Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Exxon CEO: Warming Happening, But Fears Overblown

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the we-didn't-start-the-fire dept.

Earth 288

Freshly Exhumed writes "In a speech Wednesday, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said. Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations."

cancel ×

288 comments

C'mon (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487651)

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press

Yes, the public is about as smart as a rock. But that doesn't mean you need to spin it. Desertification of wide swaths of land as well as the acidification of the oceans will be pretty hard to deal with.

And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain

Not a concern for Exxon, he means.

Re:C'mon (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40487709)

Indeed. We are now at the point in the anti-science strategy where you admit some minimalistic version of what the science is saying, but spin it so that the admission isn't a big deal.

Re:C'mon (2, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40487883)

Indeed. We are now at the point in the anti-science strategy where you admit some minimalistic version of what the science is saying, but spin it so that the admission isn't a big deal.

It'll only matter to people when they actually feel the pain of their choices - when the waves lap up Wall Street, not due to a storm, but on a fair day, you better believe someone will finally be paying attention .. of course, it'll be too late. But why should the 1% care? They can just move to higher ground. Probably already have houses on higher ground.

Re:C'mon (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488019)

The 1% should care because if recent history is a guide, anarchy tends to lead to communism. And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps.

Re:C'mon (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | about 2 years ago | (#40489227)

"And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps."

Frankly, we are not far from having the tech to do both.

Re:C'mon (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489245)

"And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps."

Frankly, we are not far from having the tech to do both.

I say we execute them, then put them into labor camps.

Re:C'mon (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#40489427)

"And communists like to put those of the 1% that they don't execute into labor camps."

Frankly, we are not far from having the tech to do both.

Kind of like the nazis? Put people into labor camps and work them to death.

Re:C'mon (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 years ago | (#40488321)

It'll only matter to people when they actually feel the pain of their choices - when the waves lap up Wall Street, not due to a storm, but on a fair day,

And in a twist or Irony, DC will be a little damper too.

Re:C'mon (4, Insightful)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about 2 years ago | (#40488037)

Actually, Tillerson cleverly attacks the weakest part of research about climate change: the prospective part, about its consequences. Remember it was in that part of the IPCC report that there was reviewing issues.

Since the hard sciences part turned out to be rock solid, staying in denial of it would have been disingenuous.

Re:C'mon (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488497)

I'm not sure what you mean by "hard sciences" and "rock solid". Yes there are hard physical principles used in the IPCC report, but when applied to a chaotic system such as the climate, I believe their findings more "spongy". In my view Climate Science is science in slow motion. From a public policy point of view it is a tough nut to crack. We know the benefits of cheap plentiful energy, but the future risks have a large amount of uncertainty attached to them. If I were the CEO of Exxon I would argue this point, which in a way he has.

Re:C'mon (5, Interesting)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about 2 years ago | (#40488735)

The atmosphere is a chaotic system, but the climate configuration, is a general property of it. And it's perfectly possible to study the general properties of a chaotic system with good precision. You can predict the general properties of a quantity of water boiling in a pan, even if reliably predicting the trajectory of bubbles is out of reach.

Re:C'mon (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about 2 years ago | (#40488903)

On second thought, I'm not sure the boiling water was a very good example of a chaotic system. Not much sensitivity to initial conditions. Oh well... It depends on the scale of observation, I guess.

Re:C'mon (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488327)

In other words, we're at stage two.
(For the uninitiated:
- In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
- Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
- In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
- Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.)

Re:C'mon (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489545)

We should all remember who spent the most money in making the false arguements that climate scientists were only doing this for the money, that there was no truth to manmade global climate change. They should suffer the consequences of their lies and propaganda that kept us from doing something to reverse it when we still could. Look at the Arctic now as an example. Less summer ice, cloud cover diminished, its becoming a disaster, all because a few rich guys want to make more money.

Re:C'mon (3, Interesting)

shibashaba (683026) | about 2 years ago | (#40488455)

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press Yes, the public is about as smart as a rock. But that doesn't mean you need to spin it. Desertification of wide swaths of land as well as the acidification of the oceans will be pretty hard to deal with.

He may be right, but I'll bet he wonders why people hate oil companies universally with comments like this. It doesn't even sound like he tried to spin it, sounds like he was drunk.

And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain Not a concern for Exxon, he means.

Of course it's not a concern for Exxon, when you have the US military, NATO and the UN as your personal mercenaries. Once again, sounds like he's drunk. How else could that be interpreted.

Re:C'mon (4, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#40488845)

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press

The irony is the majority of people who are *literate* in science and math (including, what, about 95% of climate scientists?) agree that global warming is real and we need to do something about it. It's the scientifically illiterate who keep trying to claim (with their scientifically illiterate arguments, of course) that it's all a big conspiracy with no scientific support...

Re:C'mon (5, Insightful)

kermidge (2221646) | about 2 years ago | (#40488873)

"....society will be able to adapt."

really means, "I've got mine. Screw everybody else."

Re:C'mon (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40488977)

Hard to deal with? You presume to suggest the level of science in 100 to 300 years?

Puhleeze. Imagine some idiots 100 years ago seeking to hobble the economy based on global warming fears. Would you be better off today with tech that was 20 years behind where it acually is?

Hell no you wouldn't. You'd be effectively murdering tens of millions of people who won't be saved by the more advanced tech.

100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt worried about he coming

Re:C'mon (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#40488983)

Hard to deal with? You presume to suggest the level of science in 100 to 300 years?

Puhleeze. Imagine some idiots 100 years ago seeking to hobble the economy based on global warming fears. Would you be better off today with tech that was 20 years behind where it acually is?

Hell no you wouldn't. You'd be effectively murdering tens of millions of people who won't be saved by the more advanced tech.

100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt worried about the coming "timber crisis". It seeme at the rate the burgeoning railroads were replacing rotting ties, they'd soon consume all lumber production.

Then someone invented creosote. Thank god he was stuffed.

Counterintuitively, we can indeed rely on solutions hat will keep us well ahead of any downsided.

Meanwhile, a quick look at the world, or at history, shows that hindering free enterprise, for any reason, leads to degraded life and rates of invention.

I typed this on my "mobile look-at device", which wouldn't exist were government planners and limiters in place he past 50 years.

Re:C'mon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489529)

"I typed this on my "mobile look-at device", which wouldn't exist were government planners and limiters in place he past 50 years."

    Imp, you incredible Git. Government Planners and Limiters created that "Mobile look -at device" (sic).
    Forget the Bombs and Reactors- the top-down Manhattan Project's advances just in Materials Science pushed the field ahead by at least five decades, in just three years. So far ahead, that wannabes like Iran and North Korea are just now trying, and failing, to catch up. And then there is Nuclear Medicine, Isotope production, Computation, Modeling... until then, Nuclear Science was a sleepy backwater with no "practical" applications.
      The top-down Space program of the Sixties? Forget about going to the Moon. Advances in Solid State electronics, Cryogenics, Satellites, navigation, more Materials Science, Astrophysics... before then, this was all Sci-Fi; usually pretty bad Sci-Fi.
    And then there is the Internet, started as the Top-Down physical Arpanet of the Seventies. It was not only Top Down, but very much Bottom Up as well, as millions of Nerds spent their spare free time developing the protocols, and languages necessary for the very existence of your "Mobile look -at device" (sic). Add the offshoots of Manhattan and Space programs, for the hardware bits.

    And then there is the Top Down Human Genome project, which may finally explain why such an ignorant, illiterate double-posting Git such as yourself came into existence.

Standard PR (5, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40487669)

Deny
Undervalue impact
Disassociate
Imply fix.

On the plus side,now that the CEO of Exxon has also said that the increase in temperatures over standard cycles i.e. Global Warming, is man made, I'm sure all you deniers will now apologize fro being wrong.

haha, of course you want. You entrenched into an emotional opinion, so actual facts will never change you mind.

Re:Standard PR (0, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40487771)

I'll apologize after scientists explain the previous global warming events of 10,000 BC, 3000 BC, and 300-1300 A.D.

What good are models to predict the future, if they can't even predict the past? In fact they recently discovered their models were flat wrong about the shrinking Antarctic ice shelf: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/ [theregister.co.uk] Damn these inconvenient truths. Yeah, yeah I know. Ignore these facts; cognitive dissonance; block them from your mind. LOL ;-)

Re:Standard PR (5, Funny)

multiben (1916126) | about 2 years ago | (#40487871)

I'm sorry, but do you actually have a virgin mobile advertisement as your sig?

Re:Standard PR (-1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40488727)

Yes but I call it "word of mouth sharing with colleagues". Ya know, in case someone is interested. (I thought about getting an iPhone but decided to just use my kindle for mobile internet, since the monthly charge is free.)

Re:Standard PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488991)

Nobody is interested.

Re:Standard PR (5, Informative)

Zaelath (2588189) | about 2 years ago | (#40487951)

I'll just go ahead and cut/paste my last comment to this same misrepresentation by headlines:

Headline should be: One of the smaller Antarctic shelves stable for 2 years, new field data show.

It's large, by comparison to your backyard at 120x60 miles, but here's an illustration of how large it is compared to the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet:

http://www.npolar.no/npcms/export/sites/np/images/ice/maps/Antarktisk-Fimbulisen.jpg [npolar.no]

It's an interesting data point, but it doesn't show "Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all" any more than "OMG it's farking cold this morning" shows that the planet is cooling.

Comprehension; it's hard.

Re:Standard PR (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40489483)

Headline should be: One of the smaller Antarctic shelves stable for 2 years, new field data show.

In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Re:Standard PR (5, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#40488043)

Irrelevant to the current event.

Why would you thing there can only be one reason?
It's like saying someone can't be found guilty of murder because some different case has gone unsolved.

FACTS:
1) CO2 , among others, is a green house gas
2) we put billions of tons of CO2 in the air
3) the temperature change is no top of normal cycle
4) every other other possible reason has been shut down.
5) the organisations the it will hurt the most are agreeing with the evidence.

Never, ever, ever quote something from the register. For or against, it's a horrible rag .

No model is perfect. But looking at the whole scope of events and denying them because of events like these is stupid. In fact, it's the very base of cognitive dissonance.

Did you read the study? I assume not because then you would know how stupid it is to quote the article.

Explain to me how this means there isn't man made global warming:
~~
The mechanisms by which heat is delivered to Antarctic ice shelves are a major source of uncertainty when assessing the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to climate change. Direct observations of the ice shelf-ocean interaction are extremely scarce, and present ice shelf-ocean models struggle to predict reason able melt rates. Our two years of data during 2010-2012 from three oceanic moorings below the Fimbul Ice Shelf in the eastern Weddell Sea show cold cavity waters, with average temperatures of less than 0.1 {degree sign}C above the surface freezing point. This suggests rather low basal melt rates, consistent with remote sensing based, steady state mass balance estimates in this sector of the Antarctic coast. Oceanic heat for basal melting is found to be sup-plied by two sources of warm water that enter below the ice: (i) eddy-like bursts of Modified Warm Deep Water accesses the cavity at depth during eight months of the record; and (ii) a seasonal inflow of warm, fresh surface water flushes parts of the ice base with temperatures above freezing, during late summer and fall. This interplay of processes implies that basal melting cannot simply be parameterized by coastal deep ocean temperatures, but is directly linked to both solar forcing at the surface as well as to coastal processes controlling deep ocean heat fluxes.
~~
Cherry picking data is bad, but cherry picking wrong data is .. simply stupid.
lower then expected is not 'flat wrong'.

Do you even understand what a model it?

Lets be clear about that letter:
1) Melting not as fast.
2) In no way throws gloabale warming out the window.

" block them from your mind"
fuck you and your LOL.

Re:Standard PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488579)

You left out the most important fact, as you idiots do, that carbon is eaten by plants and they then give off oxygen. Get it? replacing carbon with oxygen. And since lots of you tree hugger types have helped the planet have more trees in more recent years than logger years of past, there's really no problem.

The earth warms, the earth cools, it's called natural. So take your guilt trip hippy bullshit somewhere else because the independent science disagrees with the political pseudo-science.

Re:Standard PR (5, Insightful)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about 2 years ago | (#40488803)

So you are pretending that deforestation has been reversed? I didn't get the memo.

Re:Standard PR (3, Insightful)

Cali Thalen (627449) | about 2 years ago | (#40488757)

4) every other other possible reason has been shut down.

Citation needed?

Re:Standard PR (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#40488363)

Yes it's a fact that nobody has a good ice cap model. Simarly nobody has a solution to the N-body problem, so does that mean the theory of gravity is wrong?

Re:Standard PR (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488439)

Well, it's "just a theory", after all...

Re:Standard PR (2)

Albinoman (584294) | about 2 years ago | (#40488723)

But, ice caps are a big factor when modeling climate. Even if there was a solution, you still haven't really pinned down the root cause of gravity. So your answer is "no", but it makes both incomplete to the point that they are both useless except in situations with very few variables, e.g., a few planets, or a week's worth of climate.

Re:Standard PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488763)

The theory of gravity is a lie! Proof: watch this video [youtube.com] . Fucking slinkies, how the hell do they work?

Re:Standard PR (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40489219)

The n-body problem has an exact solution when n equals 2. The 3-body problem has five exact solutions (called Lagrange points) if the secondary body is less than 24 times the mass of the primary, the mass of the third is taken as negligible (such as a space telescope) and all three objects orbit the common barycenter with zero eccentricity, on the same plane.

Re:Standard PR (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 years ago | (#40488467)

I'll apologize after scientists explain the previous global warming events of 10,000 BC, 3000 BC, and 300-1300 A.D.

No you won't. Here's more grist for your mill. Yesterday, large parts of the US set low temperature records. That is proof that global warming is bogus. Today, may of those same places have record warm temperatures. That's because climate change happens anyhow. Oh Frabjous day!

Re:Standard PR (2)

hondo77 (324058) | about 2 years ago | (#40488623)

I'll apologize after scientists explain the previous global warming events of 10,000 BC, 3000 BC, and 300-1300 A.D.

I'll explain them after you solve the Jack the Ripper murders.

Re:Standard PR (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40487775)

I'm sure they'll do the same thing the Creationists did with Evolution; admit to some very small degree that the theory is correct, but insist that theory only explains minor phenomena.

Re:Standard PR (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40489501)

I'm sure they'll do the same thing the Creationists did with Evolution; admit to some very small degree that the theory is correct, but insist that theory only explains minor phenomena.

Global micro-warming! [ncse.com] Lol.

Re:Standard PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487793)

Wait a sec...

a public that is "illiterate" in science and math - Check
a "lazy" press - Check
advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" - Check (irony if nothing else)

His story checks out at least...

Re:Standard PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487859)

You must have been seeing red when you made that post.

Re:Standard PR (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488789)

"You entrenched into an emotional opinion, so actual facts will never change you mind."

It's hard to know which side you're talking about with this statement. Environmental alarmists tend to fit this statement better. Just saying.

if the public were not illiterate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487675)

if the public were not illiterate then opposition to wars for oil would not let them happen, threatening the easy access to oil created by the safety given to drilling operations by the us military

Here it comes (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487679)

The natural progression:

1. There is no such thing as global warming!
2. Global warming is theoretically possible, but it's not happening.
3. Global warming is happening, but it's no big deal.
4. Ok, we should probably do something about this global warming before it gets worse.
5. We're really f*cked now.

No, no, no! (5, Insightful)

StefanJ (88986) | about 2 years ago | (#40487889)

4. Huh . . . well, look at that. Hurricanes in January. Hey, this is not a time to play the blame game. No one could have foreseen this would happen.
5. Something must be done. Level headed people like us. Introducing Exxon Atmospheric Engineering Associates.
6. OK, that didn't work. But hey, neon green sunsets . . . cool!
7. Look you'all knew for decades that our product could lead to this, but you CHOSE to ignore the warnings by scientists rather than taking responsibility and choosing to use renewable energy. We were just selling a product people wanted and freely chose to use.

Re:Here it comes (3, Funny)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 2 years ago | (#40488101)

2.5. Global warming is happening, but humans couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
3. Global warming is happening, and humans are causing it, but it's no big deal and we'll adapt. The serfs can either grow flippers or move to higher ground. And we can burn even more fossil fuel to generate electricity for air conditioning!

Re:Here it comes (2)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 2 years ago | (#40488515)

5. We're really f*cked now.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. 5. No one knew the time. 6. It's liberals fault, they kept giving us bad data - who can blame us?

Re:Here it comes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488701)

6. The warming is going to continue any minute now.
7. Never mind.

Re:Here it comes (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488719)

Ah, the Margaritaville Progression.

1) Its nobodys fault.
2) It could be my fault.
3) Its my own damn fault.

Re:Here it comes (3, Funny)

formfeed (703859) | about 2 years ago | (#40489079)

The natural progression:

Not really. They are playing it more like this:

1. There is no such thing as global warming!

2. Something is happening, but it is a good thing. (i.e. CO2 is life)

3. Global warming is happening, but it is a good thing (i.e. Warming helps plants grow and therefor our food supply.)

4. Global warming is happening, but it's no big deal

- and we're working on cool technology that will solve all the problems [and make us rich] (sequestering, artificial trees,..)

5. Our company has always been at the forefront in the fight against global warming.

So... (3, Interesting)

ayvee (1125639) | about 2 years ago | (#40487685)

Apparently we're past denial and anger, and are now in the middle of bargaining.

This is going to get rough. Before we get to acceptance, we have depression to go through first.

Ahem, sorry. I meant Fr1st!!!!

Just like RIAA and MPAA and Authors' Guild (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40487687)

He will continue to defend his business model even as it is dying (oil supplies dwindling). In the year 2100 this guy's descendant will probably still be saying there's plenty of oil even when it's as rare & costly as silver.

Re:Just like RIAA and MPAA and Authors' Guild (1)

johnny cashed (590023) | about 2 years ago | (#40487805)

Bad analogy. His business model is to pump out the product from long dead plants and animals and bring it to market. The RIAA and MPAA's business model is to pump out product from long dead animals and also indenture the youth who pump out product.

Pretty close, the difference is music is still being made at a rate that can meet demand.

Re:Just like RIAA and MPAA and Authors' Guild (2)

barv (1382797) | about 2 years ago | (#40487915)

"pretty close, the difference is music is still being made at a rate that can meet demand"

However the pipe between the well and the bowser is leaking like a siev.

Amazing! (5, Insightful)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | about 2 years ago | (#40487707)

The CEO of an oil company tells us that burning oil isn't such a big problem! Well, I guess we can all stop worrying about that then.

Which step is this? (0)

getmerexkramer (955191) | about 2 years ago | (#40487817)

Are we on step 2 or 3?

1. First they ignore you
2. Then they ridicule you
3. ???
4. Profit!

Microsoft? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487825)

"Three attackers drove a van through the front of Microsoftâ(TM)s offices just north of Athens on Wednesday, marched out security guards at gunpoint, and tried to burn the building to the ground.

        Itâ(TM)s unclear who is behind the attack, but itâ(TM)s a worrying sign for foreign multinational corporations, coming as Greece struggles under the weight of a collapsing economy."

        Continued:
        http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft_greece/ [wired.com]

typology of global warming denial (4, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#40487831)


We're actually entering an Ice Age.

Global warming isn't happening.

It's happening, but we didn't cause it.

It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it.

It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it at a price we're willing to pay.

We don't know what's going to happen, so we need to wait until more evidence is in.

The first few are often accompanied by:

It's just a liberal plot to destroy industry

(as if offshoring hasn't already destroyed it).

Re:typology of global warming denial (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40488341)

We actually are entering an ice age soon, it's just a matter of timing. We'll probably start seeing the effects of the next one within a thousand years.

Re:typology of global warming denial (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#40488573)

We? You plan to hang around that long?

Re:typology of global warming denial (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40488675)

Yes, if I can.

Adaptation... (5, Funny)

dex22 (239643) | about 2 years ago | (#40487837)

The coral reefs off Australia and New Zealand announced their Climate Transition Plans in Adelaide, Thursday. The reefs, known for their outstanding beauty and fragile ecosystems, have decided to move further south. They announced their plans, which involve a 600 mile hike, as Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil CEO, announced plans to survey the ground they abandoned each year for new oil and gas fields.

Re:Adaptation... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40488565)

There are not a lot of coral reefs off the coast of NZ
Of course with global warming this may change.

Most of NZ is further south than Australia

hogwash (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487847)

MAN MADE global warming is another hoax by the "earth first" marxist who still want their socialist utopia where
there is one world government. Sorry...until you can explain "man made global warming" before the industrial revolution, you
are talking to the wall.

Re:hogwash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488099)

Cry harder sweet cheeks.

relocation (4, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | about 2 years ago | (#40487925)

Can we relocate this guy's mouth to 1 inch above sea level? If sea level remains the same, he has nothing to worry about. If not, well, the world will be less one asshole.

Re:relocation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489313)

He'll adapt by moving his mouth an inch higher when he needs to.

Don't worry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40487967)

be happy.

he defeated his own argument (2)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | about 2 years ago | (#40488011)

And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

but it's not. if it were we wouldn't need to exercise our fifth freedom to ensure our oil-consuming way of life. case closed, exxon douchebag. this is, of course, forgetting that oil supply is finite, while biomass/solar fuels are sustainable.

Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions

why would advocacy groups do that? is there a profit motive? is it a bigger profit motive than exxon's?

Re:he defeated his own argument (-1, Troll)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40488459)

this is, of course, forgetting that oil supply is finite, while biomass/solar fuels are sustainable.

They could come up with a way to power appliances by shorting the Earth's magnetic field through them directly to ground, and Obama would sign an executive order halting it because it adversely affects the pollen navigation system of the common moth.

Re:he defeated his own argument (1)

lessthan (977374) | about 2 years ago | (#40488925)

Because he totally has done that before.

Frank Opinion (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | about 2 years ago | (#40488057)

Spoken by someone who is not up for re-election this year.

SPOT ON!! (1)

barv (1382797) | about 2 years ago | (#40488083)

1. Society able to adapt. Yup. (Just build Dykes to hold back the ocean, grow food on the deserts that now get rain, etc. etc.)
2. Risks understood and can be mitigated. Yup, (just make sure it's not a shell company so you can sue if they aren't careful.)
3. Dependence on other nations for oil not a concern. Yup. (Have you noticed what happened to price of that oil substitute "gas".)
4. Public illiterate. Yup.
5. Lazy press. Yup.
6. Advocacy groups that manufacture fear. Surely not on Slashdot? (snigger).

ExxonMobil's science education ads (4, Insightful)

ErnoWindt (301103) | about 2 years ago | (#40488085)

What's really nutty about ExxonMobil is that on the one hand, they are spending millions on TV, radio and print ads on how the US needs to improve math and science education, but at the same time roughly two-thirds of their political contributions (corporation and employees) are to Republican candidates. To a person, Republicans have conducted an all-out war on free public education, teachers, and teachers unions over the last 30 years. The leading US scientists over the last 100 years did not, in general, attend tony prep schools or come from wealthy families. If ExxonMobil is actually serious about improving math and science education in the US, they'll stop funding Republican candidates and start funding Democrats, as well as making targeted gifts to grammar and high school math and science programs around the country.

Re:ExxonMobil's science education ads (1)

XanC (644172) | about 2 years ago | (#40488373)

Free public education and teachers' unions are not equivalent to math and science education. It's possible to support the some and not others.

ExxonMobil gave $1.5M to climate science deniers (2)

dgharmon (2564621) | about 2 years ago | (#40488137)

"Last July I discussed another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite their public pledge to âoediscontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner" link [thinkprogress.org]

Naturally (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#40488235)

Of course the Exxon CEO thinks global warming is "overblown". How long do you think it's been since he's set foot somewhere that doesn't have air conditioning?

When he was 10 years old, his Dominican nanny was carrying him through Neiman Marcus and someone asked his mother, "Gee, your son is certainly too big to still be carried. Can't he walk?" and his mom answered, "Of course, he can walk. But thank God he doesn't have to".

Eek, a global warming thread... (1, Insightful)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#40488245)

I hate to say it, but sometimes the global warming topics get difficult to read. The topic is sort of an instant ticket to 800+ posts with high-tension opinions on both sides.

Obligatory subthread arguments include:
--the quality of the science (both for and against)
--who's evil (whoever authored the story the thread is based on is a given, but who else?)
--how dumb the public is
--alternative energy

Let's face it. Orson Scott Card was wrong. xkcd was right [xkcd.com]

Re:Eek, a global warming thread... (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40489631)

I hate to say it, but sometimes the global warming topics get difficult to read.

I love to say it, but go do something else then; your crying about how difficult it is to read is only contributing to the shit factor in this thread.

and behind the scenes... (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40488377)

And let's hope while he's spouting off all that BS, he's investing in solar and wind or he'll ride that company all the way to Juno and Kodak land. Those aren't drilling sites, I mean Juno that old dialup company and Kodak, the company that just declared bankruptcy lol.

Consider the source (2)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#40488393)

This statement is coming from a company with a net worth in the billions and a vested interest in remaining profitable. Of course, they are going to downplay global warming fears. Hopefully more people see through this very thinly veiled reassurance.

Why not just be first to market with alternatives? (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | about 2 years ago | (#40488511)

I really don't understand the stubborness of oil companies. Oil is not infinite, they know it. They also know that, as time goes on, people are getting more and more conscious of their footprint on the environment AND/OR the footprint of fossil fuels on their wallets.

Oil companies surely understand that, just because oil may not be used as fuel, it's use as other products such as plastics will endure.

why can't they corner the market on alternative fuels? They're still going to gouge you, whether it's $1.50/litre of gas, or a $1.50/litre of hydrogen or $1.50/kWh or whatever.

Seems to me its in their best interests, and the shareholder's best interests, to do this.

Have you stopped driving your car yet? (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#40488671)

We're going to hear lots of lamenting and hating of Exxon, but they're just a business providing what their customers want. And sad to say... all of you that are bitching about them ARE their customers. I've got one question for you: Have you stopped driving you car yet? Stopped using busses? Stopped using electricity? No? The problem isn't Exxon, the problem is we the people. We WILL use all of the fossil fuels. We'll burn them till their gone. Even if the US and Europe banned their use tomorrow, China, Russia, and Africa would gladly take up the slack.

So the question isn't "How do we find alternatives to fossil fuels" because we aren't going to find anything nearly as cheap and easy in the near future. The question is "how can we deal with whatever problems using them is going to cause?" If they really are going to cause so much damage it ends the world, then we're fucked. Cause it's going to happen. If, instead, it's going to gradually raise the tempureture of the planet over the next 200 year, then we'll likely be able to come up with some technology to help mitigate the effects. If we can't we'd better at least learn to deal with them... because the fact is, it's going to happen... no matter how much you complain on an internet forum using your computer with it's 500 watt power supply that you left on all day while you were at work.

Re:Have you stopped driving your car yet? (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 2 years ago | (#40488971)

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions does not mean we stop driving cars. It means the cars will be powered by something other than fossil fuels. We need cars that run on electricity, fuel cells, or biofuels. We need power plants that run on nuclear, solar, or wind. That's a change that cannot be done on an individual basis. If the US and Europe ban fossil fuels, we can tax imports from China, Russia, and Africa until they do the same. If you consider the cost of dealing with the warming that results from fossil fuels, alternative energy sources just may be cheaper in the long run. In any case, the fossil fuels will run out someday, and by then we better have alternatives in place. Why not start switching to alternatives now, while we have the time to make the switch?

Re:Have you stopped driving your car yet? (1)

Ryanrule (1657199) | about 2 years ago | (#40489259)

Take your boomer/genx apologist bs and GTFO.

Best part (3, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 2 years ago | (#40488749)

And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain [...]

And we will spend trillions of dollars of tax money to keep that access available.

Just another shill for the... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | about 2 years ago | (#40488825)

...Anthropogenic Global Warming coalition.

Well he does have a point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488843)

about the general illiteracy of the public.

he obviously just wants grant money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40488885)

god damn communistic scientific community

He'd have a point if.... (4, Interesting)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#40488973)

If the same people who believe that creationism is a drop in replacement for science were also the ones objecting to unobstructed consumption, manufacture and/or sale of oil/gas products, and the global warming theory

However its generally, but not always the more scientificly aware people who come out against fossil fuel usage as a whole, and global warming. There has really yet to be a good scientific study against global warming other than soley industry funded research.(like a bunch of scared CEOs desperately trying to keep stock prices from tanking in a panic)

<quote>have you stopped driving your car yet</quote>

This argument is a fallicy, our society is set up around automobile usage, and it'd be difficult if not impossible in most places to continue your life without an automobile. A better argument would be why aren't people buying more efficeint cars. Many are, but I still see a steady parade of people communiting to office buildings in SUVs. The worst part, is since they consume more fuel, they increase demand driving prices up.

And cigarettes aren't addictive.. (2)

tralfaz2001 (652552) | about 2 years ago | (#40488987)

The man's favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged. All credibility voided by that fact alone.

I started the fire (-1, Flamebait)

johnwerneken (74428) | about 2 years ago | (#40488999)

The EXXON dude is 100% correct. Telling Truth to Yuppie Idiots (redundant) is my specialty.

Of course not... (5, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | about 2 years ago | (#40489109)

And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.

Of course not, it's not as if it's your boys who are going to get sent off to get killed, maimed for life, and left with memories that will haunt them forever, you goddamn plutocrat fuck. It's not as if nearly all of our current national security headaches (and nearly all the people killed by terrorism in the world for the last 20 years) can be traced to our meddling in the middle east AT YOUR BEHEST AND ON YOUR BEHALF. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick, don't you people pay handlers to prevent us from seeing just what massive assholes you are?

Notice how we never, ever hear this kind of despicable statement from people like Joe Biden, or the English royals, both of of whom have family serving? You will find no record of President Eisenhower blithely insulting the difficult job the men in Korea faced (I wonder why!). Yet there is a word that specifically refers to the kind of twunts who don't serve, then loudly cheer to have others sent to die (especially if they use privilege to avoid serving after being called to): chickenhawks. They are despicable and should be loudly shamed at every opportunity.

When you think "adaptation" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489113)

Think "Colorado Springs." Adaptation sounds wonderful but it'll be fueled by burning houses, with hopes damped by submerged homes. It's all part of the deal.

Changing opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489253)

1) There is no Global Warming
2) There is Global Warming, but it's not manmade
3) There is evidence that Global Warming is manmade, but we can handle it ...and maybe in the future...

4) We didn't handle Global Warming so well, and fortunately, more of the deaths occurred in third-world countries than in more substantial and respectable ones, but these catastrophes came about only because we didn't give enough support for private industry by freeing them from taxes and oversight so that they could innovate to solve all environmental problems as they would like to do with their profits if only they didn't have to pay taxes and such extravagant wages to their workers.

5) Past temperature records are flawed.

What about the 3rd world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489257)

His main point was that the quality of life for vast numbers of people would be greatly improved by access to fossil fuels. At present most rely upon burning animal excrement for cooking because they can't afford anything else. He's in the business of providing the means for improving their lives so they can afford to buy his product.

So the poor should remain poor so that the well off are protected from a hypothetical risk? The peasants in the Amazon should starve to death so people in New York can "save the rain forest"?

Complaining is not a solution. And solutions that are comfortable for a few at the discomfort of many are not solutions.

he is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40489301)

so what, nobody wants to mate with me anyways.
feminism? it's called femini$m!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...