The op article reads like a paid fabrication by exxon mobil. meant to obfuscate the facts. And encourage people to ignore the fact that their products is killing us by their own research.
During the 1990s and 2000s Exxon helped advance climate change denial internationally.[SUP]
[/SUP] ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol
by the United States.[SUP]
[/SUP] ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming
is caused by the burning of fossil fuels
. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the Global Climate Coalition
, composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[SUP]
[/SUP] According to Mother Jones
magazine, between 2000 and 2003 ExxonMobil channelled at least $8,678,450 to forty organizations that employed disinformation campaigns including "skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism" to influence the opinion of the public and political leaders about global warming.[SUP]
[/SUP] ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute
, George C. Marshall Institute
, Heartland Institute
, the American Legislative Exchange Council
and the International Policy Network
[/SUP] Since the Kyoto Protocol
, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.[SUP]
Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[SUP]
[/SUP] Of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," according to a 2006 letter from the Royal Society
to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[SUP]
[/SUP] According to Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle
, ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[SUP]
[/SUP] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries
was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital
to avoid traceability.[SUP]
[/SUP] In 2006, the Brussels
-based watchdog organization Corporate Europe Observatory
said "ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for [European Union] governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company."[SUP]
the More Co2 good for plants comment is a load of crap.
Too much Co2 interferes with plants ability to adsorb necessary nutrients and dies.
shorter warmer winters is actually bad for the Midwest hardwood forest its is receding north and dying off over time.
The problem with this article is it looking at things too "one dimensional"
yea sure longer growing season but your depleting the ground nutrient that much faster and also because we base our farming on the longer growing season it is MUCH MORE susceptible to "normal winter damage/loss" normal winter being the shorter season and the ground freezing .
There are ALWAYS trade offs. energy is never created or destroyed its only changed form.
we are losing our biodiversity, that is the bad anchilies heel. Around here trees been dying younger and younger due to disease and pests surviving the warmer winters.
that higher CO2 is also killing life in the oceans because it is changing the chemistry in the water to a form that is TOXIC.