Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday March 12 2017, @01:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the playing-both-sides-of-the-fence dept.

Common Dreams reports:

Oil giant Shell also knew of the dangers of climate change decades ago, while it continued to lobby against climate legislation and push for fossil fuel development, a joint investigation by The Guardian[1] and the Dutch newspaper The Correspondent revealed [February 28].

Shell created a confidential report in 1986 which found that the changes brought about by global warming could be "the greatest in recorded history", and warned of an impact "on the human environment, future living standards, and food supplies, [that] could have major social, economic, and political consequences".

The company also made a 28-minute educational film in 1991 titled Climate of Concern that warned oil extraction and use could lead to extreme weather, famines, and mass displacement, and noted that the dangers of climate change were "endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists". The film was developed for public viewing, particularly for schools.

[...] Despite its own warnings, Shell invested billions of dollars into tar sands operations and exploration in the Arctic. It has also devoted millions to lobbying against climate legislation.

The revelations about Shell come after a separate investigation into ExxonMobil revealed that [that] company had also been waging a climate science suppression campaign and burying its own reports on the global warming impacts of fossil fuel use for decades. Exxon, whose former CEO is now U.S. secretary of state, is currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and state attorneys general for allegedly lying to investors about the risks of climate change.

In 2016, a group of lawmakers asked the Department of Justice to look into Shell's knowledge of global warming as well.

[1] Bogus link in TFA corrected.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @01:05PM (45 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @01:05PM (#478026)

    The obvious rebuttal is that global warming doesn't exist so Shell could not have know about it.
    Logic!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Touché=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @02:09PM (19 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @02:09PM (#478046) Journal
    The obvious rebuttal is that scientific research doesn't imply agreement with your hysterical bullshit du jour. Logic!

    Notice the obvious pattern here:

    1) A business researches its product or consequences of its product.
    2) Finds somewhat ambiguous indications that there could be significant problems down the road.
    3) Decades later an environmental group stumbles across the research.
    4) Spins it as proof that said business wholly agrees with whatever hysterical outrage the environmental group claims to care about today.
    5) Profit! Environmental group scoops in donations from clueless people.

    It's a wonderful movie plot. Just add explosions. But in real life, what did Shell actually learn?

    Shell created a confidential report in 1986 which found that the changes brought about by global warming could be "the greatest in recorded history", and warned of an impact "on the human environment, future living standards, and food supplies, [that] could have major social, economic, and political consequences".

    Oh dear! It could have major consequences! Despite all the sciency hyperventilating in the three decades since, that's still all we know. Climate change could have major consequences!

    My take on this is that there are a variety of bigger problems which we don't have such uncertainty for: overpopulation, poverty, resource mismanagement, habitat and arable land destruction, etc. Oil use helps improve a fair number of these bigger problems directly or indirectly.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Sunday March 12 2017, @02:46PM (10 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Sunday March 12 2017, @02:46PM (#478051)

      Oh dear! It could have major consequences! Despite all the sciency hyperventilating in the three decades since, that's still all we know. Climate change could have major consequences!

      That's nonsense.

      There are lots of effects, predicted by climate change, that are now in fact happening 3 decades after scientists were warning they could happen. Melting sea and glacial ice, sea level rises, increased hurricane activity and force, drought in formerly arable land. Heck, relatively small in the big scheme of things, but when I travelled to New England in the winter of 2015, I couldn't help but notice that none of the ski resorts had any snow because it was too warm, which was effectively destroying the economy of those areas that depend on ski tourism.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @02:47PM (9 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @02:47PM (#478053) Journal

        There are lots of effects, predicted by climate change, that are now in fact happening 3 decades after scientists were warning they could happen.

        Effects != major consequences.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @05:27PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @05:27PM (#478109)

          Effects != major consequences.

          Then what does == major consequences?
          Miami has 1.5 billion dollars budgeted [periscope.tv] to hold back tidal flooding and only the most optimistic projections think that will even make a dent.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:41PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:41PM (#478139) Journal

            Then what does == major consequences?

            Something comparable to say the destruction of habitat in Europe where most of Europe has been greatly disturbed from anything that would be considered natural.

            Miami has 1.5 billion dollars budgeted to hold back tidal flooding and only the most optimistic projections think that will even make a dent.

            Miami would have to budget for tidal flooding anyway. They get beach erosion and hurricanes even in the complete absence of global warming and sea level rise. This is a classic example of confirmation bias where an ongoing activity which would happen anyway is instead blamed on global warming.

            There is also a high degree of mobility to humanity. They can just move out over the centuries into areas that are less threatened by sea level rise. Meanwhile we don't have similar simple solutions to overpopulation. One can't magically disappear a few billion people without consequence.

            To summarize, my view is that a major consequence with respect to global problems should be something that significantly manifests on a continental or global scale and is caused by the phenomena in question, not merely blamed.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:11PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:11PM (#478159)

              is caused by the phenomena in question, not merely blamed.

              Since global warming does not exist, any such cases are merely examples of blame, never of cause.
              Thus there is no such thing as global warming because there are no consequences!
              Logic!!

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:15PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:15PM (#478164) Journal

              To summarize, my view is that a major consequence with respect to global problems should be something that significantly manifests on a continental or global scale and is caused by the phenomena in question, not merely blamed.

              Nice view you have there! How much do they pay you to hold it? And the obvious rebuttal is that it matters very little what khallow thinks, he was summoned in the frist post exactly because of this. And, waiting for manifest global catastrophic consequences to admit that Anthropogenic Global Warming is actual means that it will be too late to do anything about it.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by art guerrilla on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)

            by art guerrilla (3082) on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:48PM (#478143)

            'major consequences' as defined by whether it impinges on bubble of the callow khallow, of course ! ! !
            it is anecdotal, BUT in my little corner of the planet which i walk several times a day over the last 3 decades, the flora/fauna are changing...
            no where NEAR the variety of birds who used to show up at my birdbath/birdfeeders... not as many hummingbirds at the feeder... golden orb weaver and crab spiders who used to positively clog up the airspace with their webs, are hardly found in the last 2-3 years... not nearly as many snakes, saw a coral snake for the first time in 3-4 years, and used to see them 2-3 times a year... do have some gopher turtles coming back, since my one dog who, um, 'loved' gopher turtles died a couple years back... couple different landscape plantings which *always* die back in winter (such as it is in la florida), and re-grow in the spring, have not died back the last 2 years... and literally did not have to turn the heat on in the house this 'winter' at all... weather/temp records being continually broken is the new normal, not something that happens on a rare 100-1000 year event...
            no, we done did shit in our nest once too often, and unlike the omniscient shallow khal, we do not know what the fuck we are doing, and we have not run this 'experiment' over a thousand terrestrial planets to study the outcome...

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:04PM (2 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:04PM (#478153) Journal

          > Effects != major consequences.

          Depends on what your definition of "is" is, eh Mr. Hallow? When you get thrown into Hell, this post is going to be used as evidence at your "trial" (life review). Juuuuuust sayin'.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:38PM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:38PM (#478176) Journal

            When you get thrown into Hell, this post is going to be used as evidence at your "trial" (life review). Juuuuuust sayin'.

            Truth remains a valid defense. The grandparent did state "effect" not "major consequence". Those words do have very different meanings.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:49PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:49PM (#478181) Journal

              There is such a thing as a vacuous truth, and there is such a thing as lying by omission, and there is such a thing as misdirection. I am beginning to think you may be a sophisticated type of shill attempting the latest (which are actually very old...) disinformation techniques, specifically the ones in the "cognitive overload" subcategory. Sorry, Mr. Hallow, but that hasn't worked on me since junior high school. And I'm pointing it out, so people who see us going back and forth will be at least partly immunized too.

              Note to Mr. Hallow's handlers: your asset is no longer providing sufficient ROI. Might want to terminate him, in whatever sense of the word applies to how you boys do things :D

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:47PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:47PM (#478093)

      there could be significant problems down the road

      I believe that's exactly what climate research is saying.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:43PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:43PM (#478140) Journal

        there could be significant problems down the road

        I believe that's exactly what climate research is saying.

        Then where's the story? Where's the basis for claiming that Exxon lied here?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:58PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:58PM (#478099)

      I know it's tough to face your own stupidity, but please try and be graceful and humble about it instead of doubling down...

    • (Score: 2) by julian on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:53PM (3 children)

      by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:53PM (#478217)

      Climate change is real, human activity contributes to it. The long-term consequences could be as bad as human-extinction. That's where we are right now.

      Anyone else still dissembling is a troll or has short-term financial reasons to object to anything being done about it.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @12:10AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @12:10AM (#478257) Journal

        Climate change is real, human activity contributes to it. The long-term consequences could be as bad as human-extinction. That's where we are right now.

        I agree that global warming is happening right now and that it's to a great degree caused by humans. I don't agree that the long-term consequences could be human extinction. A very common problem with doomsday scenarios and stories is that they usually involve conflating global warming with other risks (for example, the movie, Interstellar which conflated global warming with gross agricultural mismanagement and incompetence, disease, societal/government corruption, and economic decay).

        • (Score: 2) by rondon on Monday March 13 2017, @12:47PM (1 child)

          by rondon (5167) on Monday March 13 2017, @12:47PM (#478372)

          I disagree that Interstellar conflated global warming with those things - I didn't see the crop diseases as an effect of global warming. Was there something I missed, or are you drawing more from the film than is actually there?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @02:21PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @02:21PM (#478402) Journal
            There were two diseases, one of the crop and one of people. And they were portrayed without explanation for their presence. All we were told was that the Earth was going through some sort of climate change that would end possibly with the extinction of humanity, heavily implied to be global warming though it is never mentioned by name as I recall. Burning crops, various diseases of plants and Man, societal breakdown, etc were to heavily imply what the consequences of the climate change were.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday March 12 2017, @03:57PM (24 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday March 12 2017, @03:57PM (#478071) Homepage

    They don't call it "global warming," they call it "climate change," so they can use any mildly unusual climate event to shove their political agenda up your gaping quivering anus-hole. But you like that, don't you? Yes, you do, you filthy, filthy whore.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:11PM (22 children)

      by TheRaven (270) on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:11PM (#478076) Journal
      No, they call it climate change because they got fed up with idiots saying 'well, it's colder near my house this year, so global warming must be nonsense!'
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:15PM (21 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:15PM (#478080) Journal

        No, they call it climate change because they got fed up with idiots saying 'well, it's colder near my house this year, so global warming must be nonsense!'

        So in other words, they called it "climate change" for a purely propaganda reason. Idiots don't change the science. It's still global warming even if I see a bunch of snow out my window.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @05:15PM (16 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @05:15PM (#478105)

          It was done because of asshats like you, keep trying you goddamn shill

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:28PM (15 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:28PM (#478132) Journal

            It was done because of asshats like you, keep trying you goddamn shill

            If true, then it was done for a stupid reason. When will we stop doing things for stupid reasons, eh?

            • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:05PM (14 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:05PM (#478154) Journal

              When the stupid people stop being stupid, asshole. Fuck me, you just essentially admitted you're stupid, but instead of apologizing for it you're fucking PROUD of it.

              I can't understand this. Why in Cthulhu's unpronounceable name would someone on a science and tech site be PROUD of being ignorant?!

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:15PM (13 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:15PM (#478165) Journal
                Once again, why because there are stupid people in the world, does it require you to do stupid stuff as well? Relabeling global warming as "climate change" didn't render the "But it's snowing outside my window right now" argument any more invalid than it already was.
                • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:22PM (12 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:22PM (#478170) Journal

                  Because, you disingenuous little fuck, the stupids come in massive numbers and have gained massive political power, that's fucking why. And you are one of them, and you KNOW this, and you take delight in it.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:22PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @09:22PM (#478205)

                    Everyone is stupid except for this weird ugly tranny bitch on SoylentNews who is superior in every way but doesn't actually accomplish anything besides use the word "fuck" on this site about 50 times a day. Great work.

                    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 13 2017, @03:11AM

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday March 13 2017, @03:11AM (#478299) Journal

                      Okay, number one, I'm not trans, thank you *very* much. I get reminded of this every month. Number two, if you don't like my swearing, just fucking (hurr) ignore my posts. Number three, either come up with an actual counterargument or go home and cry to mommy, assuming you have one. Tone trolling has replaced patriotism as the proverbial last refuge of the scoundrel.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @06:51AM (9 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:51AM (#478323) Journal
                    So a bit of transparent propaganda, which incidentally these stupid people completely ignore, is somehow justified? My view is that the "climate change" label ploy is a failure both as propaganda and science.
                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 13 2017, @07:57AM (8 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday March 13 2017, @07:57AM (#478334) Journal

                      You made of Teflon or what? You don't seem to understand your role in this....

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday March 13 2017, @08:19AM (3 children)

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Monday March 13 2017, @08:19AM (#478338) Journal

                        Khallow gonna smack that tar baby! Show him who's boss! Yeah, not letting any black mass of petroleum talks back, unless it pays for us to do it. No Teflon for the khallow, only sticky fingers. And an obvious rebuttal. But I think khallow understands very well what his role in all this is. No one could be as stupid as khallow pretends to be unless it was some how in their interests to be perceived as being that stupid. Tar baby. Once he's stuck real good, like, kinda "Twister" with a tar baby, then we can all "dogpile on the khallow" again. Some things never get old.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:31AM (2 children)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:31AM (#478747) Journal

                          I am not sure he does understand his role, frankly. I do suspect he's a sophisticated type of shill, but if he isn't, he's probably not truly aware of what he's doing, or the consequences it'll have.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:21AM (1 child)

                            by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:21AM (#478768) Journal

                            Hmm, I suggest a Turing Test for khallow. He might be a bot. A libertarian bot, which, given the root of the word "robot" in Slavic languages means "slave", is more than ironic.
                                On the other hand, his whining argues for the human side. Could it be that he is so naive, almost as naive as Runaway1234, that he truly does not understand why he regularly gets dumped on by nearly everyone on SoylentNews?
                                Or, SALT. Khallow is a Soviet deep plant agent, set to wait until the secret signal was sent out, and then to wreak havoc on America by supporting right wing causes like the KKK, the CCC, and the GOP! America is Domed! Domed, I tell you! Teapot Domed, in Roosevelt terms.

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:20PM

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:20PM (#479000) Journal

                              Trust me, the guy's posting pattern means he's either a deep shill and knows exactly what he's doing, or else he's so completely RWNJ-deranged he isn't even aware how screwed up he is. Hanlon's Razor applies in either case, but this is *not* a normal human being we're dealing with here.

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @02:31PM (3 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @02:31PM (#478412) Journal

                        You made of Teflon or what?

                        I might as well be. Your argument is ridiculous. Because there are stupid people in the world, who don't understand that what's outside their window is not global, a deceptively ambiguous propaganda phrase needs to be used. Somehow this is a good idea, despite the fact that the idiots won't care, and everyone else already knows that "climate change" means "global warming", meaning the use of the phrase is completely pointless - we lose semantic accuracy and gain nothing in exchange.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 13 2017, @09:51PM (2 children)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday March 13 2017, @09:51PM (#478650) Journal

                          Hey, asshole, it's one of YOUR kind, that Republican fellow, who forced the term into public usage. You forget that too, did you? Teflon. Teflon with a bullshit core.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @10:34PM (1 child)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @10:34PM (#478673) Journal

                            Hey, asshole, it's one of YOUR kind, that Republican fellow, who forced the term into public usage.

                            Again, I don't need teflon for this. Some Republican propagandist didn't force you to use "climate change".

                            And how is this supposed to be an argument for using "climate change" as a synonym for global warming in rational discourse? The bad guys thought use of the term, "climate change" was good for their side. So now, we on the other side are going to use "climate change" because...?

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:29AM

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:29AM (#478745) Journal

                              Fuck if I know. Some misguided attempt to reason with you hellspawn is my best guess. Sometimes I think I have bigger balls than most of the supposed left, and mine are ovaries.

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:16PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:16PM (#478127)

          So in other words, they called it "climate change" for a purely propaganda reason. Idiots don't change the science.

          It is HILARIOUS you would say that.
          Because you are RIGHT.
          But for all the wrong reasons.

          The term "climate change" was promoted by republican strategist Frank Luntz [theguardian.com] in order to make it sound innocuous compared to "global warming."

          Turns out is a more accurate term. Not that the republican party gives a damn about scientific accuracy. That's the democrats, which is why they use it more often than republicans do. [fivethirtyeight.com]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:27PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 12 2017, @06:27PM (#478130) Journal

            The term "climate change" was promoted by republican strategist Frank Luntz in order to make it sound innocuous compared to "global warming."

            And before that, it was promoted by scientists who wanted an appropriate label for generic climate change. Neither is responsible for the current usage as a substitute for "global warming".

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:14PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 12 2017, @07:14PM (#478162)

              And before that, it was promoted by scientists who wanted an appropriate label for generic climate change.

              No, not promoted. Invented.
              Nobody outside of scientific community used the term.

              But, in hollow's world when the scientific community identifies and names a phenomenon, that's proof the name is invalid!

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 13 2017, @06:54AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 13 2017, @06:54AM (#478325) Journal

                No, not promoted. Invented. Nobody outside of scientific community used the term.

                Promoted is the correct word here. Just because it wasn't originally intended for public consumption doesn't mean that researchers didn't promote the term for use in research. After all, what would be the point of using several different terms for the same thing?

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:16PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Sunday March 12 2017, @04:16PM (#478082) Journal

      Aw, come on... don't hold back!
      :)

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---