Exxon

What Does Rex Tillerson Get Out Of Being Secretary Of State?

gregladen — Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:08:30 +0000

What Does Rex Tillerson Get Out Of Being Secretary Of State?

He's trying, in the hearings, to not let it look this way, but the truth is that he and Exxon Mobile stand to benefit a great deal from a Tillerson SOC. Also, Russia will benefit a great deal.

Putting it a slightly different way, Tillerson's appointment makes the most sense of you replace "Trump" with "Putin" in sentences that refer to who the leader of the United States is.

The composite graphic above explains this. The context for those graphics is here:

gregladen Thu, 01/12/2017 - 04:08

Tags

President Donald Trump

Big Oil

Exxon

Political Science

It seems like the post should be titled:

What does Exxon get out of Rex Tillerson being secretary of state?

I am assuming Mr. Tillerson is no longer employed by Exxon and has divested himself of his stock in Exxon.

And that's different how?

Rex Tillerson is this guy:

Rex Tillerson - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson
Rex Wayne Tillerson (born March 23, 1952) is an American businessman. He was the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of ExxonMobil ...

Is it even possible to get your head out of your ass for even a minute?? Lets write entire BOOKS on how Clinton benefited from being Secretary of State!. At least for once, we will have someone qualified for the position.

#1: LOL

#3, why? Trump, before he even got the job, benefitted to the tune of $450,000 with money in his pocket, having his hotel as the venue for a meeting, when there's an entire palatial government-maintained building in Washington to do that in.

And he's 100% unqualified for the position. That was the damn point for most when voting for him:he wasn't a poltician and didn't know what the hell the job involved.

And look at how he wants to fire people before he has any replacements, how he wants to put people in positions without having arranged beforehand the required information for them to be vetted (since he's never had to wait for permission form anyone else before), and how he's only now understanding that he would have to give up and sell his businesses if he got the job of president.

He was 100% unprepared for the job.

Wow #5:

According to the constitution - in order to qualify to be president you only have to meet two criteria:

1. Natural born citizen (basically born in the USA or on a military base), and
2. 35 or older.

I am ignoring the 14 years residency - which only applies to people here in 1889.

I guess you could add the term limit of only two terms - but that really only applies to two term presidents.

So Trump is qualified.

Unprepared - that is your opinion.

And as you know - everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

Only the big kids get to be pedantic, Ricky.

"According to the constitution"

According to the constitution, you cannot have any fiscal entanglements with foreign entities if you're the president.

Drumpf has admitted these exist all across the world.

Slam dunk: you lose.

And when it comes to Hilary, you were one of the most spittle-flecked screamers of how bad she was for her connections to Wall Street.

Seems if she'd become POTUS you would have let her own a major bank.

Of course, if she HAD become POTUS, Drumpf would not,and you'd be APOPLECTIC about corruption and how her foundation was clearly corruption and she should do as every single other president in all of the USA's history has done, and divest their business, sell it off and have the cash invested in a blind trust.

Because it's only fine when YOUR guy does it.

Because you are a crackpot.

RickA is not a crackpot.

He's simply morally corrupt, that's all.

Oh, no, he's definitely a crackpot, since he really believes some of that unreal shit he spouts.

He's also corrupt, but as far as that cracpot knows, everyone is, without exception.

Except Trump (unless he's fine with a corrupt president).

Wow #8:

Trump cannot receive a salary from a foreign government.

An emolument is a salary.

It makes sense - you cannot serve two masters.

So you cannot be President and also get paid to be Canada's ambassador (for example).

There is nothing in the constitution about foreign entanglements.

Slam dunk: you lose.

As to the rest of your comment - you must be confusing me with someone else.

I don't remember saying anything about Hillary and her connections to Wall Street.

Also - Trump isn't my guy.

I voted libertarian - remember?

"Trump cannot receive a salary from a foreign government."

Or have financial links with foreign entities. And he has said that he has them all over the globe.

Slam dunk: you lose.

"An emolument is a salary."

No it isn't.

emolument
ɪˈmɒljʊm(ə)nt,ɛˈmɒljʊm(ə)nt/
noun
formal
noun: emolument; plural noun: emoluments

a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

1. I say Make America Great Again! Make it just like Russia! Start queuing!
2. Kellly Anne Con-way reminds me of the alien leader in Mars Attacks. Same strong jaw....

If he's not careful, the Great Orange Ape might end up making America just like North Korea.

He still might, because he lusts after the idea of making everyone call him "Beloved Leader".

And making illegal any reporting of him that doesn't cast him in a good light.

Funny haircut.
Insists it's good hair.
Weird dress sense.
Chubby.
ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED he's gorgeous
Insists on being absolutely the best at everything ever in history.
Hasn't a clue
Barely speaks Enlgish
Likes what China did centuries ago
Wants closer ties to Russia

Hmmm.

Anyone checked to see if there's a little korean guy hiding in an orange jumpsuit pretending to be POTUS?

Check the hands...

Tell The AGU To Do The Right Thing About AGW #ExxonKnew

gregladen — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:17:29 +0000

Tell The AGU To Do The Right Thing About AGW #ExxonKnew

A while back it became apparent, or should I say, more apparent, that Exxon corporation had been playing a dangerous and unethical game with the science of climate change, and for decades, misled people on the relationship between their fossil fuel related activities, the effects of those activities, and possible solutions. (They've known about this problem all along.)

Part of this seems to have involved making misstatements about climate change, and pumping resources into anti science activities and organizations.

The American Geophysical Union is the unifying organization for geologists and physicists and other scientists who study climate change. The AGU does a lot more than that, but a good portion of the climate science community, internationally, engages at the AGU's annual conference.

Meanwhile, the AGU has a rule against accepting sponsorship from anti science organizations. Yet, Exxon has been sponsoring events at the AGU for some time.

Obviously this can get tricky. Why not take money from a major corporation that ultimately benefits from the AGU, as it does by having a better equipped scientific community from which to draw both employees and expertise? And to some extent that is true, and to some extent many situations of tension exist like this.

But in this case, there is a very strong argument that AGU should stop taking money from Exxon.

Also, see this piece by Geoffrey Supran: Scientific organizations must be braver in confronting climate denial

Recent revelations about Exxon have indicated that that organization's activities are over the top. And, hundreds of members of the scientific community that is served by AGU and that engages in this sort of research signed on to a letter demanding that the AGU stop taking Exxon's tainted money.

And, the AGU board met, and blew off the scientists, and sidled up to Exxon. They gave all the usual, but rather lame, excuses.

Tomorrow the board meets again. ClimateTruth.org is asking people to sign a petition supporting the scientists. Below is information from ClimateTruth.org. HERE IS THE LINK TO SIGN THE PETITION.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is the largest association of Earth scientists in the world and a well-respected institution that advances public understanding of science. Yet, the AGU continues to accept funding from Exxon, one of the world's leading funders of climate change denial.

The AGU's own sponsorship policy forbids accepting funding from any organization that supports science misinformation, a rule that was put in place for good reason. It's time for the AGU to start abiding by its own policy — starting with Exxon.

Now's your chance to take a stand. Over 300 Earth scientists have signed on to an open letter calling on the AGU to reject Exxon sponsorship. Signers include renowned climatologists James E. Hansen, the former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. Today, we're asking you to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with these scientists, and 50,000 citizens, by adding your name.

The AGU Board meets TOMORROW and we'll be hand-delivering the thousands of petition signatures from across the nation directly to AGU headquarters in Washington, DC. It's not too late! You can still join this collaborative campaign of scientists and citizens — and help us remind the AGU that its leadership matters to all of us.

Stand with scientists and tell the AGU: Stop taking funds from Exxon, a company that misleads the public about climate change.

Exxon has been deceiving the public about the science of climate change for decades and funding climate disinformation at a massive scale. Yet, the AGU Board couldn't be convinced at their last meeting and decided to continue accepting funding from Exxon. It took a letter from U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Ted Lieu to push the AGU Board to vow to once again "review and discuss the information" at its next meeting tomorrow, on September 14.

Your voice matters. Tell the AGU to drop Exxon sponsorship.

Thank you for helping us hold the AGU accountable and for standing up for science — today and every day.
Truthfully Yours,

Amanda, Emily, Brant, Brandy, Daniela and the rest of the ClimateTruth.org team

gregladen Tue, 09/13/2016 - 02:17

Tags

American Geophysical Untion

Exxon

Today's xkcd, coincidence?

OP, as far as I know, yes. But maybe not!?

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and 16 other state Attorneys General brought a much publicized case against Exxon for its alleged climate change sins.
Why has the case been dropped?

I'm sure you can provide a citation for the case against ExxonMobil being dropped. You might forward the same to Rep. Lamar Smith, who is set to hold a hearing on whether his subpoenas of the AGs are too constitutional after nine legal scholars said they're not, and to the Competitive Enterprise Institute which has sued the New York AG.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12092016/exxonmobil-climate-change-r…

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31082016/conservative-think-tank-cei…

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-exxon-case-unraveled-1472598472

@See Noevo, The Wall Street Journal?! Seriously!?!?
Read this before commenting again.

Julian, more relevant is that this WSJ piece not even supports SN's claim.

Also funny: a week after that WSJ piece, Exxon was in court battling the subpoena from the Mass. AG. Now, why would they do that if the investigation has been suspended?

If a bunch of lawyers get together, with much publicity, to bring a *murder* case,
but then later *change* the charges to *fraud*,
then you could say they dropped the case, the first case (i.e. for murder).
At a minimum, you would say they’ve moved the goalposts.

Similarly, Schneiderman & company seem to have moved *from* allegations of *past* positions regarding global warming (to the extent that they were demanding 40 years’ worth of company documentation) *to* allegations of *future* financial *fraud*.

“But in an extensive interview, Mr. Schneiderman said that his investigation was focused less on the distant past [Really? Why then were they demanding 40 years worth of Exxon documents?] than on relatively recent statements by Exxon Mobil related to climate change and what it means for the company’s future.

"In other words, the question for Mr. Schneiderman is less what Exxon knew, and more what it predicts.
For example, he said, the investigation is scrutinizing a 2014 report by Exxon Mobil stating that global efforts to address climate change would not mean that it had to leave enormous amounts of oil reserves in the ground as so-called “stranded assets.””

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/science/exxon-mobil-fraud-inquiry-sai…

If you read that New York Times article carefully, you have to conclude that the case is still very much alive. (Well, you don't have to, but it's the reasonable assessment.)

For example, consider the paragraph you quoted, paragraph 6:

For example, he said, the investigation is scrutinizing a 2014 report by Exxon Mobil stating that global efforts to address climate change would not mean that it had to leave enormous amounts of oil reserves in the ground as so-called “stranded assets.”

Since the science says we must leave large amounts of oil in the ground if we are to have a chance of preserving something close to the climate in which our civilization developed, ExxonMobil's attempt to refute this could amount to defrauding its investors.

That's not to say a guilty verdict against ExxonMobil is a slam-dunk. But there is precedent for a judgment that forces it to change its planning, in the agreement signed by Peabody Coal.

I'm glad the AGU has taken a stance on climate change.

About 5 years ago, I had several lengthy discussions on LinkedIn with geologists who were deniers. Not sure what, if any, professional organizations they belonged to but it was somewhat frustrating to me dealing with alleged professionals who were so dismissive of other professionals who weren't geologists.

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/26/in…

Putting the "Ex" in "Exxon": AGU asked to dump big oil sponsorship

gregladen — Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:55:23 +0000

Putting the "Ex" in "Exxon": AGU asked to dump big oil sponsorship

It is all about the honest conversation. And the dishonest conversation.

Corporate Funding of the Research Endeavor: Good

Corporations have an interest in research. They use this research for profit or to minimize liability. Some corporations have their own researchers, some provide grants to scientists to conduct research, and some fund activities that might not be thought of as research, but really are. For example, the publication fees for peer reviewed journals, funds to pay for scientists to attend conferences, and funds to support a scientific conference are paying for an important part of the research endeavor.

It is not always the case that a conflict of interest arises when a corporation pays for research. In a former life, I was an administrator for a moderately sized research funding entity. We had "member" companies that paid annual dues that were rather high. In return for those dues, we provided experts who would show up and give talks. This was a total rip-off to the companies, because they also had to pay for the travel costs of the experts, but that is not why they contributed. These were Japanese companies, and the experts were all economists. The point was to distribute the money to young scholars -- graduate students, post docs, and junior faculty -- for whatever research projects they needed money for. The projects had to be real research, but they did not have to be on anything in particular. The results were generally put into a free and open access publication series (along with other research) and we would ship off copies of the publication to all the member companies. Nobody was paying anybody to produce any particular result, but the research was sometimes (but often not) valuable to those companies. For example, some Japanese companies, including at least one that paid us dues, had developed a great new way to manage warehousing of parts. It saved money and reduced waste. One of the research projects we funded looked at that system, compared it to other systems, and recommended how it might be applied elsewhere. In another project, one of the firs studies to ever look at putting some kind of price on carbon was carried out. None of the companies that funded this research had any interest, for or against, this concept.

In the old days, AT&T funded Bell Labs. It still exists today, and I have no idea how it works now. I'm told by people who worked there back in the mid 20th century that it was a place where funding came in from the mother company to allow scientists to do more or less what they wanted to. Numerous important inventions that we use today came out of Bell Labs, and the people who worked there even won a bunch of Nobel Prizes. That was probably another example of industry funding research for the purpose of finding out new stuff, and little or no nefarious intent was attached.

Conferences are typically funded by a combination of grants from institutions (like the National Science Foundation, etc.), conference fees (which can be rather hefty) charged to participants, and grants from interested commercial parties. For example, a company that makes microscopes might kick in some money for a biology conference. They may also be represented in the part of the conference where private companies (or institutions with a product) can set up booths (that they pay for), like a trade conference.

Those private companies may well have an interest in the outcome of the research being performed by the various scientists who attend the conference. Maybe they want to sell the scientists a gadget to use in their lab. Maybe they want to use the research to advance their corporate mission, such as better ways to produce or deliver a product. Most of the time they probably just want people to like them, or to recognize their names.

So far, there is not much wrong with that, either.

Corporate Funding of the Research Endeavor: Bad

But sometimes private corporations have different kind of interest. They don't just want to get more information and knowledge about the areas where science overlaps with their corporate mission. They don't just want to be seriously considered as a source for some matériel or equipment that scientists use. What some corporations want to do, sometimes, is to influence the outcome of scientific research, for their own interests, in ways that require that the science itself be adulterated in some substantial way. They want to see the dissemination of results that may be bogus but that serves their financial interests, or they may want to repress results that would lead policy makers, legislatures, the public, or the scientific community, to criticize, eschew, or even stop one or more of their profitable activities.

This is a sufficiently important problem that one of the largest (possibly the largest, depending on how one defines things) scientific organizations related to the study of Planet Earth, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), has a policy about this. As part of their "organizational support policy," the AGU says,

AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.

Organizational partners are defined as those that make an annual financial commitment to AGU
of $5,000 or more.

Why not accept the money? Doesn't it make sense to take the money and then have lots of money and stuff, and ignore the wishes of potentially nefarious actors in this game?

I knew a guy once, only barely (a friend of the father of a friend). He was a major research scientist at a major institution, and he invented a technology for seeing things that are very small, which had applications in a wide range of research and praxis, including materials science and medicine. But his methodology involved the development of technology that one might use to make a terrible but effective weapon. He received a lot of his funding from those who might fund such things, and this allowed him to do his work without having to spend much money on grant proposals. But, he claimed (in his retirement), he never intended his work to be used to make a terrible weapon. Furthermore, he knew, privately, from his own research that it never could be. What he was doing would simply not work in that context. But he never mentioned that to his funders. He just took the money, and used it to save lives.

Well, one of the reasons one might not want to take money from sources with nefarious intent (and here we assume developing a terrible weapon is nefarious, though one could argue differently, I suppose) without ever advancing said nefarious goal, is that it is actually unethical. But one could counter argue that the savings of lives and advancement of civilization and such outweighs the ethics, or more exactly, that it is appropriate to develop situational ethics.

That is an extreme example, but in some ways, parallel to what a major organization like the AGU would be doing if they knowingly accepted money from major corporations who intended to encourage, develop, disseminate, or otherwise use for their own interests any kind of fake science or anti-science. Why not take the money and run? Partly, one assumes, because it isn't exactly kosher.

Another reason is that if one takes anti-science money, one may end up advancing anti-science agendas even if one does not want to. The very fact that an anti-science entity (a corporation or foundation funded by a corporation) funds a major legit conference is a way of saying that the corporation itself is legit. It is a way that a scientific organization can advance anti-science even if it doesn't want to.

Scientist Tell AGU To Drop Exxon Sponsorship

You all know about the Exxon maneno. Exxon, aka ExxonMobil, has recently been exposed as having repressed scientific information that indicated that we, our species, would ultimately need to change our energy systems in order to keep fossil fuels in the ground, else face dire consequences. Decades ago, when the science already indicated that this was a problem, Exxon independently verified that we needed to keep the fossil fuels in the ground, then shut up about it, because it was, and is, in their corporate interest to take the fossil fuel out of the ground.

I wrote about the Exxon kerfuffle back when it first broke, here. In that post, I provided a thumb-suck analysis comparing what Exxon knew about climate change then, and what the IPCC and NASA know about it now. They are pretty much the same, with respect to global surface warming caused by the human release of greenhouse gas pollution from burning fossil fuels such as those extracted and sold by Exxon.

Over a month ago, scientists Ploy Achakulwisut, Ben Scandella, Britta Voss asked the question, "Why is the largest Earth science conference still sponsored by Exxon?" They noted,

The impacts of Exxon’s tactics have been devastating. Thanks in part to Exxon, the American public remains confused and polarized about climate change. Thanks in part to Exxon, climate science-denying Republicans in Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level remain a major obstacle to U.S. efforts to mitigate climate change.

And thanks in no small part to Exxon, climate action has been delayed at the global level; as the international community began to consider curbing greenhouse gas emissions with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Exxon orchestrated and funded anti-Kyoto campaigns, including participation in the Global Climate Coalition. The latter was so successful at shifting debate that the George W. Bush administration credited it with playing a key role in its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.

So, now there is a letter signed by many top scientists asking the American Geophysical Union to make ExxonMobile an Ex-contributor to the conference. According to the Natural History Museum,

more than 100 geoscientists sent the following letter to the President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) – the world’s largest association of Earth scientists – urging the association to end its sponsorship deal with ExxonMobil. The oil giant is currently under investigation by the New York and California Attorneys General for its long history of climate denial campaigns.

Many notable scientists have signed on, including the former director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies James E. Hansen, the former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Harvard Professor James J. McCarthy, Harvard Professor and author of Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes, and Michael Mann– Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.

The letter is the most recent example of a growing trend of scientists stepping out of their traditional roles to urge science institutions to cut ties to fossil fuel companies.

As part of the press release announcing this letter, Michael Mann (author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, and Dire Predictions, 2nd Edition: Understanding Climate Change) noted, “While I recognize that it is a contentious matter within the diverse AGU community, I just don't see how we can, in good conscience, continue to accept contributions from a company that has spent millions of dollars over several decades funding bad faith attacks on scientists within our community whose scientific findings happen to be inconvenient for fossil fuel interests.”

InsideClimateNews has a timeline of what happened with Exxon, here.

AGU's president, Margaret Leinen, wrote on the AGU's blog, that "The AGU Board of Directors will take up the questions raised in this letter at their upcoming meeting in April, and prior to that will carefully review the information that has been provided, and any additional information that becomes available in the meantime. We will consult with our various member constituencies as well other stakeholders prior to the Board meeting. In addition, the Board will look more deeply into the question of what constitutes verifiable information about current activities."

InsideClimateNews notes that this campaign "...is part of a growing trend of scientists' protesting efforts by fossil fuel companies to undermine climate science. Last year, for instance, dozens of researchers urged Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History in New York to cut ties with David Koch of Koch Industries." See this post at InsideClimateNews for more information about the Exxon-AGU problem, and the broader movement.

As I noted at the beginning, this is all about the honest conversation. I've talked about this before. So often, the conversation, usually public and policy-related, is not about the science at all, but about other things, and the science itself gets thrown under the bus. My understanding (limited, I know) of the criminal justice system is that if a prosecutor knows about exculpatory evidence, they are required to provide it to the court or defense, thus possibly negatively affecting their own chance of success, but at the same time, doing the right thing. One would think that in science, institutions or individuals who know about evidence important in understanding some scientific problem, that they are ethically obligated to make that information available with reasonable alacrity. If all those involved in the large scale and complex conversations about climate change and energy had as a central ethical theme a commitment to accuracy, openness, and to the process of mutual aid in advancing our understanding of the topics at hand, it wouldn't matter who gave money to whom, because that money would not be linked to efforts to repress knowledge or to produce and disseminate misinformation.

And, certainly, such corporations should not be attacking the science or the scientists, or funding other organizations that do. Contributing to a valid scientific organization like the AGU does not make up for such behavior.

Had that been the way things worked fifty years ago, by now, Exxon-Mobile and other fossil fuel companies would have shifted their corporate activities away from fossil fuels. They would be phasing out coal, oil, and natural gas, and developing clean energy solutions. They would not have stuck themselves with vast stranded assets that they now have a corporate responsibility, no matter how immoral or antiscientific, to develop. There is an idea that corporations are primarily responsible to their stockholders, and this widely accepted but highly questionable "ethic" has been applied to justify, it seems, a significant departure from the pursuit of knowledge and the application of that knowledge to managing human problems and protecting our precious planet. This is a fundamental flaw in how we do things, and it is the reason AGU has to but the "ex" in Exxon as a sponsor.

Scientists' Letter to the American Geophysical Union

Here is the letter:

Dear Dr. Margaret Leinen,

We, the undersigned members of AGU (and other concerned geoscientists), write to ask you to please reconsider ExxonMobil’s sponsorship of the AGU Fall Meetings.

As Earth scientists, we are deeply troubled by the well-documented complicity of ExxonMobil in climate denial and misinformation. For example, recent investigative journalism has shed light on the fact that Exxon, informed by their in-house scientists, has known about the devastating global warming effects of fossil fuel burning since the late 1970s, but spent the next decades funding misinformation campaigns to confuse the public, slander scientists, and sabotage science – the very science conducted by thousands of AGU members. Even today, Exxon continues to fund the American Legislative Exchange Council, a lobbying group that routinely misrepresents climate science to US state legislators and attempts to block pro-renewable energy policies. Just last year, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson downplayed the validity of climate models and the value of renewable energy policies.

The impacts of Exxon’s tactics have been devastating. Thanks in part to Exxon, the American public remains confused and polarized about climate change. And thanks in part to Exxon, climate science-denying members of Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level remain a major obstacle to US efforts to mitigate climate change.

The research disciplines of Earth sciences conducted by AGU members are diverse, but they are united by their shared value of truthfulness. AGU states that its mission and core values are to “promote discovery in Earth science for the benefit of humanity” and for “a sustainable future.” Indeed, AGU has established a long history of scientific excellence with its peer-reviewed publications and conferences, as well as a strong position statement on the urgency of climate action, and we’re proud to be included among its members.

But by allowing Exxon to appropriate AGU’s institutional social license to help legitimize the company’s climate misinformation, AGU is undermining its stated values as well as the work of many of its own members. The Union’s own Organizational Support Policy specifically states that “AGU will not accept funding from organizational partners that promote and/or disseminate misinformation of science, or that fund organizations that publicly promote misinformation of science.” We believe that in fully and transparently assessing sponsors on a case-by-case basis, AGU will determine that some, including ExxonMobil, do not meet the standards of this policy. We therefore call on you as the President of AGU to protect the integrity of climate science by rejecting the sponsorship of future AGU conferences by corporations complicit in climate misinformation, starting with ExxonMobil.

While we recognize that some of AGU’s scientific disciplines are deeply tied to the fossil fuel industry, we are also increasingly aware of the tension within our community regarding how we should respond to the urgency of climate change as individual scientists and as institutions. It is time to bring this tension into the light and determine how an organization such as AGU should approach the major challenges of today to ensure that we truly are working for the benefit of humanity. In particular, as the world’s largest organization of Earth scientists, if we do not take an active stand against climate misinformation now, when will we?

Yours respectfully,

AGU members:

Robert R. Bidigare, PhD, AGU Fellow, University of Hawaii

Cecilia Bitz, Professor, University of Washington

David Burdige, Professor and Eminent Scholar, Old Dominion University

Kerry Emanuel, Professor, MIT

Peter Frumhoff, PhD, Director of Science and Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists

Richard H. Gammon, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington

Catherine Gautier, Professor Emerita, University of California Santa Barbara

Charles Greene, Professor, Cornell University

James E. Hansen, Adjunct Professor, Columbia University

Charles Harvey, Professor, MIT

Roger Hooke, Research Professor, University of Maine

Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor, Stanford University

Dan Jaffe, Professor and Chair, University of Washington Bothell

Michael C. MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute

Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor, Penn State University

James J. McCarthy, Professor, Harvard University

James Murray, Professor, University of Washington

Naomi Oreskes, Professor, Harvard University

Nathan Phillips, Professor, Boston University

Christopher Rapley, CBE, Professor, University College London

Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California San Diego

Pattanun Achakulwisut, PhD Student, Harvard University

Becky Alexander, Associate Professor, University of Washington

Theodore Barnhart, PhD Student, University of Colorado/INSTAAR

Yanina Barrera, PhD Student, Harvard University

Dino Bellugi, PhD Candidate, University of California Berkeley

Jo Browse, Postdoctoral Research, University of Leeds, UK

Adam Campbell, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Otago

Chawalit Charoenpong, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

Sarah Crump, PhD Student, University of Colorado Boulder

Daniel Czizco, Associate Professor, MIT

Katherine Dagon, PhD Student, Harvard University

Suzane Simoes de Sá, PhD Student, Harvard University

Michael Diamond, PhD Student, University of Washington

Kyle Delwiche, PhD Student, MIT

Sarah Doherty, Associate Professor, University of Washington

Liz Drenkard, Postdoctoral Researcher, Rutgers University

Emily V. Fischer, Assistant Professor

Priya Ganguli, Postdoctoral Fellow

Gretchen Goldman, PhD, Lead Analyst, Union of Concerned Scientists

Meagan Gonneea, Postdoc

Jordon Hemingway, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

Hannah Horowitz, PhD Student, Harvard University

Irene Hu, PhD student, MIT

Lu Hu, Postdoctoral Researcher, Harvard University

Eric Leibensperger, Assistant Professor, State University of New York at Plattsburgh

Marena Lin, PhD Student, Harvard University

Simon J. Lock, PhD Student, Harvard University

Andrew McDonnell, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Bruce Monger, Senior Lecturer, Cornell University

Daniel Ohnemus, Postdoctoral Researcher, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences

Morgan O’Neill, Postdoctoral Fellow, Weizmann Institute of Science

Cruz Ortiz Jr., PhD Student, University of California Santa Barbara

Jonathan Petters, Research Fellow, University of California Santa Cruz

Allison Pfeiffer, PhD Student, University of California Santa Cruz

James L. Powell, PhD

Christina M. Richardson, MS Student, University of Hawaii Manoa

Ignatius Rigor, Senior Principal Research Scientist, University of Washington

Paul Richardson, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Oregon

Erica Rosenblum, PhD Student, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Ben Scandella, PhD Student, MIT

Neesha Schnepf, PhD Student, University of Colorado at Boulder/CIRES

Amos P. K. Tai, Assistant Professor, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Robert Tardif, Research Scientist

Katherine Travis, PhD Student, Harvard University

Britta Voss, Postdoctoral Fellow

Andrew Wickert, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota

Kyle Young, Graduate Student, University of California Santa Cruz

Xu Yue, Postdoctoral Associate, Yale University

Emily Zakem, PhD Student, MIT

Cheryl Zurbrick, Postdoctoral Associate, MIT

Other concerned geoscientists:

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, CBE, Professor, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

Helen Amos, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University

Antara Banerjee, Postdoctoral Research Scientist

Emma Bertran, PhD Student, Harvard University

Skylar Bayer, PhD Student

Thomas Breider, Postdoctoral Researcher, Harvard University

Stella R. Brodzik, Software Engineer, University of Washington

BB Cael, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

Sophie Chu, PhD Student, MIT/WHOI Joint Program

Archana Dayalu, PhD Student, Harvard University

Gregory de Wet, PhD Student, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Christopher Fairless, PhD Student, University of Manchester, UK

Mara Freilich, PhD Student, MIT

Wiebke Frey, Research Associate, University of Manchester, UK

Nicolas Grisouard, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

Sydney Gunnarson, PhD Student, University of Iceland/University of Colorado Boulder

Sam Hardy, PhD Student, University of Manchester, UK

David Harning, PhD Student, University of Colorado Boulder

Sophie Haslett, PhD Student, University of Manchester, UK

Richard Hogen, Aerospace Thermodynamic Engineer, United Launch Alliance

Anjuli Jain, PhD Student, MIT

Harriet Lau, PhD Student, Harvard University

Cara Lauria, Masters Student, University of Colorado Boulder

Franziska Lechleitner, PhD Student, ETH Zürich

Michael S. Long, Research Scientist

John Marsham, Associate Professor, University of Leeds, UK

Catherine Scott, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Leeds, UK

Rohini Shivamoggi, PhD student, MIT

Victoria Smith, PhD, Instrument Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, UK

Gail Spencer, Environmental Specialist, Washington Department of Ecology

Melissa Sulprizio, Scientific Programmer, Harvard University

Rachel White, Postdoctoral Associate, University of Washington

Leehi Yona, BA, Senior Fellow, Dartmouth College

Yanxu Zhang, Postdoctoral Researcher, Harvard University

gregladen Mon, 02/22/2016 - 06:55

Tags

Et tu, Exxon?

milhayser — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:44:10 +0000

Et tu, Exxon?

New reporting by Inside Climate News shows that petroleum giant Exxon knew, more than thirty years ago, that burning too much fossil fuel would cause catastrophic climate change. Comparing Exxon's subsequent emphasis on profits over planetary health to the efforts of Big Tobacco hiding the dangers of cigarettes, PZ Myers writes "the future is going to look back on rabid capitalism as one of the damning pathologies of our history." Now that the wider public is accepting the fact that anthropogenic global warming will transform and could destroy our way of life, Exxon is very much on the hook. Greg Laden, conducting data analysis to prove the accuracy of Exxon's early research, asks "How surprised should we be that a major corporation would both look into and ignore, possibly even repress, the science associated with their primary activity?" While a conspiracy comes to mind, William M. Connolley is a bit more circumspect on Stoat, noting that Exxon's research, building on well-known science, appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. Connolley writes, "confirming publically available information with other publically information available is hardly the stuff of deep dark secrets." But with the public face of Exxon obfuscating the truth since 1989, it's hard not to look at them as evildoers. See also: Exxon speaks.

milhayser Fri, 10/30/2015 - 08:44

Tags

I think that we can be fairly certain that Exxon is well protected by a phalanx of expensive lawyers against our moral outrage. They should be able to easily fend off any torch and pitchfork attack that we want to wage against them. In the big picture they certainly do look like planet wrecking villains, but they did, after all give us things we wanted and needed,and I am sure that may be part of their defense. Have you walked to the store to buy groceries lately? Put up a couple cords of firewood for the winter? Hauled water from the stream? If you are ready to give up every minute of your free time to devote to fossil fuel free survival, then you should feel completely free to take the moral high ground against Exxon Mobil. Or if you have converted to completely fossil free energy already, kudos to you.

In the mean time, I think it would probably be very helpful to the plight of our species and our planet if we could somehow get some more leverage on Fossil Fuel Incorporated to force them to more openly and very publicly admit that yes, we have a climate problem that they (and we ) are the cause. They have supposedly admitted to this in the open literature. They say as much on their website. But it is still being said at such a low volume that the denialsphere is not hearing it or responding to it.

I think that Exxon Mobil had better work to shut down the denialsphere that they have created, that is today's problem. As it stands now, the CEO of Exxon can publicly mock sustainable energy with impunity, and he doesn't have to do anything to put out the fires of denialism that his company ignited decades ago. That, to me is the real moral outrage. The chief Exxon planet wrecking eco-terrorist can claim innocence, even though his sleeper cells of terrorist climate wrecking thugs are free to poison the minds of the public. He can giggle all the way to the bank because climate science is tied up by his pea brained proxy army of web parasites. And here they come now....Look out.

Actions are louder than words

illconsidered — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:22:37 +0000

Actions are louder than words

What Exxon says, through its various mouthpeices, that global warming is not happening or is happening but reversing or what have you, is apparently not what it believes.

Once seen as a useless, ice-clogged backwater, the Kara Sea now has the attention of oil companies. That is partly because the sea ice is apparently receding.

Two billion is alot of money to put where your mouth is not!

illconsidered Sat, 09/10/2011 - 08:22

Tags

Exxon invests ~20 million a year in delaying effective climate change solutions. Have they done this for 10 years this campaign has cost them 200 million.

What did this buy them? Access to approximately 100 billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Kara sea alone, amongst other things. Any idea how much will this profit Exxon?

I guess the Exxon funding of the FUD campaign is surely amongst the best industrial investments ever made in modern history. Well done!

Given Exxon's safety records I'm thinking they just straight up hate the environment, actively and maliciously.

cynic,

what does profit represent?

think carefully before answering.

Miffed at not getting an answer, Paul?

I feel your pain . . . you've left a few on the table yourself.

not miffed.
maybe he's thinking

If you have a question, ask away.

Paul

There is nothing wrong with profit per se - in fact it is an essential part of how our economy works and every company should do every legitimate thing in its power to generate profit. But............

Would you accept a company trying to increase it's profits by employing child slaves? Would you accept a company trying to increase it's profits by flauting occupational health and safety laws and putting the lives of its workers at risk? Would you accept a company trying to increase its profits by using sub-standard materials when it manufactures products or builds infrastructure? Would you accept a company trying to increase it's profits by dumping hazardous waste into rivers?

I am going to suggest not. So why the fuck would you accept a company trying to increase its profits by lying about science and jeopardising the future health of the environment and of human civilisation? By substantially increasing the financial burden on future generations because of their failure to deal with a forseeable and treatable problem when it is pointed out to them?

Because that is exactly what Exxon et al is doing right now. They are harming future generations in order to increase their short term profits. And that - in my mind anyway - is completely unacceptable. I wonder why you would think otherwise?

If you have a question, ask away. --Paul

Does that mean you intend to answer?

Because if not, then what is the point of asking?

Those are also questions, by the way.

"what does profit represent?"

It represents a break of the Free Market, according to which, the sale of goods will be done at the marginal price of production or others will exploit the profit and take the customers away from the profiteering provider.

mandas,
1] "employ" and "slaves", not consistent

2] the law should be enforced

3] see 2]

4] see 2]

5] see 2]

wow,
quite acceptable
(I would add a couple specifc items, but they are essentially present in your answer)

"1] "employ" and "slaves", not consistent"

employ: to use.

"2] "employ" and "slaves", not consistent"

See RIAA exec's daughter caught using P2P to infringe copyright and the Jammie Thomas case.

None of them are, in fact, answers, merely mistakes or assertions of what ought to happen, not what IS happening.

emÂ·ploy/emËploi/
Verb: Give work to (someone) and pay them for it.
Noun: The state or fact of being employed for wages or a salary: "in the employ of a grocer and wine merchant".

emÂ·ploy Pronunciation (m-ploi)
tr.v. emÂ·ployed, emÂ·ployÂ·ing, emÂ·ploys
1.
a. To engage the services of; put to work: agreed to employ the job applicant.
b. To provide with gainful work: factories that employ thousands.
2. To put to use or service. See Synonyms at use.
3. To devote (time, for example) to an activity or purpose: employed several months in learning Swahili.
n.
1. The state of being employed: in the employ of the city.
2. Archaic Occupation.
[Middle English emploien, from Old French emploier, from Latin implicre, to involve : in-, in; see en-1 + plicre, to fold; see plek- in Indo-European roots.]

She was busily employed (in) writing letters.

collecting stamps employs a lot of his time

to employ secret measures to get one's ends

Well,
I suppose Mandas will need to advise the intended meaning.

Nope.

If there are multiple meanings and one doesn't fit (slaves aren't paid), then that meaning (employed: paid for work) is rejected.

Repeat the exercise until you have a meaning that does fit.

If no such meaning exists, THEN you can complain: "employ" and "slaves", not consistent.

Because "employ and slaves" and "not consistent" are not consistent.

I'll wait until he defines his terms.
Thanks,

Or, as seems to be your metier, you can rely on someone else doing the thinking for you.

"I'll wait until he defines his terms."

Well, you'll remain wrong until then, because "employ" and "slave" are not inconsistent.

That's a pretty impressive level of dishonesty to deliberately misread the obvious intended meaning of a sentence and then refuse to comment further on the matter until the poster in question clarifies that they were using the word "employ" in a fashion that makes sense and not a fashion that makes no sense.

I suppose you two would like to define slave for mandas too?

Your inability to understand pretty straightforward use of the English language reflects on you, not anyone else. There's an obvious meaning of "employs slaves", and it's clearly "utilizes slaves".

I suppose it's better for you to argue dishonest pedantry than to just address the plain meaning of the statement though.

Or, I am dealing with k00ks.

I'll wait for mandas, go about and bother someone else.

I hope he doesn't tax your patience. I've waited for you on about a half dozen unanswered questions for months, Paul.

Go start at #7 on this thread for the funniest non-exchange of all.

I am dealing with k00ks.

Every time you look in the mirror, I should think.

Skip,
If you have a point or wish to be constructive, please do.

My point is that you don't answer questions--a posture that strikes me as the opposite of "constructive".

I would ask, "What am I missing here, Paul?", but that would require that you . . . answer a question.

employ - to use

Anything more?

No wonder deniers have trouble with science when they have trouble even understanding simple English words. Of course they are being deliberately obtuse.

Then the simple answer is no.

"cynic,

what does profit represent?

think carefully before answering."

PHEW! I caught the whiff of troll right off with this one.

Is there a troll-school where one learns these techniques for poking and prodding people, then tap-dancing around and posing smug faux-Socratic questions....but never actually making a statement? Just snipe at the border of a conversation, and reel it in with constant re-directs and sidetracks and other bullshit.

Creationists pull the same crap.

Paul: Tell me about your father. Define "is". Give me your top three reasons why capital is spelled with an a and not an o. Think carefully before you answer... for I may snag you in a rhetorical trap and go back and forth endlessly on the definition of a word!

I see you've been reading here for quite some time.

So now we've gotten around the pedantic need for a definition of "employ" will we see PaulinMI cover the rest of mandas' post? I'll paste it here so there's no need to struggle looking for it:

"I am going to suggest not [and Paul has confirmed this]. So why the fuck would you accept a company trying to increase its profits by lying about science and jeopardising the future health of the environment and of human civilisation? By substantially increasing the financial burden on future generations because of their failure to deal with a forseeable and treatable problem when it is pointed out to them?

Because that is exactly what Exxon et al is [sic] doing right now. They are harming future generations in order to increase their short term profits. And that - in my mind anyway - is completely unacceptable. I wonder why you would think otherwise?"

"No wonder deniers have trouble with science when they have trouble even understanding simple English words. Of course they are being deliberately obtuse."

You mistake their viciousness.

The idea is to make YOU do all the work. All they have to do is say "No, it's not true". That's easy to say. The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas. The best way to have lots of ideas is to make up crap ones. The deniers have cottoned on to the method and don't give a fig for the endpoint. They don't want and can't use a good idea.

This also means they never have to admit an error.

See Wegman, Monckton and Anthony Watts for examples.

Gentlemen,
Perhaps I miss the point, but all questions here have been answered.

Is that an attempt at humor?

No
Pls elaborate

Please refer to post 7.

As have ours, PaulinMI.

You're here to waste honest people's time.

I think that has been addressed.
Is there a particular question you have?

No, as I said, our questions have been answered: you're here to waste honest people's time.

Yeah.

Much as I differ with Wow from time to time . . . Paul, it seems you get a weird pleasure from being evasive, vague, and cryptic. Climate debate as poetry or postmodern angst or something.

Bottom line is you don't dialogue.

Suit yourself

As usual an incomprehensible and pointless answer.

It would be like saying "blue" if someone asked if you wanted to have lunch.

You know, it just now occurs to me . . .

is Paul one of those dialogue bots I read about a few issues ago in the *Atlantic*? They are programmed into chat forums to try to act like real people but it always comes off sort of weird and incoherent.

Ok. So I go bush for a few days to light a few fires and when I come back I note there is virtually a whole thread pedantically arguing about the definition of one of my words, and whether or not questions that I posed have been adequately answered or not.

Perfect.

No, I really mean it. That's absolutely beautiful. Because nothing more perfectly encapsulates the deniers position than what has gone on around here over the past few days.

Deniers don't have any other way of arguing against the science of climate change than to throw shit; to argue pedantic and irrelevant points; toss in a few red herrings; and to present ideology as if it were fact.

You have shown us all what you truly are Paul. Nothing more than a pedantic, ideological denier with nothing of substance to offer the debate. I know your main argument against climate science is, and always has been, that efforts to mitigate climate change will return the economy to the dark ages, for which you have never presented any evidence and for which you totally disregard the costs associated with NOT mitigating against climate change. But you have plumbed new depths of irrelevance in your latest series of posts.

Good job!

Return to the dark ages?

Having just got our brand new shiny solar panels on the roof, the 'dark ages' look further and further away. Our only challenge now is to see if we can keep power out higher than power in. That way we get power for nothing and money to spend on other things. What a win!

Spain

Power for nothing and money to spend.

See mandas, the free market has solved the problem already!

Hypotenuse.

Glad we're communicating, Paul-bot.

Skip,
What is relavent about Spain in the low carbon solution set?

Wednesdays, that's what.

"What is relavent about Spain in the low carbon solution set?"

http://www.abengoa.es/corp/web/es/index3.html

No hablo Espanol? Try here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20012060-54.html

Oh, and this too: http://greentechnolog.com/2008/11/solar_panels_in_spanish_cemetary.html

Marjoram.

If you can't follow me, Paul, that's your problem.

Well,
I was familiar with the subsidized wind power in Spain that just about broke the country, but subsidized solar makes the point just as well.

Thanks for the info!

Well,
I was familiar with the subsidized wind power in Spain that just about broke the country, but subsidized solar makes the point just as well.

Thanks for the info!

Double post
Bot mal-function

Lounge chair.

"....See mandas, the free market has solved the problem already!...."

So ummmmm, what has any of this to do with the 'free market'?

I know you are a great believer in the free market Paul - so much so that you probably support Ron Paul for President. But could I ask you to explain how subsidies fit into this free market scheme of your? I guess you would be a strong advocate of all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry being withdrawn wouldn't you? And given that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed an extremely high level of government support for decades, it would be consistent with the principles of equity for those subsidies to be immediately and permanently withdrawn, for no more government support being given for oil exploration, and for the renewable industry to be given the same level of support that used to be given to the fossil fuel industry until they are on an equal footing.

I wonder where you think taxation and regulation fit into this 'free market philosophy of yours. You responded to my questions about companies dumping hazardous chemicals in the river etc by suggesting that "...the law should be enforced...". Surely any law that prevents companies from dumping hazardous chemicals as being antithetical to a 'free market', as would prohibitions against slavery et al.

You appear to be a typical proponent of the 'free market'. You are against regulations and taxation that YOU don't agree with, but are all in favour of regulations that help your particular ideology. I wonder if you think whether or not there should be a completely open and free market, with no restrictions on the volume or type of goods that could be imported into the USA. Flood the country with cheap agricultural products? Sure - that's the free market! Allow the unfettered flow of labour into and out of the country with no immigration restrictions? Well absolutely, that's what the free market allows!

But then, maybe you are not as stupid as your pronouncements make you sound. Maybe you really don't believe in the 'free market'. Maybe its just a moronic mantra that you spruik without giving a nano-second's thought to what it really means. Because you know what - there is no such thing as a 'free market'.

mandas, as quickly as possible -

But could I ask you to explain how subsidies fit into this free market scheme of your?
-- they don't, Sarcasm, sorry.

I guess you would be a strong advocate of all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry being withdrawn wouldn't you?
-- yes, absolutely (no sarcasm)

And given that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed an extremely high level of government support for decades, it would be consistent with the principles of equity for those subsidies to be immediately and permanently withdrawn, for no more government support being given for oil exploration
-- yes,

and for the renewable industry to be given the same level of support that used to be given to the fossil fuel industry until they are on an equal footing.
-- nice try, no

You appear to be a typical proponent of the 'free market'. You are against regulations and taxation that YOU don't agree with, but are all in favour of regulations that help your particular ideology.
-- of course, but if they appear legally enforceable, they should be followed. If they are burdonsome to some degree and others agree, they can be changed. How about you, do you favor regulations that help your ideology?

I wonder if you think whether or not there should be a completely open and free market, with no restrictions on the volume or type of goods that could be imported into the USA.
-- yes, a free person should be able to purchase goods or enter into trade freely

Flood the country with cheap agricultural products? Sure - that's the free market!
-- agreed, that would free up local resources to perform more valuable tasks and prevent inadvertant subsidies from growing

Allow the unfettered flow of labour into and out of the country with no immigration restrictions? Well absolutely, that's what the free market allows!
-- well, almost. the states each have the responsibility to control immigration to their state and it can be configured as allowed by the particular state constitution.

But then, maybe you are not as stupid as your pronouncements make you sound.
-- oh, I may be, but one can always learn

Maybe you really don't believe in the 'free market'. Maybe its just a moronic mantra that you spruik without giving a nano-second's thought to what it really means. Because you know what - there is no such thing as a 'free market'.
-- well, we may strive to get as close as possible to the ideal, and there certainly is no such thing as a fair market.
(sorry again if that first bit of sarcasm was missed.)

Spruke.

"-- private property rights and ownership would go a long way to eliminating regulations"

No, they wouldn't.

This is the central weakness in the libertarian dogma.

The idea that everyone would play fair if property rights and ownership were somehow all-powerful (and how are they regulated?) is actually quite laughably naive. All it would actually mean is powerful self-interest will rule and any obstruction to profit (e.g. environmental regulation, employment laws, perhaps slavery regulations) will become ignored anachronisms.

Or of course the technology fairies will also influence the antisocial mindset of the corporations when they finally make their appearance.

Forasmuch as we wither without a wit we want women wooing.

Care to answer, Paul?

well Chris,
some do prefer a corporate/government partnership
with bribes and payoffs as a regular course of action

Indeed they do.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

'specially this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

it has infected nearly every industry in the US

So you're up for removing the subsidies for those companies and the higher taxing of them to regain the monies spent, yes?

So you're up for removing the subsidies for those companies
-- yes

and the higher taxing of them to regain the monies spent
-- same tax as everyone else

Nope, same tax as everyone else won't work.

It would be like saying that a thief can keep their ill-gotten gains as long as they don't do it again.

Do you propose to try that with every person/company which benefits by special tax law (sometimes called loopholes)?

Did it look like I was?

No.

it would seem then, to be promoting unfavorable treatment for one industry

Yes. Your problem is what, exactly?

(Hint, you don't get copyright on plumbing work, you don't get patent rights on performances, you don't get medical trials in gardening).

Same treatment for all or as close as possible

[Intellectual property rights are another on my "items to eliminate" list, if that's where you're going, although having trouble making the connection to fossil fuel industry]

And this is as close as possible.

lost now, sorry

Yes, you are.

Two thirds.

"-- private property rights and ownership would go a long way to eliminating regulations"

"[Intellectual property rights are another on my "items to eliminate" list"

There's glory for you.

Or...

You use these terms as if they have some objective meaning, but they are all social and legal constructs. "Private property rights" inherently create a series of regulations

"Private property rights" inherently create a series of regulations.

And "free" trade and movement of products can impinge mightily on 'private property rights'. I live in an island country free of many agricultural pests and diseases that afflict most others. I'd say that 'free' trade allowing meat, veg, fruit and grains open slather on entry to my country would constitute a grave infringement on my property 'rights' if I had a vineyard or farm or orchard.

I also live in an area at the end of a very, very long river. 'Free' and unrestricted 'rights' assumed by others to take all the water they can get from that river upstream is also a grave infringement on the water 'rights' I and my neighbours have held in the water that previously reached us.

The 'no regulation' advocates finish up picking and choosing which enforceable rights to which kinds of property they find acceptable - depending on where they live and what they do.

It's nonsense. Accept that regulation is actually desirable in many instances. Argue about the best designs and the best enforcement methods. But don't pretend we're aiming for some 'freedom' that we're innately, everywhere and all the time entitled to.

Or move to Somalia.

And I accept that adelady has defined both sides in such a way that no further discussion is necessary.

Thank you.

Fred.

The thing is Paul that reading adelady's post it is at least perfectly clear what (s)he meant. If you meant something else and you actually are interested in communicating then you should clarify what you meant.

I suspect that you don't want to do this because adelady's logic will apply to any non Humpty Dumpty definition of private property rights.

Paul

Even given Adelady's arguments - and I full well know what she is speaking about because I live in the same city as she does - I wonder if you could explain this contradiction in your earlier post please:

"......I wonder if you think whether or not there should be a completely open and free market, with no restrictions on the volume or type of goods that could be imported into the USA.
-- yes, a free person should be able to purchase goods or enter into trade freely...."

".....Allow the unfettered flow of labour into and out of the country with no immigration restrictions? Well absolutely, that's what the free market allows!
-- well, almost. the states each have the responsibility to control immigration to their state and it can be configured as allowed by the particular state constitution...."

You appear to be all about the free market, but when it comes to the free market exchange of labour you suddenly appear to change tack, and be all about legislation and states' rights. Surely if the free market exists, there should be no restrictions on the free flow of labour; state constitutions or not. Why do you think states - ie governments - should be able to regulate the labour market? Aren't any regulations antithetical to the 'free market'?

In the words of a famous former Australian politician - please explain?

Possible translation, mandas:

It's the idea of competition among states for satisfying their populace. The presumption is the John Galts of the world will flock to "small government" meccas like Arizona (who, for example lo and behold, is cracking down on illegals), and the rest of us socialist sheep with our melodramatic ideas of acting on environmental risk will just have to wither away when Atlas shrugs.

I encounter libertarian/free market orthox-ites from time to time and I've heard this idea before.

Its a sort of neo-Jeffersonianism purged of obvious anachronisms like agrarian idealism and slavery (I assume.)

skip

Yeah - the libertarians and their ideals of the 'free market' fixing everything. I have always wondered who - under this free market system - would have built the interstate highway system, or who would have set aside large tracts of arable land for national parks? Perhaps Ron PaulinMI can explain that as well.

Or how we and our UK and ANZAC colleagues would have beaten the Nazis and Japanese Empire . . . with a handsome performance from Our Son of a Bitch Stalin (that one cost us, to be sure.)

I never get a clear answer to that one either.

Yeah - the libertarians and their ideals of the 'free market' fixing everything.
I have always wondered who - under this free market system - would have built the interstate highway system.

-- It was initially defense dept in the US.
But, the answer could be, maybe no one.

or who would have set aside large tracts of arable land for national parks?
-- Again, perhaps no one, at least not national.

Perhaps Ron PaulinMI can explain that as well.
-- hey, I like that name, better than Biel at least.

On you point about free exchange of labor, again people, and that is up to (should be) the states, products, not so much.
Libertarian may not be the completely right assignation, it is somewhat more about the constitution(s).

And without collective action enforced through . . . whatever we agree is best (taxes, cap-and-trade, emission standards, some combination of the above and/or something else) . . .

. . . this is the key, Paul . . .

*no large scale action will ever be taken on climate change.*

Why? Because it is in no one's individual interest to do so.

And what, for the love of God, does that last shattered paragraph even *mean*?

Paul, if you're a stroke victim you have my most genuine sympathies but if you're just playing games then what does this say about you?

"And what, for the love of God, does that last shattered paragraph even *mean*?"

It means "look at me!" and "Don't look behind the curtain".

Last paragraph?

About the constitution(s)?

It means we (as a govt or collective, as skip likes to call it) may do as the constitution allows, no more.

On individual interest or lack thereof, maybe you could use that observation to predict what the real solution might look like?

It means we (as a govt or collective, as skip likes to call it) may do as the constitution allows, no more.

Explain the relevance to this discussion. Are you suggesting acting on climate change violates some Constitutional principle?

what the real solution might look like?

It's encoded in my previous posts. Think of it like an Easter egg hunt.

Why would I explain myself clearly when I can just make cryptic twaddle?

Come on Paul, give it the old . . . college try.

Hey guys! Miss me? I've been in hospital for the past week with a ruptured apendix - not something I recommend by the way.

I'm probably coming at this far too late, but would love to question Ron PaulinMI more about post #88:

"......I have always wondered who - under this free market system - would have built the interstate highway system.
-- It was initially defense dept in the US.
But, the answer could be, maybe no one.
or who would have set aside large tracts of arable land for national parks?
-- Again, perhaps no one, at least not national...."

Does that not suggest to you that the free market has severe limitations, and cannot be relied upon to 'fix' huge issues such as national transportation and the environment? As such, what makes you think the 'free market' would be able to play a leadership role in fixing climate change, without extensive Government intervention?

See, that's the problem. The free market - or at least the idea of a free market that cannot exist anywhere because it is a nonsensical concept - is about self interest. It creates problems such as the tragedy of the commons; it does not fix such problems. These can only be resolved by Government intervention.

The 'free market' is the problem, not the solution.

Miss you?
I noticed you'd not posted anything, but ... a ruptured appendix! That beats 'the dog ate my homework' every time.

Clearly, your thinking is still OK. Hope the body catches up quickly.

That shit could kill you dead, Mandas.

Best of luck recovering, although if any free market or minimalist government principles were violated in your treatment, would it have been best to let you perish?

(I am assuming no clauses or Amendments to the American Constitution were violated as your treatment occurred in Australia.)

Yeah skip - a few free market principles were violated in my treatment. You see, we have universal medical coverage here in Australia. I guess you (or Paul anyway) would call it SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

I spent five days in hospital, had all the necessary drugs, doctors, nurses, etc, etc. And the only thing I had to pay at the time was for the drugs I took home with me. Yes, I pay slightly higher taxes to have this level of medical coverage, but you won't find too many people in this country who would wish it were any different.