is manipulated and cherry-picked. What the data does suggest is that the earth goes through regular heating and cooling phases...and that the current phase may actually be abnormal - the "normal" for this planet is likely an atmosphere with higher concentrations of so-called "greenhouse" gases, denser atmosphere and a warmer global climate.

What kind of life was inhabiting this planet for billions of years? NOT humans and not most of the life we have right now.

Just because we exist now doesn't mean that now is the "norm" and deviation from our current state is abnormal. If the earth was a hot, humid rock for the last few eons then by definition THAT would be its normal climate.

quote:
Speak for yourself there, Professor.


Are you enjoying being a proof-of-concept?


RE: Talk about BS
By boeush on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 8:55:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Takes an idiot to know an idiot, I guess.


Your razor sharp wit keeps everyone guessing.

quote:
On the other hand, reasonable people believe in syllogisms. When the laws of physics say that X causes Y, and X is a verified observable, then Y must be the expected outcome.


Now this is a physics problem? When did we shift into that realm of discussion. Meteorology =/= physics and observation does not tell the full story. You don't seem to get the fundamentals of science - that is to devise an experiment to test a hypothesis and either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

Performing experiments with the sole intention of supporting a hypothesis is what the "climate change" retards do. They choose a result they want then devise a series of "tests" or "experiments" that produce the desired result.

quote:
That's where science comes in, and where you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.


It has already been established that you're the one in the dark here, as such none of your responses have been able to directly counter anything I said. You believe that shifting the topic to something less relevant (despite you being equally inept on the other topic) is going to bolster your flawed views.

quote:
You know, lowly little blue-green algae back in the day managed to transform the planet's entire atmosphere from anoxic and noxious into what it is today. Men (at least modern, industrialized men aided by modern technology -- a few billion of them and counting) are far more industrious and prolific over far shorter periods of time. We're terraforming our own planet all around us, and it is definitely within our collective power, as a globe-spanning technological civilization, to do so.


The origins of life on earth are still theoretical. Don't talk about it like it's a certainty. It doesn't matter what our atmosphere is now - we, as lifeforms, adapted to live in this type of atmosphere...but we could just as easily have evolved to live in a bath of scalding hot sulfuric acid...so to say that they organisms changed the earth for their own benefit is inaccurate - they adapted to exist on the earth as it was at that time, and continued to evolve as the earth changed.

For all that man has accomplished technologically, we're hardly making a mark on this planet. A few hundred to a few thousand years after man goes extinct, there would be very little if anything to show that we were ever here. The earth is going to go along its own way regardless of what we do...you are greatly overestimating humans' collective influence on this planet as a whole.

quote:
Every year we excavate and spew into the atmosphere (and into the carbon cycle) more additional fossil carbon than 100 years worth of natural volcanic activity (yes, that's correct: look it up.) And that amount keeps on growing with each passing year, as the world's economies keep on growing. That's like an extra mega-volcano erupting every year, with clockwork regularity, for a couple of centuries in a row (projected). Nah, that couldn't possibly make any difference -- what, are you insane? Past mass extinctions on our planet have been caused by far less drastic upheavals.


How many mass extinctions have happened in recent time as a direct result of our gradual consumption of fossil fuels? Hint: none. Grats, you just made yourself look dumb again.

You're moronic analogy equating our emissions to that of a volcano are laughable. The effects of volcanos is evident in the land you are standing on. NOTHING we've done comes even close to making an entire continent.

You end by stating that it couldn't possibly make any difference, but let's note that you did not specify any difference that our industrialized civilization has made. You're simply trying to break it down into bite-size buzz phrases that other idiots like yourself can agree on without doing any real independent research. FYI reading biased materials provided by or funded by the organizations spreading this nonsense does not qualify as research...it qualifies as indoctrinating yourself with additional stupidity.

quote:
What is making you so miserable about scientific facts and reality in general, pray tell?


You have yet to produce even one fact, nevermind a scientific fact.

quote:
And aren't you the bright bulb in the pantheon of science? Who the hell do you think you are to even have opinions on this matter? Do you feel qualified to bloviate or pass judgement on any other field of science where you personally have 0 expertise?


Here we go again, you are making assumptions about me when you don't even know a thing about me, other than I am smarter, richer and probably better looking than you. I can pass judgement on people who like yourself who are a bane to the human civilization, because you've consistently proven to have "strong opinions" with an inability to substantiate any one of your views. In other words you're wrong and in denial.

quote:
That line of BS has a strong ExxonMobil stench to it. It also has no relationship to any scientific fact or theory, or any manner of truth.


Really? So I guess there wasn't a recent scandal involving several McScientists who were deliberately falsifying "data" to support their worthless careers...or theories. By simply denying it you've essentially validated it as being true. For you to continue knowing that you're perpetuating a lie not only makes you an idiot, it makes you a scumbag.

quote:
So does your backyard, on a daily basis. Which of course means that your air-conditioning equipment is all a bunch of claptrap, because natural variation excludes ipso facto any possibility of artificial forcing. QED?


Your back yard would qualify as a "highly localized area". I am talking about the earth as a whole. Pwned by lack of reading comprehension...again.

quote:
Even more to the point, what do you actually know about heat transport through the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect, the balance of incoming solar and outgoing thermal energy on Earth's surface? Have you ever heard of the (hilariously, funded and championed by "skeptics") Berkeley Earth study? Do you know what the Sun's energy output has been like for the past 30+ years? Do you know what's been happening to Earth's glaciers and top-layer ocean heat content in the meantime? Do you think energy conservation no longer applies? Do you know anything about the science involved with these issues?


Attempting to shift the topic again because you're tired of looking like a horse's a55? We're talking about the global climate...i.e. average temperatures planet-wide. The underlying processes are irrelevant to this topic.

Do you think the earth had glaciers or liquid water when it formed? Do you think that trees and meadows full of frolicking unicorns were standard features? Apparently you do, because you're dumb...and dumb people believe sh1t like that.

quote:
Are you enjoying flouting your ignorance and brainwashed, programmed talking-point responses in public?


I'm not the one jumping back to google and wikipedia every time I post a reply to this thread...that would be you. It's obvious, because you don't know what you're talking about and the responses suggest you're trying to sound authoritative, but you are unable to directly contradict anything I've said.

quote:
Do you enjoy your open contempt for science and objective thought?

Are you an enthusiastic and knowing sock puppet for the likes of ExxonMobil, or are you just another hapless rube?


Why do you think asking rhetorical questions would be in your favor. You should be providing some kind of substance to support your position, not asking more inane questions that only make you look more foolish than you would have if you didn't reply in the first place. lol


RE: Talk about BS
By knutjb on 7/3/2012 2:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
The truth hurts. They will slam a successful company but fail to mention the real money made in oil is held by Venezuela, Iran, SA, Russia, Kuwait, UAE, to name a few...all governments.

Then they slam religion because it cannot be proven to their satisfaction. Yet they spew evolutionary theory as though fact but cannot reproduce said theory in the lab.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy in their argument and am not pushing religion. They push Global cooling, no global warming, no climate change! How vague can an argument get?


RE: Talk about BS
By c_woof on 7/6/2012 6:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
@EricMartello
What a moron.

As the guy said, Exxon would be proud. So how long have you been on the payroll?
I guess then that you disagree with the CEO -- isn't that jeopardizing your paycheck?
So many words, so much blather, so little science.


RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/2012 7:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Science and reality do not conclusively support or even hint at man made global warming unless the data is manipulated and cherry-picked. What the data does suggest is that the earth goes through regular heating and cooling phases...and that the current phase may actually be abnormal - the "normal" for this planet is likely an atmosphere with higher concentrations of so-called "greenhouse" gases, denser atmosphere and a warmer global climate.

What kind of life was inhabiting this planet for billions of years? NOT humans and not most of the life we have right now.

Just because we exist now doesn't mean that now is the "norm" and deviation from our current state is abnormal. If the earth was a hot, humid rock for the last few eons then by definition THAT would be its normal climate.


it's more likely oil company is the one who's paying their scientist to manipulate the data, perhaps you should check when the warming begins, if it's happen at this rate long before we start using our fossil fuel, than you can claim, ok it's not our fault :p

btw, i don't want to extinct, so even if global warming is so called nature cycle, i would like to disrupt the cycle :p


RE: Talk about BS
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 9:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's more likely oil company is the one who's paying their scientist to manipulate the data, perhaps you should check when the warming begins, if it's happen at this rate long before we start using our fossil fuel, than you can claim, ok it's not our fault :p


We have only been tracking weather since the 1800s, and the technology back then was not nearly as accurate or as comprehensive as what we have today, even in the last 40-50 years. Considering the age of the earth, ~200 years of data is very little to work with and not a reliable foundation for drawing any conclusions upon. It's like trying to figure out where a river flows by looking at a 3 x 3 foot area of shoreline.

Is the earth warming? I don't deny that - but I do have a problem with the notion that humans are causing this effect.

quote:
btw, i don't want to extinct, so even if global warming is so called nature cycle, i would like to disrupt the cycle :p


Well I can't say I want to be extinct either but we all kick the bucket sooner or later. Being dead is just like things were before you were born.


RE: Talk about BS
By semiconshawn on 7/2/2012 5:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
No its Al Gore. After he invented the internet he figured out how to monetized global warming. Go around creating a problem then offer a high price solution. Carbon offsets. HAHAHAHA freakin genius. Suckers.


RE: Talk about BS
By izmanq on 6/30/2012 7:30:14 PM , Rating: 1
more like oil company was creating a lie that global warming doesn't exist, to protect their profit :p then after spent a lot of money, now they think it's cheaper to say, it's ok world goes warmer and sea level rising, we can adapt to it :D


RE: Talk about BS
By jeffkro on 6/29/2012 11:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
You left one risk out, traditionally when resources get scarce humans go to war. So ever increasing population stressing climate threatened food supplies and modern weapons could lead to a very dangerous situation.


RE: Talk about BS
By jeffkro on 6/29/2012 11:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
PS was watching a show where they were saying the Pentagon was taking this scenario very seriously


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2012 5:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
traditionally when resources get scarce humans go to war.

And when humans go to war humans tend to die. Humans dying tends to free up resources. We call that a "self-correcting problem".


RE: Talk about BS
By sviola on 7/2/2012 12:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that with the weapons available, resources could become unavailable. Specially if nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are used.


RE: Talk about BS
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 2:32:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You left one risk out, traditionally when resources get scarce humans go to war.
All of this doomsday stuff. Reminds when I was a kid and the threat of nuclear annihilation from the former Soviet Union was imminent! Just around the corner! We're all going to die! Does society REALLY have a need to be on the edge of death all of the time? What's the next mass extinction gonna be in the next 10 years?


RE: Talk about BS
By bupkus on 6/30/2012 1:25:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If an ice age hit tomorrow, we would be able to survive because we know how to make a fire and stay warm.
This is so very funny I just can't believe it.
Now, imagine 300 million Americans all staying warm from burning wood. That would consume more wood than is currently burning in Colorado.


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2012 5:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, many would die horrendously if the world shifted dramatically... just as many would die horrendously if we, for instance, stopped using oil right this second. In fact, the only reason we have so many people to begin with is because we adopted certain industrialized practices that permit the feeding, clothing, and reliable comfort of billions. Pull that out from under 'em, and you get billions dead.

So what's the difference? One means that many will probably die, the other means that many will definitely die. Choose wisely!


RE: Talk about BS
By nolisi on 6/30/2012 2:37:34 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
What are you talking about? We did. It happened, it was dealt with...get over it. BTW an eruption of the super volcano under yellowstone park will cause a disaster on a global scale that makes any man-made disaster pale in comparsion...but that's how it is - a cycle of creation and destruction that keeps things interesting.


You undermine your own credibility in this statement it's useless reasoning with you when you claim "it was dealt with". You're seriously suggesting that BP's minute video apology made up for the millions that Americans spent on the spike in gas prices due to the spill? Or how about the wasted oil?

You're not even capable of thinking about this economically, let alone intellectually. I'll stick to my Kool Aid. At least mine doesn't have me believing the Green Lobby is outspending the Oil Lobby.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 6/30/2012 6:34:33 AM , Rating: 4
oh dear..

quote:
What's not occuring is man-made global warming or climate change


Three things:
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas
* The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased
* Humans have caused the CO2 level increase

All of these things are true, the only question is how much warming is being caused by humans. Scientists (and other people much smarter than you) believe that MOST of the warming is caused by humans.

QED.


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/1/2012 6:12:22 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So is water vapor. In fact, water vapor is a BETTER greenhouse gas. How does water vapor behave?


And so is Methane and Nitrous oxide and Ozone, none of those stop the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'm glad you mentioned water vapor, it's one of the most dangerous greenhouse gases, as anyone who has ever boiled anything, you should have noticed that the hotter water gets, the more water vapor is produced, without having to use much brainpower anyone should be able to see that this leads to a runaway heating effect. (maybe that's not the answer you were looking for though!)

quote:
The increase FOLLOWING rises in temperature, not preceding it. Thus, the cause-effect relationship is reversed.


Ah, one of the much bandied cries of the head-in-the-sand crowd. To say that cause-effect is reversed is a gross misunderstanding of the facts.

Just because SOME rise in temperature occurred BEFORE a CO2 increase does not mean that further temperature increases were not caused by CO2.

You've probably seen historical graphs where CO2 increase follows behind temperature increase and you have come to the conclusion that temperature increase causes a CO2 increase.....
Yea.
Well, that actually true.
So well done there.
As the oceans heat up they give off CO2 and stop absorbing as much CO2 as they did.

But here's the problem, because the CO2 level is now slightly higher, more heat is retained, thus the oceans give off more CO2.

CO2 does not have to be the one starting this runaway effect, that can be other greenhouse gases, solar or orbital effects etc.. The crux of the heat-CO2 problem is that it is self-reinforcing.

It's not a "single cause" leads to a "single effect" phenomenon.

quote:
The biggest concern of which is acid rain. There's a whole host of other pollution concerns that take precedence over this "global climate change" malarky.


Yes, there are other pollution concerns, I never said there wasn't. As for your assertion that climate change is "malarky" you have not shown this to be the case.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/1/2012 1:17:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
quote:
Just because SOME rise in temperature occurred BEFORE a CO2 increase does not mean that further temperature increases were not caused by CO2.
Oh brilliant logic there. Because science works so much better when we throw out observation, fact, and control groups.


If you don't understand this then I'm at a loss. I'll point you to these clever people:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatu...

You accuse me of throwing out science logic and fact, but you can't put 2 and 2 together.

1. increased CO2 causes warming
2. warming causes increased CO2

Just because CO2 didn't start the problem does not mean that it does not occur.

If you bother to take the time to look up that link you'll see that, historically, earth comes out of an ice age because of an orbital shift. But these orbital are once-off effects essentially, increased warming comes from the increase in CO2. So much so, that 90% of the warming occurrs after the increase in CO2.

I get it, you think that because somebody showed you a slide with the level of CO2 increasing after the increase in temperature, you think that the link goes in one direction only, that's very simplistic of you. It's not doing science, logic or fact any favors to look at the issue with such a one-dimensional mind.

Maybe with your simplified logic and watered down science, everything has a single cause and that single cause has a single effect, but the atmosphere of this planet is much more complicated than that.

I'll quote the above link:
quote:
Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/1/2012 5:24:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Right which is why we have proof that when there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere in the past, there was NO runaway "greenhouse effect". Because C02 always causes warming? False.


Jebus, you're going back 400 million years now, do you know just how different the planet was back then?
Anyway you can't say that there was 20 times more CO2 in the atmosphere, that's plain stupid. The percentage was 20 times higher, but there's no way the total amount of gas in the atmosphere was exactly the same as today, in other words the atmospheric pressure was probably (according to all the studies I've seen on this) a lot lower. And atmospheric pressure also has a large effect on the greenhouse effect. The fact that you don't know the different between a percentage and a total amount is very worrying, it shows that your grasp on the area is very poor indeed.

Or maybe you just heard this "20 times higher" factoid without looking any deeper, probably because it just fit your pre-existing world view so well.

quote:
There's more than enough evidence coming out, finally, that man made global warming is nothing but a hoax, perpetrated by people who sought out to pervert the peer review and scientific process.


My ass. Just because a few of the scientists on the climate change side are dishonest does not mean they all are. And it's not like the anti-climate-change scientists are any more honest.

quote:
I'm not a scientist or a climatologist, and neither are you.


I think I've shown that I know more about this than you though ... "percentage = amount" hehe

quote:
What a very in depth and multifaceted evaluation of the hundreds of systems and elements involved in detailing atmospheric conditions!! Talk about simplified and watered down science.


I'm trying to simplify it down to your level, I just hope you look into in in more detail.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is no debate on that. The properties of the gas have been known for 200 or so years. The only debate can be on how much warming the CO2 causes, and it's not zero.

quote:
You're a waste of time, and most likely, a hypocrite. You generate just as much C02 as the next guy here.


At least I'm not so stupid as to fall for that "CO2 percentage = amount" argument that the less intelligent climate change deniers fall for :-))


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2012 9:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
Your side started C02 percentage = amount, thank you very much. Go watch "An Inconvenient Truth". Hockey Stick anyone?

quote:
Jebus, you're going back 400 million years now, do you know just how different the planet was back then?


This is not a valid argument. The planet sure was "different", however how C02 interacts with the atmosphere to "cause warming" sure wasn't different. If you're claiming our atmosphere worked in a completely different way than it does today, I think you're going to have to explain this difference.

Oh and the pressure was "probably" lower? That's funny because I've read papers that suggested it was "probably" higher. But, of course, your side is right on that too. Because..uhh, you said so.

Not that you can, because it didn't. And not that you wanted to even attempt to do so, because the fact is the truth isn't very convenient for you now, is it.

quote:
I think I've shown that I know more about this than you though


No. You've shown that you can repeat what you've heard on the news, or read on Liberal blogs. But true knowledge? You're not showing it at all because you aren't able to form your own opinions. You aren't applying critical thinking, you're arbitrarily deciding something and backing it up with bias. Regurgitation isn't knowledge.

quote:
Just because a few of the scientists on the climate change side are dishonest does not mean they all are. And it's not like the anti-climate-change scientists are any more honest.


Case in point. It doesn't matter if a "few" scientists were dishonest. The point is the data they fabricated, the numbers they massaged, was the very blueprint for the Man Made Global Warming theory that nearly EVERY climatologist based his opinion on. If you bothered to use deductive reasoning you would realize the significance of this.

You're a bore. You sweep aside any evidence or proof contrary to your beliefs with a wave of your hand, as if it no longer exists. And you drone on about science?

quote:
At least I'm not so stupid as to fall for that "CO2 percentage = amount" argument that the less intelligent climate change deniers fall for :-))


Apparently you're "too stupid" to actually notice that as C02 increases, we're not actually warming. The icecaps aren't melting and flooding the oceans. Etc etc etc.

Have fun waiting for your inevitable doomsday!!! I only hope for your sake it happens, so that you can feel validated and feel better about yourself.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 2:47:20 AM , Rating: 2
Don't blame me for mistakes others have made.

quote:
This is not a valid argument. The planet sure was "different", however how C02 interacts with the atmosphere to "cause warming" sure wasn't different.


Huh, was the planet considerably different or not, was the orbit different, was the sun different, was the solar wind different. So "the atmosphere is complicated" argument only works for you and no one else.

quote:
Oh and the pressure was "probably" lower? That's funny because I've read papers that suggested it was "probably" higher. But, of course, your side is right on that too. Because..uhh, you said so.


So you think the pressure was different. And you still think that because the LEVEL of CO2 was 20 times higher, that the AMOUNT of CO2 was ALSO 20 times higher. WOW I thought you were stupid, but that's completely retarded. You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?

quote:
Case in point. It doesn't matter if a "few" scientists were dishonest. The point is the data they fabricated, the numbers they massaged, was the very blueprint for the Man Made Global Warming theory that nearly EVERY climatologist based his opinion on.


That's not true and you know it.

quote:
But true knowledge? You're not showing it at all because you aren't able to form your own opinions. You aren't applying critical thinking, you're arbitrarily deciding something and backing it up with bias. Regurgitation isn't knowledge.


But you are just repeating incorrect knowledge. The majority of Climate Scientists agree that global warming and climate change is real. Only a few disagree, and most of those that disagree are not climate scientists.

quote:
Apparently you're "too stupid" to actually notice that as C02 increases, we're not actually warming. The icecaps aren't melting and flooding the oceans. Etc etc etc.


Umm. the earth is warming, the highest temperatures on record were in the last decade. Sorry there's not the perfectly linear increase that you would apparently require.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/2/2012 9:32:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't blame me for mistakes others have made.


When you repeat their mistakes I most certainly CAN blame you.

quote:
You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?


Why do you keep harping on this? Yes I know that. There was almost 2000 parts per million of C02 in the atmosphere, and NO runaway greenhouse effect. The amount AND percentage was higher, get over it.

quote:
That's not true and you know it.


It IS true. The IPCC data was the foundation on which nearly all AGW studies were built on! How can the study be valid if the models, data, math and conclusions were all false?

quote:
The majority of Climate Scientists agree that global warming and climate change is real. Only a few disagree, and most of those that disagree are not climate scientists.


I'm actually impressed you've gone this long without resorting to the false, and often used, "majority" argument. But ultimately when reason fails, your side will simply repeat this as if it ends the discussion. First off there is no majority, that's a crock. Secondly science isn't a democratic process, or a popularity contest. Was the Earth the center of the Universe because a then "majority" of scientists agreed it was?

quote:
Umm. the earth is warming, the highest temperatures on record were in the last decade. Sorry there's not the perfectly linear increase that you would apparently require.


Excuse me? We're coming out of a 15 year period where when the temps were supposed to be rising due to increased C02 (yes amount and percentage, asshole), we saw no global temperature rise. It's not us that claimed we would see linear increases, again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!


RE: Talk about BS
By senecarr on 7/2/2012 2:01:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Excuse me? We're coming out of a 15 year period where when the temps were supposed to be rising due to increased C02 (yes amount and percentage, asshole), we saw no global temperature rise. It's not us that claimed we would see linear increases, again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!

Actually, from 98-08 we haven't seen the temperature going up at its previous rate. This is very likely due to increased aerosols in the atmosphere. During that same time period, China made a massive increase in dirty coal plants that put sulfates in atmosphere. They obscure the CO2 heating trend because the aerosols reflect sunlight.


RE: Talk about BS
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, from 98-08 we haven't seen the temperature going up at its previous rate.
Thanks for the info. Not trying to be an ass here but I would like to learn more about this. Do you have a reference I could look up?


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 5:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
And the extra particles in the atmosphere from the dirty coal can cause increased cloud formation which can also leads to reflecting more heat away from the planet.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 4:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Was the Earth the center of the Universe because a then "majority" of scientists agreed it was?


The universe has no center, anyone who has studied the big bang knows that. Religions have said that the earth is the center of the universe (and also the solar system) in an attempt to give people the warm and fuzzy feeling that god started everything and is in control of the planet. Scientists always followed the data on the "center of the solar system" issue though. Although there are of course people and even some scientists who cannot accept that the earth can change and move over time, you know, people a bit like you who think nothing will change and we can't affect the planet.

quote:
again, YOUR SIDE insisted that would be the trend!


And YOUR SIDE believes the earth was created 6000 years ago, so burn fossil fuels burn... There you go, if you lump me with what you perceive to be one side I'll do the same.

Only it's not that simple is it? It's not just black and white, there's more than just 2 sides, just like there's more than just one cause leading to one effect.

quote:
quote:
You do know that AMOUNT and PERCENTAGE are completely different things now yea?
Why do you keep harping on this? Yes I know that.


Why did you use AMOUNT in your post then??? Nobody knows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere half a billion years ago because nobody knows the amount of atmosphere back then. If you knew it, what was you intent, to fool the weak minded into thinking that the world is exactly as it was half a billion years ago.

And if you are so sure that there was more atmosphere back then, then show us your data, there's far more studies to say that there was less atmosphere in the past, or do you have your blinkers on when looking at those studies as well? I've learned that you're great at picking and choosing science in order to justify your pre-existing beliefs.

Here's a hint, toss out your beliefs and look at the science with an open mind.

quote:
First off there is no majority, that's a crock


It's not just a majority, it's an overwhelming majority, you really are a very special person if you think otherwise.

quote:
Secondly science isn't a democratic process, or a popularity contest.


That's actually true, I like the way you sneaked that small truth in there to make it look like you know what you're talking about (did you get that snippet from a tv program?) But it's also no justification whatsoever for you to hold a such a narrow view on the field. You don't get to decide what's true, the scientists, the real climate scientists do. And they think that more CO2 is bad, just how bad varies, but it's not a good thing.

As for the rest of the crap you spout I'll let other people take care of it.


RE: Talk about BS
By JediJeb on 7/2/2012 5:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because CO2 didn't start the problem does not mean that it does not occur.


If you use that reasoning then you debunk the notion that humans releasing CO2 is what caused the current warming period in the first place.


RE: Talk about BS
By SRHelicity on 6/30/2012 3:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's not occuring is man-made global warming or climate change. The processes that are occuring are largely natural.


That's patently incorrect. As a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, there is very strong evidence that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. There are a myriad of peer-reviewed, independent publications that support the conclusion that (a) climate change is occurring (ocean acidification, SST changes, GHG changes, sea level changes, lower-tropospheric thermal changes, etc. and (b) it is very much affected by human activity.

I'm open for scientific debate, but you need to "debunk" the rigorous science that has been done by hundreds of scientists associated with hundreds of independent entities first.

Why is there misinformation so easy to spread? Saying what you said above is flat out incorrect, at least according to nearly all scientific exploration done in the past 20 years.


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/2012 5:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
As a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, you must really suck at your job if you think 20 years is any significant amount of time.


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 5:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
hyperbole much?


RE: Talk about BS
By jeffkro on 6/29/2012 11:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Adaptation, not evolution


RE: Talk about BS
By MJX on 6/29/2012 11:51:45 PM , Rating: 4
Rex is talking from the 1% perception, making $38 million $$$ a year, allows him to adapt and use engineering technologies to keep him and his loved ones in comfort and secure. To him we are either illerate and/or lazy and deserve what befalls us. Jeremy Rifkin wrote on this very topic with his book, Algeny. In it he examines how the British ruling class justified their Empire by adopting Darwinism and thus felt they were within the realm of natural order.
Here, Rex Tillerson, also justifies what is occurring by stating humans always have adapted to the natural order.
This he is operating in a ethical manner. Never mind he is deceiving himself, it allows him to maintain peace of mind.
Funny how he mentions MIT. Just listen to Noam Chomsky, MIT Professor and activist, and he speaks of scientists there saying climate change is far worse than expected.
Of course, Rex doen't want to hear that and shrugs it off as not reliable!


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 7/1/2012 3:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
I love when you radicals speak about oil companies and executives. It shows just how deeply ingrained your Leftist view is on everything.

Chew on this, if you will. True prosperity and economic equalities did NOT exist until cheap and abundant forms of energy, namely petroleum, became widely available for the masses. That is an inescapable fact.

So by all means, slander oil company CEO's, spew vitriol at their profits, the oil spills, oh the humanity how terrible it is. But I have a feeling most of us wouldn't last a goddamn WEEK if we had to live in pre-Industrial Revolution conditions.

quote:
Just listen to Noam Chomsky, MIT Professor and anarchist and lying hypocrite


Fixed that for you.

Chomsky made millions working for the United States military while he makes millions more writing books and giving speeches about the evil "industrial military complex". He holds millions of shares in stocks while telling young impressionable college students to not invest in the same market, and that it's a "ponzi scheme".

Yes...down with the system indeed...


RE: Talk about BS
By Spuke on 7/2/2012 3:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chomsky made millions working for the United States military while he makes millions more writing books and giving speeches about the evil "industrial military complex".
I find people like this to be our TRUE enemy. The do what I say, don't do as I do crowd. When will the common person realize that folks like Chomsky only want you or I to be subject to them. Think about it. People like him demonize the wealthy while being wealthy themselves. They invest in and own the same industries as the people they supposedly hate. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me! WE need to keep an eye on ALL of these people else we won't have any wealth or freedom. Don't trust any of these folks (left, right whatever).


RE: Talk about BS
By Reclaimer77 on 6/30/2012 9:26:29 AM , Rating: 1
I think it's brilliant what he did. Lets face it, there are so many idiots out there who've been told by the media that Man Made Global Warming is an absolute incontrovertible fact, they'll never be convinced. It's a losing battle.

Instead he comes out and says it's not big deal and explains why, so all of these "concerned" first worlder's can go back to their Starbucks and gas cars and feel a little less guilty than the Liberals want them to feel for living good lives.

Brilliant piece of PR in my opinion. The world will be fine. Let's get back to business, let's get the economy back on track, let paid off scientists cook up all the doomsday scenarios they want because of a few degrees north or south, we'll be fine. Homo sapiens, top of the food chain baby.


RE: Talk about BS
By raddude9 on 7/2/2012 5:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are so many idiots out there who've been told by the media that Man Made Global Warming is an absolute incontrovertible fact


Don't forget the very special kind of idiots who believe every trendy conspiracy going, like the climate-change cover-up conspiracy.


RE: Talk about BS
By Tony Swash on 6/30/2012 2:00:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
C)Thank you for admitting Global Warming is occurring.


Was occurring. The late 20th century warming period that began around 1975 stopped in 1998. Since then global temperatures have plateaued with some evidence of a small drop in global temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

All the computers models that are used to predict dangerous warming in the future predicted, fifteen years ago, that there was going to be distinctive, clear and continuous warming. Those predictions were wrong, even though CO2 emissions in the last fifteen years have been at the top of the range predicted.

I think a period of no warming lasting fifteen years while CO2 has increased throws into question the 'CO2 causes significant warming' hypothesis. For those who still support that hypothesis I ask one question: What length of no warming, or cooling, needs to occur before the CO2 causes warming hypothesis is disproved? We have had fifteen years. Will it be disproved after 20 years of no warming? Twenty five?

Assuming that the CO2 causes warming is a scientific hypothesis and not an article of faith then I hope we would all agree that if CO2 goes up and there is no warming then at some point the hypothesis will be disproved. How long is a reasonable period of no warming before it is disproved?


RE: Talk about BS
By SPOOFE on 6/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Talk about BS
By stimudent on 6/30/2012 2:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
He's talking about rich people like himself. The average citizen will be the one to suffer the most.


Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By tayb on 6/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By mikeyD95125 on 6/29/2012 7:52:34 PM , Rating: 3
How many people out of the typical 955 people are qualified to be Exxon Mobile's CEO? Actually make that a million people. Running a massive multinational company takes a very specific skill set that very few can adequately supply.

Lots of people make the same complaint about how professional athletes in major sports make too much money. The fact is that the money is already there, it is just a question of whether the owners or players get it.


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/29/2012 8:08:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
a very specific skill set that very few can adequately supply
Or, very few ever get the opportunity to either attain or (more likely) deploy. Being a manager is not rocket science. Most of the work consists of delegating various tasks to respective specialists.
quote:
the money is already there, it is just a question of whether the owners or players get it
Come now, the money could also be distributed to the shareholders, and/or left in the pockets of customers by lowering the profit margins on the product(s). But sticking with your misguided sports metaphor, who are the "professional athletes" in a major corporation like ExxonMobil: the CEO, or the thousands of actual professionals taking care of the company's daily business? What is more valuable and functional (by far): the CEO sans the company, or the company sans the CEO? So, how about paying the CEO less, and the other employees more? But perhaps that would be too much fairness and justice in the eyes of the "free" markets pwned by financial oligarchs...


By mikeyD95125 on 6/29/2012 11:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Come now, the money could also be distributed to the shareholders, and/or left in the pockets of customers by lowering the profit margins on the product(s).


Ha, yeah lower margins to benefit consumers. I see you won't be applying to be the CEO of Exxon mobile, or any company for that matter.

In my sports salary comparison (which wasn't meant to be entirely analogous) I suppose the people who actually work are the athletes while the investors are the owners. The reality is that both groups are needed to create a successful team (company). The question is how much wealth should go to the owners versus the athletes. This is typically negotiated in terms of how much the team (company) can afford to the players (employees) while still maintaining a good rate of return for the owners (shareholders).

Market forces dictate this (who would have figured)


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By EricMartello on 6/29/2012 8:16:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tillerson makes a minimum of $25,200,000 a year. The median household income for 2011 was $49,445. The median income in 2011 was $26,364.

Tillerson's pay is equivalent to 509 combined households or 955 working individuals.

There's no income gap problem though.


What's stopping you from earning $25 million per year?

Just about anybody can play basketball, but why does Lebron get paid millions to do it?

Stop whining about people who are better than you. If you're good enough, rise to the occasion and prove it...if not then STFU and be happy with your life of mediocrity.


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/29/2012 8:25:53 PM , Rating: 3
Gee, one would think that back in the days when CEO pay was a mere factor of 10 higher than average workers, there weren't any viable or successfully run large companies in the whole world.

We just went straight from the Dark Ages to 2012. Right?

Please consider this question: why the hell could anyone imagine that paying a CEO 1000x average salary is somehow more effective than paying that same CEO 10x average salary -- as has been done throughout most of the 20th century?

What changed? Is this some "new math", or the "new economy" again?


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By EricMartello on 6/29/2012 8:37:47 PM , Rating: 1
No, I don't need to consider your question because you failed to answer mine:

What's stopping the OP or you from earning $25m per year?


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/29/2012 8:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
Same thing that's stopping you, obviously...


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By stm1185 on 6/29/2012 9:30:25 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't the 99% people understand math? CEO pay is not keeping down average salaries by any meaningful amount.

Lets do the math!

ExxonMobil employees roughly 83,600 people. So say he only makes 10 times the average, and that average is say 50k (I think its probably more like 68k for Exxon, but lets use 50 since its closer to the national), then his salary is at $500,000, that means $24,700,000 would then be divided up communist style among the 83,599 other employees right? So they would make a whopping $295.45 more each year. Which is not even a 0.7% raise for an employee at 50,000 a year.

What ExxonMobil's CEO makes should be what ExxonMobil is happy paying him and he is willing to take. They are free to set his salary and he is free to take it or walk away. Why do you hate Freedom?


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/29/2012 9:53:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So they would make a whopping $295.45 more each year.
I'm sure nobody in their right mind would accept such a gift. Far better to receive $0 instead. An ironclad argument, if ever I've encountered one.
quote:
Lets do the math!
Let's do the math another way. By saving $22,200,000 per year, in 10 years the company accumulates an extra $220,000,000 in cash. It can either sit on it earning interest, or re-invest it to grow the business. Either way, shareholders win (ironically, are CEOs also usually among the major shareholders -- so really that's a win-win.)

But we all know that under your construction of "Freedom", the interests of shareholders are subordinate to those of the CEO. After all, public companies like ExxonMobil are not under any such governance as Fiduciary Duty -- right? Right....

Let me ask you a question in turn: why do YOU hate Freedom? Why do you pine for a comeback of Feudalism? (where CEOs are the new Barons, and the 99% are their Serfs?) Because absent strong organized labor or some government-orchestrated wealth redistribution scheme, Feudalism is exactly where your deregulated "free market" utopia winds up when carried out to its logical conclusion. (And no, wealth doesn't "trickle down". And if you ever feel that trickle impacting your head from on high, don't let them tell you it's raining, either...)


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By Spuke on 6/29/2012 10:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After all, public companies like ExxonMobil are not under any such governance as Fiduciary Duty -- right?
I don't understand. If the board and shareholders are happy with the CEO's pay (afterall they approved it), then what's your point? Did the CEO get paid an amount the shareholders and the board didn't approve? How did this CEO actually collect an unapproved paycheck?


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/30/2012 7:43:02 PM , Rating: 3
My point is that the board and shareholders are being stupid -- at best (and this is far from the only exhibit demonstrating the case.)

And yes, the market can indeed be stupid, inefficient, corrupt, and utterly irrational. I hope you won't force me to dredge up the innumerable examples from the last, oh, 15 years of financial headlines to prove that point. Or from the past few months, for that matter...

My main point here is that stupidity and corruption will continue and even escalate, in a climate where everyone either ignores it or acquiesces to it.

Personally, I have no problem with calling it as I see it at every opportunity. Not that I'm going to change the world by posting rants in some little forum. But at least I personally won't be actively contributing to the problem of malignant neglect, thank you very much.


By Spuke on 7/2/2012 3:12:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally, I have no problem with calling it as I see it at every opportunity.
I don't have a problem with this actually. I do fail to see how this is my concern though. If the pay is too exorbitant or not based on the market then that company fails and is replaced by another one. I would be concerned about the jobs lost but since oil demand is huge some other company will just come in and buy up all of the equipment and rehire most of the employees to run it. In reality, considering oil company profits, I highly doubt CEO pay will be the thing that brings down these companies so I'm not concerned in the least.


By JediJeb on 7/2/2012 6:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But at least I personally won't be actively contributing to the problem of malignant neglect, thank you very much.


Just a question, but do you have a 401K or other retirement plan? If so is there any Exxon Mobile stock owned at part of that plan? If so then you are actively contributing to that problem by being one that must be paid from the profits of the oil company, and supporting the oil company through purchase of that stock.

Most people never know what companies they have invested in through their retirement accounts.


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By stm1185 on 6/29/2012 10:17:16 PM , Rating: 1
My idea of freedom is that if ExxonMobil wants this guy as CEO, they were free to pay him what they feel they should. It can be a bad decision it could be a good decision, they are free to make it. And the Shareholders are free to push for change or sell out of the company.

Anyone who thinks a free market would create a Feudal society spends way too much time reading propaganda and never picked up a history book. Feudal Society was based around the Land, called a Fief, which was held by the Nobility, because of the favor of their King. Serfs who lived on a fief were often forced to work for the Lord of that fief.

A free market society would not have lords, or kings, or fiefs. You would have land that would be bought and sold freely by the people for what they decide. A free market worker does so because they are willing to accept the payment offered, not because they are compelled to under the law. That worker might have to accept an offer that is poor due to his/her circumstances but they are free to look for a better one or try and come to a better arrangement.

You are just jealous communist wanting a society that you think you would do better in, but in reality everyone would do worse.


By boeush on 6/30/2012 8:00:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Feudal Society was based around the Land, called a Fief, which was held by the Nobility, because of the favor of their King.
Is the supply of high-quality land unlimited or limited (particularly around major metropolises where people tend to congregate)? What happens in a society with exponentially widening income and wealth disparities between the gilded oligarchy and the plebes? The gilded oligarchy eventually winds up owning all of the valuable land, and all of the productive assets. The plebes wind up renting property and buying services from the elite. The owners get ever wealthier. The renters asymptotically approach the status of household slaves. The stable end-state of this evolution is Feudalism by any other name (even if not originally established by a King's edict.)
quote:
A free market society would not have lords, or kings, or fiefs.
In the United States, the society was firmly on that exact trajectory during the early 20th century (the so-called Gilded Age.) It was averted by vigorous federal monopoly- and trust-busting efforts, strong organized labor movements, and eventually government-driven wealth redistribution and public utilities/infrastructure investments (the New Deal). For a few decades, America had a growing Middle Class, and prospered. But then economic "liberalization" began, the income/wealth gaps started to blow out, and the middle class started to shrink, even as personal, corporate, and national debts escalated exponentially. That's still going on even today. Left on that trajectory, we'll find ourselves back to the good-old days before long, and beyond.

But not much farther beyond, I suspect. Societies eventually reach a point when the 99% finally realizes it has been transfixed by a fictional "dream" even while being serially raped by the "captains of industry" for decades on end. Then things can turn real ugly, real fast for the financial elites -- even up to the sort of extremes that Russia experienced in the first 2 decades of last century...

Personally, I'd rather not have my country go through such duress. But maybe it's inevitable...


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 3:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure nobody in their right mind would accept such a gift. Far better to receive $0 instead. An ironclad argument, if ever I've encountered one.


Nice to see you trying to incorporate sarcasm into your responses...bonus points for having the sarcasm be true when levied against your own comments.

quote:
Let's do the math another way. By saving $22,200,000 per year, in 10 years the company accumulates an extra $220,000,000 in cash. It can either sit on it earning interest, or re-invest it to grow the business. Either way, shareholders win (ironically, are CEOs also usually among the major shareholders -- so really that's a win-win.)


Really man, why AREN'T you on the cover of Forbes. Dishing out financial wisdom like this for free?! I feel so lucky to be able to share the same thread with a genius like you!

You hear that, Exxon? Stop paying your CEO and instead put his salary in the bank and let it collect 0.3% interest per year. Ignore the fact that in 2011 the rate of inflation for the US Dollar was 3% and so far in 2012 it is up to 1.7% - SIT on that money. That's the smart play here.

quote:
Let me ask you a question in turn: why do YOU hate Freedom? Why do you pine for a comeback of Feudalism?


Look at this guy go. He took your question and instead of answering it, he asked it back to you. That's a hallmark of intelligent debate.

Feudalism is coming back, friends. Start saving your money because wealth isn't going to trickle down.

What idiot actually expect wealth to "trickle down"? If you want to get rich DO IT and stop expecting someone else to do it for you. You obviously can't...and between this and your other comments I think you've managed to answer my question: What's holding you back from making $25 million? You're just too damm stupid.


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/30/2012 8:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SIT on that money. That's the smart play here.
Even just sitting on that money is a smarter investment than simply gifting it to some overpaid douche bag at the top of the pyramid. Of course, smarter managers would try to invest or reinvest as a first priority, or at least if no good investment opportunities are evident, share the company's profits more evenly across the company's work force and/or shareholders.
quote:
That's a hallmark of intelligent debate.
As opposed to lobbing wife-beater insinuations (such as "why do you hate Freedom"?)
quote:
What idiot actually expect wealth to "trickle down"?
One such idiot's name was Ronald Reagan. One Richard Cheney was another such idiot of notable prominence, up to quite recently even...
quote:
You're just too damm stupid.
Yes, that must be it.

OTOH, in my experience the higher you move up a corporate hierarchy, the more you find yourself competing against unscrupulous manipulators and ladder climbers who have no problem lying, cheating, and stepping on the necks of their colleagues if it gets them up to the next rung. I will never be one of those people. I'm not sufficiently sociopathic... And I'm just fine with that.

How about you?


By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 9:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even just sitting on that money is a smarter investment than simply gifting it to some overpaid douche bag at the top of the pyramid. Of course, smarter managers would try to invest or reinvest as a first priority, or at least if no good investment opportunities are evident, share the company's profits more evenly across the company's work force and/or shareholders.


Yeah man, losing 2.7% per year and accomplishing nothing is smarter than reinvesting it or paying it to someone who will use it to fund other projects.

People who earn $25 million or more per year tend to be much more productive members of society since their money is always doing something, something like creating decent jobs and opportunities for people. You don't get to that kind of level without taking risks, unless you're born into it...but even if you start out on top, being on top isn't the hard part - it's staying there that is the real challenge.

The pool of people qualified to run a company like ExxonMobil isn't exactly overflowing and the pay reflects that. Your notion that pay should simply be "profit divided by number of employees" is purely asinine - employees are assets and assets have a "market value". The market value of a "hard working floor sweeper" is lower than that of a somewhat-lazy but efficient software coder. That's why people earn what they're worth.

Nothing should ever be given away to someone in business. If you want to get a head you make the necessary connections and take the right steps to get there...but you and people like you, who just want to whine that it's not fair, really should consider relocating to Sweden - the ultimate welfare state.

quote:
As opposed to lobbing wife-beater insinuations


That really has no context at all in this discussion...but if I was as dumb as you are I'd probably be living in a trailer with a wife I beat after I get mad that I lost the daily lottery again.

Oh, did this just get too real for you? I hope I didn't hit too close to home.

quote:
One such idiot's name was Ronald Reagan. One Richard Cheney was another such idiot of notable prominence, up to quite recently even.


Trickle down economics doesn't work because poor people are poor due to them being fck1ing morons, not because a lack of availability of money. They are given opportunity after opportunity to better themselves, but they do not because they are not much more evolved than the chimps you see at the zoo.

Also, it would be bad for democrats if the poverty level dropped below 10% because they'd lose the majority of their voter base and risk being ousted from government altogether...that's why democrats are often happy to keep these social parasites on the welfare treadmill at the expense of anyone who works or runs a business - aka not you.

quote:
Yes, that must be it.

OTOH, in my experience the higher you move up a corporate hierarchy, the more you find yourself competing against unscrupulous manipulators and ladder climbers who have no problem lying, cheating, and stepping on the necks of their colleagues if it gets them up to the next rung. I will never be one of those people. I'm not sufficiently sociopathic... And I'm just fine with that.

How about you?


You don't know what you are capable of if you don't try. You're already comfortable spreading lies about the state of our planet and the fraudulent science pushing their eco-terror agenda on a public forum...are you mad that you're not getting paid for it?

The sweet irony here is that your likely champions and heroes, greenpeace, those whale humpers, obama...all earn millions of dollars by duping people like you into becoming one of their acolytes.

A coin may have two sides but it only has one value.


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By EricMartello on 6/30/2012 3:11:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Same thing that's stopping you, obviously...


1) I am not complaining about his income level.

2) You don't know how much I make.

3) You still didn't answer the question so you may as well just stop posting.


RE: Tillerson makes $25.2 million a year
By boeush on 6/30/2012 8:18:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not complaining about his income level.
You should be, if you knew what's good for you . Oddly, you appear to suffer from a strange case of altruism in this specific case, despite otherwise hewing closely to the patently dysfunctional philosophy of "greed is good".
quote:
You don't know how much I make.
And you don't know how much I make. But at least I won't prance around here coyly pretending that I'm anywhere close to the same ballpark as the overpaid douche bag in question.
quote:
you may as well just stop posting.
Well, at least on that point you're right. I've spent more than enough time on this discussion, particularly with the likes of you. Cheers!


By Spuke on 7/2/2012 3:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
For what it's worth, I found your debate (both of you) to be very interesting and informative.


By Schrag4 on 7/1/2012 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please consider this question: why the hell could anyone imagine that paying a CEO 1000x average salary is somehow more effective than paying that same CEO 10x average salary -- as has been done throughout most of the 20th century?


What would you propose? Would you propose a law that caps the top earner's salary in a company as a factor of the lowest earner's salary?

Did you ever stop to consider that the shareholders might actually value the CEO at 25 million per year? Do you think Exxon would be wise to hire a CEO at 250k if they could hire a better CEO at 500k who helps guide them to make another 10 million in a year, or another one at 1mm that help guide them to make another 100 million in a year (etc)? Don't you think Exxon, if they believe he's worth that much to him, should have the freedom to pay him whatever they want?

Of course I don't think you've thought it through. All you seem to know how to do is envy. You won't be happy until everyone is as miserable as you are.


$ speaks
By luseferous on 7/1/2012 9:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that we were attempting to adapt by reducing our fossil fuel usage...

Rising sea levels are ok ? Takes a while to develop gills.

This guy is just trying to protect profit margins nothing more.




RE: $ speaks
By glennco on 7/2/2012 3:37:25 AM , Rating: 2
Saying we can adapt is basically saying 'Why do I care? I'm getting my pay packet, a pay packet i wouldnt be getting if i told the truth"


What are the real answers?
By JediJeb on 6/29/2012 7:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In addition, adapting to climate change could be much more expensive than preventing it. According to Steve Coll, author of "Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power," adapting to climate change would require moving entire cities. A better alternative would be legislation that slows the process of global warming.


This seems to be assuming that global temperatures are exactly in the range they should be now, or perhaps 1 degree warmer, and would always remain at these levels if there were no humans on the planet. The problem with that is even the global warming advocates among climatologists will admit that in past geologic history we know that there have been times when temperatures were much warmer and much cooler. If that is true then even if legislation could possibly stop warming global temperatures now, some time in the future we are still going to have to deal with both warmer and cooler temperatures, which means that sooner or later we WILL have to adapt or die. If it means moving entire cities then that is what we will have to do. I guess people like this are more worried about shoving the engineering problems farther down the road, just as they claim people like the Exxon CEO want to shove the problems of anti-warming legislation down the road.

Whether it is shifting into another ice age or into much warmer temperatures, we will still have to adapt to survive, and honestly adapting to the warmer temperatures will probably be easier than adapting to colder ones. Even though there is evidence of much warmer temperatures globally in the past, there is no evidence there was ever a "desert earth", but there is evidence of a "snowball earth" when temperatures have fallen drastically. Where is the evidence in the geologic record that higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures will sterilize the planet as some are preaching?

What is happening is the Earth is shifting just outside of what modern man thinks is the ideal conditions for his own prosperity and he has no way to control it. People in power, and people in general, do not like to be in a position where they have no control over the things around them. They will do whatever they can to maintain control, and if they can't maintain control then they will do whatever they can to maintain the illusion of control, to make them feel safe and that they are powerful instead of helpless. Is the Earth warming? Yes, to some extent, though it hasn't yet warmed as much as many models from the past have predicted so far. Is mankind causing the warming? That is still debatable, though some have a religious fervor to proclaim the extreme to both sides of the argument. This is quite obvious when you look at both sides of the argument in this article. We need to look at ways to use less energy, not only to "save the planet"(which really means save our happy place in time) but to help prevent real pollution and make what we do be more efficient. We also need to look at the solutions needed as global climate swings warmer and cooler, because it is better to start planning now for both extremes in a proactive way, than simply try to react once it happens. The last thing we need to also do is stop preaching the FUD on both sides of the debate and grow up and work together, though that will be even more difficult a task than either of the first two.




By boeush on 6/29/2012 7:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Can't quite decide if this guy has actually bought into his own BS, or if he's smart enough to realize what sort of toxic garbage he's spewing.

1) An engineering problem? Yes, of course treating symptoms is always cheaper and more efficient than preventing the disease in the first place -- such is the latest word from the newfangled discipline of ExxonMobil Engineering...

2) Humans are able to adapt. Great. What about the biosphere on which humans so vitally depend for our survival, never mind well-being? Just how well does the biosphere 'adapt' to dramatic changes that occur near-instantaneously (on geological timescales)? Oh yes, I'm sure we can all "adapt" and "engineer" our way out of the brand-spangled-new Global Mass Extinction, brought to you courtesy of ExxonMobil and pals. No costs associated with that at all, no value to any of that biodiversity and those ecosystem services we're about to devastate with our industrial-scale idiocy...

3) What's this: "humans can adapt to rising sea levels and climate changes because he doubts the validity of climate modeling"?? Is that some incredible new branch of ExxonMobil Logic (TM) that the 'lazy press' and 'illiterate public' just haven't yet been indoctrinated into? Holy brain-hemorrhaging non sequitur, Batman...

4) Yes, let's "doubt the validity of climate modeling", while simultaneously assuming that in reality things will be much better than model estimates -- instead of much worse (which is an equally valid possibility.) Wow, no cognitive bias at all in that there ExxonMobil Objectivity (R)...

5) "fear-mongering advocacy groups" -- is that something like the ExxonMobils of the world who threaten us with Socialism and a return to the Stone Age at every mention of carbon caps? Or perhaps, he means the ExxonMobils of the world who clandestinely fund various astroturf campaigns to impugn the reputations of scientists, research organizations, and entire branches of science? ExxonMobil FUD: The Best FUD in the World! (TM)




Waterworld was a bad movie
By idiot77 on 6/29/2012 7:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
And that dude thinks we're going to grow fins and gills.

MUTANT!!!




Adapt?
By Belard on 6/30/2012 3:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
we are ANIMALS, we can only do so much.

So if the avg temp goes up 10 degrees = more flooding, more severe weather, more PEOPLE deaths from heat, more use of ENERGY to power our A/Cs. More pollution, more lung deaths.
Higher overall health problems...

But our GAS is cheap.

We have but ONE Earth to live on.
We DON'T have a star drive to travel to another solar system.
We CANNOT Terraform Mars or Venus into a 2nd Earth. If we are THAT good, climate change wouldn't be an issue!

Some say "there isn't that much we are doing"? Really? When they talk about poisons and radiation that can KILL YOU, they are saying things like "10 parts per million" stuff like that. A single drop of ACID can send you into LA-LA land. A drop of poison can kill you in seconds or weeks. Radiation, which has no weight... will KILL YOU.

Ever heard of a thing called SEASONS? We have a hot and a cold season. Know HOW we have those? Its not because the Earth is moving away from the sun once a year (elliptical orbit) as that would cause SEVERE temp change... like -300 to + 200 degrees.

No, the Earth's distance from the Sun is the same which is millions of miles away. The earth is at a slight angle or tilt. That LITTLE bitty tilt causes temp changes on the earth by 5~100 degrees, depending on where you are. Example, here in Texas, its been about 95 degrees. In 6 months, it'll be around 30~40 degrees. In Canada, it'll be closer to 5 degrees.

Some so simple as being slightly away from the sun has an effect on our planet.

We only have ONE home to live or destroy. Why are we taking such chances.

Yes, we need OIL... but we need to look for the future of our children, our race, our place in this universe. Which for now, we can wipe ourselves out in 100 years, FastForward 10,000 years and it would be like we were never here (almost).




but we're not alone
By franchement on 6/30/2012 4:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, through its ingenuity, the human specie can probably adapt to man made climate change. However, we're symbiotically or parasitically linked to animal, plant and insect life amongst other things. How are these going to adapt given the pace of climate change. Through our rise to the top of the evolutionary tree and through our technological advances, surely our role should be that of a custodian rather than parasite?




By Arsynic on 6/30/2012 12:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why do alarmists run with the notion that climate change is automatically man-made? If its not then we have no choice but to adapt. In this case, his comments make a lot of sense.

Can an alarmist please tell me what would be proof that man- made climate change isn't happening? What would you look for?




Tillerson
By neillevine3 on 6/30/2012 2:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously, Tillerson does not live in Florida or Colorado.




Fight the Evil Empire of Exxon
By Seth C.O. on 7/1/2012 6:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Four or Five Years ago Exxon considered Obama an enemy and are one of the Corporate bohemoths putting their Mad Million's to Mitt and his Super Pacs...
The millions of little people must make a choice to mobilize, organize, and contribute from our meager earnings so we don't end up with The Greater Evil who would isn't, 'worried about the poor'...
I see this as a tight race (hopefully not Supreme Court Tight- you know how that would go!)... and am asking Everyone to get involved:
Volunteer to do the phone bank to the swing States, Throw a blow out Fundraising Party and put your money where your beliefs are, Donate to the campaign- if enough of us millions of Poor & middle class (yes, there is a class war) 'little' people throw in what we might of spent on a date out to a movie, We will make a difference in winning the hearts & minds of swing voters in swing states!
Ask me about my website to donate easily or go to Obama's .com- it wont take more than a few minutes and a few dollars to make a difference!
Get you're Patriotism On, and ask Not what Your Politicians can do for you, but Who are they going to be! People are people too, my friends and our Money Has to talk now, because the Law states that Money is Speech...




i hope animals...
By wired00 on 7/2/2012 1:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
I hope all other animals can adapt just as well... won't be much left other than us, rats and cockroaches otherwise.

I guess we just have to hope that mars-one is a gigantic success (mars-one.com/en/)




Adapting
By alley on 7/2/2012 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Humans can adapt! Its true, we can all learn to swim in the raising sea levels.

But seriously, can we even take a CEO of a multinational oil company at his word on a subject as important as our planet? Can we even take a government or political organisation seriously? Politics answer is taxation, industries answer is bury head in sand... Neither solutions are going to work.

We need a completely new monetary, political and economic paradigm to fix this problem. Debt based money isn't helping (fractional reserve liquidity with compounding interest). Self Serving politics isn't helping (ClimateGate) and its debatable if the 'free market' price system can fix this.




Another idiot CEO
By KOOLTIME on 7/6/2012 10:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sure claim humans can adapt, while all the other animals and plant life die off as they cant adapt which ultimately rolls back and effects humans as well since everything living, is tied together along the food chains of life.

The hotter weather kills off something simple like GRASS - well cows horses and many others eat that as food, so how does that effect adaptation, the guy is a moron.




adv
By PittmanKen18 on 7/7/2012 12:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
like Judy implied I'm blown away that a single mom able to make $5530 in 1 month on the internet. have you read this site makecash16 com




I wonder
By shin0bi272 on 7/2/2012 8:56:41 PM , Rating: 1
I wonder if this dipshit also knows that wind turbines cause global warming too. Probably not.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki