Dear ExxonMobil

A fired federal employee expresses himself 11

Guess who said this, and when:

While my departure may be satisfying to ExxonMobil, I can assure you that this will not make the scientific challenge of climate change and its impacts go away. That 150 countries unanimously agree about the science of this issue is not because of some "green" conspiracy, but because of the solid scientific underpinning for this issue. Certainly, there are uncertainties, but decisions are made under uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well paid to do. In this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of the international scientific community, the wrong side of the findings of all the world's leading academies of science, and the wrong side of virtually all of the world's countries as expressed, without dissent, in the IPCC reports....To call ExxonMobil's position out of the mainstream is thus a gross understatement.

Answer: Michael MacCracken, one of four members of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Office fired early in Bush's first term at the behest of ExxonMobil (the so-called "ExxonMobil Four"), in a 2002 letter to everyone on the ExxonMobil board of directors.

Update [2006-11-27 8:35:41 by David Roberts]: Hm, seems I mischaracterized the Exxon Four. Reader RH writes:

Mike was the only one of the four who worked in the US GCRP and none was fired. Mike retired later in the Administration's term (around 2003 or 2004), Bierbaum left to accept an academic job (she had a political appointee job from Clinton anyway), Miotke remained a career State Department employee and is still there (not working on climate though), and Watson wasn't even in the employee of the government at the time (he was at the World Bank - the US didn't support him in the new IPCC nominations).

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Zarkov Posted 8:53 am
    24 Nov 2006

    Oiled Spin-upIf your whole empire would collapse if you were stopped in your tracks and you relied upon spewing oil.... no matter if the world could end, what would you do, go denial?
    Personally I think money absolves all crime, even extinction.
    Strange that human minds have deteriorated so much.

    Permalink

  2. Zarkov Posted 11:07 am
    24 Nov 2006

    Can be get REAL, pleasePlease help by doing an experiment
    What we want is for you to determine the rate of water evaporation from various water sources in your area.
    Equipment needed.
    (a) Simple digital scales

    (b) a few prepared plastic bottles

    (c) your time
    Method
    You will need a few of the same type of plastic drink bottle with a screw cap. These bottles should be clean and rinsed several times in tap water.
    Remove the base of each bottle. These bottles are then labled and used to collect water samples. They are weighed before hand (with the screw cap) and after the water sample has been collected, and these weights are recorded along with the Id of the bottle. In this way you can find the weight of water in each bottle.
    To collect the water sample, first remove the screw cap, and immerse the whole bottle in the water to be sampled. bring the bottle to the surface of the water with the based uppermost and the screw cap end down. With the base slightly out of the water screw on the bottles cap. Remove the bottle out of the water, dry and label. The here aim is to capture the surface layer on the water intact.
    What we will determine is the decrease of the water evaporation rate between clean (no surface film) fresh water and the resident water in your area.
    Weight bottle and sample.

    Record the weight of water = total weight - bottle weight on a sheet of paper and enter the ID of the bottle and the type of water sample.
    Set up the sample bottles in some exposed place where wind and sun can cause the water sample to evaporate. One bottle, called the control, should be filled with tap water (or rain water would give a better baseline).

    The bottles with the samples will be upside down, so sit the bottles in wide mouth jars so the sample bottles can be stable when upright.
    At 24 hour intervals, record the weight of each bottle.
    Calculations
    Measure the diameter of the base, and calculate the area.

    Let D be the diameter (length from one side of the base to the other side), then the radius of the base is equal to D/2

    So the area is (pi times D times D) divided by 4
    Next work out the weight of the evaporated water per unit area, that is per square centimeter or per square inch, depending on the units of your length measuring device.
    So evaporation rate/ unit area/ day = weight of water evaporated divided by the surface area.
    Any questions are welcome.
    Once we know what the water evaporation rate is in your area (dams, river, sea etc) compared to clean fresh water we may be able to apply more pressure on the society to clean up its act.
    Please report back with your results either here or to the site linked below.

    The World thanks you.
    Direct results to http://omegafour.com/forum

    Permalink

  3. ericauciel Posted 12:53 am
    25 Nov 2006

    LostWe're lost. Full stop. Why? Because we talk to much. We're still dreaming the Earth is endless. We're lost in hopes and illusions. We're ages and billions beyond sustainability levels. The Earth could maybe sustain 500 million people at levels of consumption that equal that of the European sixteenth century. Our biggest sin is believing in continued growth - as if the planet would grow with us. This sin is only equaled by our superstitious religious beliefs.

    So, better save your energy and use it to drink your last cappucinos and enjoy the sun as long as possible.
    Erixc Auciel

    Permalink

  4. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 1:24 am
    25 Nov 2006

    ExxonmobIt is a better term than Exxonmobile.  More descriptive.
    As in "Boycott exxonmob" retail outlets.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  5. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 2:04 am
    25 Nov 2006

    Going downThe leaders of Exxon will eventually come tumbling down when this mistake in leadership comes home to roost. They don't even have the foresight to see it coming.
    Industrial leaders are not necessarily brilliant people. Many end up where they are by chance, as Bush did. I'm sure that some board members would like to change their stance but don't want to kiss their jobs goodbye. They will land like vultures when it's time.
    Also note that this is a stressful time of year for a lot of people. If you got em, take em (your medications) : )
    Erixc,
    You are probably right. But, that still means there is a chance so why give up?
    DrX,
    One of these days one of your new words is going to make it into the dictionary.
    http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/10682.jpg

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

    Permalink

  6. TokyoTom's avatar

    TokyoTom Posted 2:33 am
    25 Nov 2006

    Zarkov, have you considered RealClimate?Your comments on the oil layer are interesting.  Have you considered posting them at a climate science blog, where readers are more likely to be able to discuss your views?

    Permalink

  7. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 4:52 am
    25 Nov 2006

    Thanks!I hope "neoconman" or "duuhbyaist" makes it!  Hehehey.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

  8. Zarkov Posted 9:40 am
    25 Nov 2006

    Links ?>>  climate science blog
    any suggested links ?

    Permalink

  9. TokyoTom's avatar

    TokyoTom Posted 8:14 pm
    26 Nov 2006

    Zarkov, try http://www.realclimate.org;for a "skeptical" view, try http://www.climateaudit.org/.
    These are the two chief blogs on climate science.

    Permalink

  10. caniscandida Posted 8:50 pm
    26 Nov 2006

    "ExxonMobil Four"?I am not familiar with that expression.  They are the guys who schmooze with Dick Cheney, and so are calling the shots with the Bush administration?
    Will it ever be known, by the way, who the participants in Cheney's energy policy discussion group in early 2001 were?  Surely there must be somebody who was not in the room but who knows who was in the room, and can be persuaded to tell us.
    Biodiv, that cartoon of the frog choking the egret is, umm, encouraging, if not exactly edifying.  Of course many animals have evolved defense mechanisms of precisely that sort, which render them unpalatable or even positively dangerous to potential predators.
    You are absolutely right about Amazing.  He is a verbal genius, up there with Pindar and Dante and Shakespeare.

    Chickens are our cousins!

    So are other sensitive animals!

    Enough is enough!

    No more factory farms!

    Permalink

  11. amazingdrx's avatar

    amazingdrx Posted 1:34 am
    28 Nov 2006

    HeheheyI missed that one Canis, thanks!!!  I'm speechless now.

    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement