Hansen: Exxon, Peabody are committing "crimes against humanity"
Tags: crimes against humanitiy, ExxonMobil, Exxonmobil, global warming, James Hansen, james hansen, peabody coal, Ross Gelbspan, US
CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes.
Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
Ross, I agree with you completely. There is not a shred of evidence to support their position that "they didn't know what was happening". They embarked on a deliberate plan of obfuscation and misinterpretation of data to support an untenable position that AGW was not happening.
Their plan is clearly outlined in the API memo of 1998.:
http://www.edf.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf
They have been very successful in carrying out their plan because the scientific knowledge of the average citizen, particularly in the US, is abysmally low.
Anti-science supporters such as Paul S/G, Rob, ZOG and other trolls who infect this blog are prime examples of this lack of scientific knowledge. That is why EXXON (and others) only need to spend a trifling amount of money on their disinformation campaign. These trolls come out of the woodwork to spread the word of EXXON at every opportunity they get and do it for nothing.
They are equally guilty of helping to destroy life on Earth as we have come to know it.
They should be ashamed of themselves.
Ian Forrester
Yeah, those oil companies keep forcing me to gas up my car and take the occasional plane trip across the country. Bad oil companies!
But, oil companies have the right to free speech too. And, the pennies that Exxon has spent is a drop in the bucket compared to what governments and green groups have spent in their failed effort to convince the public we face immediate crisis.
Having failed at persuading the general public to support draconian actions, frustrated environmentalists are once again lashing out at their favorite strawmen, oil companies, in their lust for unearned power.
"But, oil companies have the right to free speech too.'
Do they have the right to mislead people with misrepresented science?
"Do they have the right to mislead people with misrepresented science?"
Why not? Al Gore, the leader of your religious cult, has made a fortune shamelessly excercising that right at every possible oportunity.
The PR company that runs the Desmogblog website is literally in the business of excercising that right which you would deny everyone else.
= Do they have the right to mislead people with misrepresented science? =
Who have they misled? And with what? The pennies they have given to groups like the CEI? Be serious.
We are inundated daily with enviro-agit-prop which should completely overwhelm any other viewpoint. But it hasn't. Why? Even in Britian the majority of the public remains skeptical of the more apocalyptic environmental scenarios.
=They have been very successful in carrying out their plan because the scientific knowledge of the average citizen, particularly in the US, is abysmally low.= - Ian
US citizens are as knowledgeable on science matters as we are Ian. Park your prejudices when posting (if you are able).
The power of large numbers is in effect Ian. Some people are poorly educated, some highly educated and a large number in the middle. Taken all together, the power of large number accurately assesses all the available data and at present doesn't support your radial notions. Try again next year. :)
Paul S/G said: "Taken all together, the power of large number accurately assesses all the available data and at present doesn't support your radial notions".
It appears that your ignorance is not limited to science but also extends to your use of the English language.
You are one sorry person.
You should try again next year, try repeating Grade One, I'm sure you would not even make the top half of an average Grade One class.
Ian Forrester
The level of science literacy shown by Canadian trolls on this site is as low as the US trolls.
Why do you hate science and scientists so much?
That is not prejudice but an honest observation since I know far more about science than you appear to do. For example, most people know that thin ice melts faster than thicker ice but you spent a whole lot of time trying to tell us that we were wrong and you were right. That is the level of your science competence, you are completely ignorant of even basic science concepts but you have the arrogance and gall to suggest that eminent scientists don't know what they are talking about.
It is people like you who make it so easy for the likes of EXXON to convince people that AGW does not exist. What makes you think that what you say has any relevance or correctness at all? You are both dishonest and appallingly ignorant of simple facts of science.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Ian Forrester
Oh please . . . not the "thin ice melts faster" shibboleth again. If that were true, there would be less ice cover in the northern hemisphere now then there was last year. But there is more ice cover then last year.
=It is people like you who make it so easy for the likes of EXXON to convince people that AGW does not exist.=
Exxon does not convince people either way . . . at least not with the pennies they have spent so far. The REAL question is why environmental alarmists, with a far huger budget, have been unable to persuade the majority that we face an immediate, apocalyptic crisis.
"Exxon does not convince people either way . . . at least not with the pennies they have spent so far. The REAL question is why environmental alarmists, with a far huger budget, have been unable to persuade the majority that we face an immediate, apocalyptic crisis."
what a crock!
it is because of people like you who spread misinformation!
If the truth were so strong I would not be able to spread misinformation.
Exxon spends less then a penny per person per year on groups like the CEI. Do you honestly, seriously, truly believe that less then a penny is enough to paralyze public action on what is supposedly the most serious challenge facing humanity at present?
Paul S/G said: "Do you honestly, seriously, truly believe that less then a penny is enough to paralyze public action...?"
The answer is that dishonest and stupid people like Paul S/G and other oil industry sycophants make it very easy for these companies to distribute their lies and misinformation at a very low cost.
Try reading something other than denier web sites and you may learn some real science.
Ian Forrester
Propagana can't be done on pennies. Not when billions is spent every year on advertising alone.
Paul S/G just because you say something ridiculous does not mean that it is true.
FOOLS like you are a disgrace to ordinary people everywhere.
Do you want people to suffer because of your lies and distortions?
You are a sad caricature for the human race. Please stop spouting your lies and distortions on this blog. You are a disgrace and you should be ashamed of yourself for putting the lives of millions of people in jeopardy. They are completely innocent but you are guilty of causing them untold grief.
Ian Forrester
"it is because of people like you who spread misinformation!"
Good point, Globalwarmingtruth! We must root out the revisionists who sow seeds of doubt in the maleable brains of the peasant class against our Glorious Revolution!
And if you disagree with me, then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.
"For example, most people know that thin ice melts faster than thicker ice but you spent a whole lot of time trying to tell us that we were wrong and you were right."
Of course, Ian, being the scientific genius you are, you will also know that witches are made out of wood, and since wood floats ...
When you read the childish invective that that rolls off of Knuckledragger's keyboard, it's not hard to understand why his biotech venture went tits up. Sane people couldn't stand to be around him.
But keep it up, it just shows how despicable people like you are.
Must make you feel good to hide behind a fictitious name and insult worthy scientists like Hansen et al.
I have more respect for the smelly stuff I get on my shoes when I don't watch where I am walking than for the likes of you.
Your every post shows that AGW deniers like you are just a bunch of sickos who know nothing at all.
Ian Forrester
"... grunt, snuffle, snort ... worthy scientists like Hansen..."
Yeh, Hansen is a real sweetheart! Actually, I can remember, back in the 90s, when he was a respectable and respected scientist, albeit a maverick. For the last three or four years, his public pronouncements have become less and less rational - close to the edge of unhinged. His recent comments about jailing recalcitrant executives of energy companies (most of whom, in this technological age, are highly qualified scientists) suggest that he has become flat-out, barking mad.
BTW, I don't know of any oil company execs whose academic credentials are in climatology but, neither are Hansen's. He's an astronomer who, like a lot of warmist gurus, has appointed himself "climatologist". I realize that some papers sceptical of AGW have been written by astrophysicists and meteorologists but, the authors, unlike Hansen, have never presented themselves as something that they are not.
ZOG said: "recalcitrant executives of energy companies (most of whom, in this technological age, are highly qualified scientists)"
You don't even know what a scientist is. For your information the executives of Peabody (Vic Svec) and EXXON (Lee Raymond, past CEO) are engineers.
Ask any scientist their views on the scientific abilities of the average engineer and you won't get a positive response.
The way engineers are taught (and think) is not by use of the scientific method. Most engineers I have had dealings with assume that if someone (anyone, no matter how ridiculous their results are) says something it must be correct if it supports their viewpoint. They do not often indulge in "critical and logical thinking."
They may be good for building bridges (but lots have fallen down) but don't trust them for scientific discourse.
Ian Forrester
. . . WE ARE THE ENGINEERS!"
Now, Ian -- there are several engineers in my family (including my mother, Queen's Science '52), and they all think critically, logically, and if I do say so, with a healthy dose of scepticism. Let's not resort to stereotyping here!
Fern Mackenzie
And Jim Buckee?
You are right that most CEOs of major oil companies are engineers. The science Phds tend to be department heads rather than executives.
Frankly, since I have degrees in both science and engineering and wore both hats for 35 years, I find the "scientists vs. engineers" prattle sophomoric. I've met several science grads who were very competent engineers. (Even my own son - honors graduate in geophysics - moved laterally into deep-sea enginering and does stuff that was beyond anyone's wildest dreams a couple of decades ago. He works mostly for BigOil[tm] helping to access the lifeblood of modern civilization so I guess that he is eeeevvviiiil.)
Conversely, I've met people with degrees only in engineering who were damned clever and innovative theoreticians. After all, another name for "engineering" is "applied science".
I would like to see Jimmy Hansen put on trial and exposed as the purveyor of horse crap that he has been for the past 20
years.
I don't want to see anyone put on a show trial Free Thinker, not even Mr. Hansen. A multitude of opinions is allowed in a free and democratic society and should be encouraged, including the opinions of oil companies.
Paul,
See? Maybe that's the problem? In order to "save the planet", self-styled environmentalists need to get rid of this troublesome concept of a "free and democratic society".
The last few shrill and insane posts on this site, demanding Nuremburg-style trials for oil executives, certainly seem to suggest this.
Strange no one has bothered to actually go back and look at the predictions Hansen made in his 1988 testimony?
The last page of his prepared remarks had a historical time-series of global mean temperature through 1987, plus predictions for various scenarios through 2019.
Well, we have 20 more years of data now - how do his predictions look so far? Wildly wrong.
Check it out - all the data here:
http://tinyurl.com/6cms9f