Lady Nimue
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Messages
- 4,418
- City
- Pacific Palisades CA
- Country
- United States
This is a topic I have been involved in for some years, since I was in college. The split is a bit more complicated than that imo.
It has to do with education, science and media bias in certain quarters (Rupert Murdoch has a lot to answer for). It has to do with how one approaches the science, and whether the disinformation campaign set in motion in the 1990's by the oil companies took hold for one, causing one to doubt the science and the scientists.Is there a thread on climate change on this site? Because of some whistle blowers, we have the below information.
How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research
By KATIE JENNINGS, DINO GRANDONI AND SUSANNE RUST - OCT. 23, 2015
LINK: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/
TEXT: "Throughout much of the 1980s, Exxon earned a public reputation as a pioneer in climate change research. It sponsored workshops, funded academic research and conducted its own high-tech experiments exploring the science behind global warming. But by 1990, the company, in public, took a different posture. While still funding select research, it poured millions into a campaign that questioned climate change. Over the next 15 years, it took out prominent ads in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, contending climate change science was murky and uncertain. And it argued regulations aimed at curbing global warming were ill-considered and premature.
"How did one of the world’s largest oil companies, a leader in climate research, become one of its biggest public skeptics? The answer, gleaned from a trove of archived company documents and the recollections of former employees, is that Exxon, now known as Exxon Mobil, feared a growing public consensus would lead to financially burdensome policies."
"How did one of the world’s largest oil companies, a leader in climate research, become one of its biggest public skeptics? The answer, gleaned from a trove of archived company documents and the recollections of former employees, is that Exxon, now known as Exxon Mobil, feared a growing public consensus would lead to financially burdensome policies."
Silence, when one knows what the stakes are, would be unconscionable. As we proceed (and we are warming far faster than predicted), migrating populations, with the resulting tensions and potential for violence, will increase. We are seeing changes we thought were a century away (if we did nothing).
The war on terror is about how best to fight terror and is political in so far as the government in the western world is elected. The discussion about the war on terror at this point in time is topical. 
Good points.
This is the nub: Charles must be seen as foolish and talking out-of-his-depth. The suggestion that Charles (or Johan Rockström) are simplistic in their reasoning is remarkable, given all the caveats that apply. Very deft way of poking at a colleague while keeping Charles in-line, framed as a simplistic thinker. 
