So many people make the assumption that it's "Big Oil" and "Big Coal", and there were of course links to Exxon funding "Think Tanks" such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute and the  George C. Marshall Institute. From what I've read, that funding seems to have levelled off recently.

However if you look at the public Climate Change policies of the major Oil and coal corporations, they all endorse the prevailing science and reflect a commtiment to reduce carbon emissions.

Some examples:

The Australian Coal Association:

http://www.australiancoal.com.au/climate-change-a-technology.html
 

Quote:

Climate Change & Technology It will be virtually impossible to limit global temperature increases to two degrees without carbon capture and storage technology. In 2006 the Australian Coal Association established the COAL21 Fund, with a commitment to raise $1 billion over ten years to support the development of low emission technologies for coal.

BP Global
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/the-energy-future/climate-change.html


Quote:

Addressing the global challenge of climate change will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals The situation According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is happening, and it is in large part the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and their concentrations in the atmosphere. The IPCC believes that warming of the climate is likely to lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Results from models assessed by the IPCC suggest that to stand a reasonable chance of limiting warming to no more than 2°C, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions need to peak before 2020 and be cut by between 50-85% by 2050.

Shell Global

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

Quote:

To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.

even Exxon- Mobil:

http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx

In fact I doubt if you can find a major Coal or Oil Corporation that publically denies that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption is leading to global warming.

About 7 years ago, I watched a presentation by a group of Environmental Engineers talking about climate change. It was basic simplistic stuff, but the surprise was that they all worked for a coal company, and the presentation itself was funded by a coal corporation, including the coffee and sandwiches afterwards. Of course they stuck to the generally accepted science.

Any thoughts?

Dude bankers have their fingers in all the pies...!!

For years now I've been thinking what the hell did the bankers do with the billions of tax payer dollars they where given back in 2008....!!!

They certainly didn't lend it to the people or pump it back into the economy...??!!

They went out and bought enough shares in all the other major companies to have a firm grip on what goes on in them.

That's why major oil & coal are right behind the AGW religion.

Good work....!!!

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

Dude bankers have their fingers in all the pies...!! For years now I've been thinking what the hell did the bankers do with the billions of tax payer dollars they where given back in 2008....!!! They certainly didn't lend it to the people or pump it back into the economy...??!! They went out and bought enough shares in all the other major companies to have a firm grip on what goes on in them. That's why major oil & coal are right behind the AGW religion. Good work....!!!

Well, major shareholders should be detailed in the prospectus. We can easily check you assertion. Will you back up your statements by providing the links?

It's far more likely that major oil corporations pull the strings in governments.   

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:14pm: Dude bankers have their fingers in all the pies...!! For years now I've been thinking what the hell did the bankers do with the billions of tax payer dollars they where given back in 2008....!!! They certainly didn't lend it to the people or pump it back into the economy...??!! They went out and bought enough shares in all the other major companies to have a firm grip on what goes on in them. That's why major oil & coal are right behind the AGW religion. Good work....!!! Well, major shareholders should be detailed in the prospectus. We can easily check you assertion. Will you back up your statements by providing the links?

For sure they wouldn't hide it there is no need.


Quote:

It's far more likely that major oil corporations pull the strings in governments.

Why would major oil and coal corporation want the government to introduce a carbon tax ETS system....???

Doesn't make sense.........???????

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

For sure they wouldn't hide it there is no need.

Well, good luck with proving your theory. Here is Exxon-Mobil's Annual Report for 2012 for starters. Let me know how you go.

http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/Corporate/Files/news_pub_sar-2012.pdf

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:25pm: For sure they wouldn't hide it there is no need. Well, good luck with proving your theory. Here is Exxon-Mobil's Annual Report for 2012 for starters. Let me know how you go. http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/Corporate/Files/news_pub_sar-2012.pdf

Have a look here, how many banks can you spot..????

http://stockzoa.com/ticker/xom/

Ajax wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

muso wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:38pm: Ajax wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:25pm: For sure they wouldn't hide it there is no need. Well, good luck with proving your theory. Here is Exxon-Mobil's Annual Report for 2012 for starters. Let me know how you go. http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/Corporate/Files/news_pub_sar-2012.pdf Have a look here, how many banks can you spot..???? http://stockzoa.com/ticker/xom/

THey are not exactly major shareholders. Most are investment corporations holding portfolio type investments.  I think you'll find that Exxon-Mobil maintains a 50% equity.   What's the biggest bank shareholding on that list?  Would that be enough to get a board member?

Take a look at the board members. Any of them from banks? No?

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:45pm: muso wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:38pm: Ajax wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 1:25pm: For sure they wouldn't hide it there is no need. Well, good luck with proving your theory. Here is Exxon-Mobil's Annual Report for 2012 for starters. Let me know how you go. http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/Corporate/Files/news_pub_sar-2012.pdf Have a look here, how many banks can you spot..???? http://stockzoa.com/ticker/xom/ THey are not exactly major shareholders. Most are investment corporations holding portfolio type investments.  I think you'll find that Exxon-Mobil maintains a 50% equity.   What's the biggest bank shareholding on that list?  Would that be enough to get a board member? Take a look at the board members. Any of them from banks? No?

Read this dude....!!!
http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/07/should-wall-street-banks-own-hoard-oil-and-metal-sherrod-brown-drills-down-this-tuesday/

Ajax,

This is getting hilarious. You love your conspiracy theories don't you? You even resort to Left Wing websites for them  ;D

The equity of Exxon-Mobil is $165.8 Billion, which stands at just over 50% of controlling interests. That's standard practice. The largest Shareholder on that list was Vanguard Holdings, and it's portfolio investments. It was $22 Billion. You'll find that all the major investors are in the same boat.

Do you understand what a portfolio investment is?


Quote:

A portfolio investment is a passive investment in securities, none which entails in active management or control of the securities' issued by the investor. Portfolio investment is an investment made by an investor who is not particularly interested in involvement in the management of a company.

For example, you might have Superannuation that includes Energy in its portfolio. Securities are issued by companies such as Exxon Mobil to large investment corporations, who in turn sell them to other companies.

Why do Exxon-Mobil issue Securities? 

Keeping away from the consipracy theories, although they have merit. It is poor science, fiddling of data, hiding calculation and a need to push people into a corner of 'the science is settled' that is behind the greater skeptisism.

Your fraudulant scientists are the cause of your (AGW) pain.

Boo!
Ha you thought I had gone! Run away like you usually do when faced with logic, or dare to face the truth, Progs.

muso wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

Ajax, This is getting hilarious. You love your conspiracy theories don't you? You even resort to Left Wing websites for them  ;D The equity of Exxon-Mobil is $165.8 Billion, which stands at just over 50% of controlling interests. That's standard practice. The largest Shareholder on that list was Vanguard Holdings, and it's portfolio investments. It was $22 Billion. You'll find that all the major investors are in the same boat. Do you understand what a portfolio investment is? Quote: A portfolio investment is a passive investment in securities, none which entails in active management or control of the securities' issued by the investor. Portfolio investment is an investment made by an investor who is not particularly interested in involvement in the management of a company. For example, you might have Superannuation that includes Energy in its portfolio. Securities are issued by companies such as Exxon Mobil to large investment corporations, who in turn sell them to other companies. Why do Exxon-Mobil issue Securities?

So then in your opinion a left wing website wrote crap which you dismiss with ease.

Bravo this shows us how much attention you pay to scientists on the other side of the fence.

Seriously dude you need to wake from your slumber and realise which world you live in.

Ajax,  What other side of the fence?

muso wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Boo! Ha you thought I had gone! Run away like you usually do when faced with logic, or dare to face the truth, Progs.

Did u go somewhere :-P

You've met your match here Progs. Ajax is a Climate science denier and a moon landing denier. I'm not sure if he denies the link between tobacco and cancer though.

At least he agrees that the oceans are warming.

Lots of deniers in this world.

Take for example the radiological releases from chernobyl (estimated by the soviets to be of the order of 50 million Currie) and compare them to the revised TEPCO/Japanese authorities estimates of 60 million Currie (40 million Currie on Japanese mainland, and 20 million Currie into the Pacific Ocean)

The Japanese figures do not include their ongoing and mostly Unmonitored leaks from reactor buildings and the 1000+ tanks that are on site.

Groundwater that has been contaminated is also sealing into the Pacific Ocean.

The biggest environmental disaster seen thus far in human history. The death toll from cancer and other diseases over the next few decades will surface the chernobyl death toll of 1.2 million

Media quiet. Shhhhhhhhh

Have to keep up with lady Gage's new wardrobe

Gizmo - I'll leave this one to you. The only significant issue I have is with the fatalities, which are grossly overstated.