Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Exxon vs. The Royal Society...

...Sonia has found out that Exxon the US oil company is being challenged by the Royal Society in London to "stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
"The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading". This is the first time that the Royal Society has gone so far as to write to a company and it represents the extent of the consensus of the scientific community with regard to global warming. The Society's action should be a wake-up call for those still in any doubts about the dangers of climate change denial. Those in power , both in business and in politics, have a responsibility to take heed of the scientific consensus and take the action required to ensure the future of generations to come. Does the CEO of Exxon have any children? If he does he should be worried.


Anonymous said...

"This is the first time that the Royal Society has gone so far as to write to a company and it represents the extent of the consensus of the scientific community with regard to global warming."

If the consensus of which you speak is so robust then why is the Royal Society feeling under pressure to stop Exxon researching into this area?

If the consensus is widely accepted then who's view is to be altered by Exxon's work?

You would expect a scientific institution like the RS to encourage diverse research in the area of climate change, afterall it's the conclusions drawn from research that are biased, not the resultant data itself.

Quoting Aaron Levenstein...

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital..."

Is it not in everyones interests to hear all sides of the story, rather than limit ourselves to a bikini which only wants to show us what we expect to see?

AGW is NOT proven, there is NO consensus on it, and this attempt in my view by the RS proves that their biased conclusions are just as potentially flawed as those produced by people supported by Exxon.

The hockey stick was disproven, Oreske's research was focussed on GW, not AGW.

Back in the 70's RS said we would be in a deep freeze in 20 years, and civilisation would end. 20 years on and we are in complete contrast, where we are all going to burn, and civilisation will end.

Not that I can't take it seriously, it is important. But lets get some proof first.

Fairytale simulations and assumptions of such a complex situation don't help, nor do awe inspiring imagery of receeding glaciers in their recessional phase, while other glaciers just several km's away growing rapidly!

I can't help but think ignoring any science is inherently wrong, and if the RS is supporting that standpoint then they don't represent scientific method any more!


Amos Keppler said...

It's both hilarious and encouraging at the same time...
Everybody sees the truth about the human created extended GW these days (even the RS...). They just have to look out the window.

Leighton Cooke said...

Well they have olive trees and pinot noir red wine in England these days so the climate must be getting warmer. Why do Exxon use the same organisations that tried to convince us there is no harm in smoking. I've watched many smokers die of cancer. It's not a pretty sight. I don't think the consequences of global warming will be pretty either.