Exxon Chief Makes a Cold Calculation on Global Warming
BP, Shell Concede Ground as Raymond Funds Skeptics and Fights Emission Caps
By JEFFREY BALL, Staff Reporter, The Wall Street Journal
ANNANDALE, N.J. (June 14) -- At Exxon Mobil Corp.'s laboratories here, there isn't a solar panel or windmill in sight. About the closest Exxon's scientists get to "renewable" energy is perfecting an oil that Exxon could sell to companies operating wind turbines.
Oil giants such as BP PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group are trumpeting a better-safe-than-sorry approach to global warming. They accept a growing scientific consensus that fossil fuels are a main contributor to the problem and endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps emissions from developed nations that have ratified it. BP and Shell also have begun to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels.
Not Exxon. Openly and unapologetically, the world's No. 1 oil company disputes the notion that fossil fuels are the main cause of global warming. Along with the Bush administration, Exxon opposes the Kyoto accord and the very idea of capping global-warming emissions. Congress is debating an energy bill that may be amended to include a cap, but the administration and Exxon say the costs would be huge and the benefits uncertain. Exxon also contributes money to think tanks and other groups that agree with its stance.
<<In Msg 73083 you said, "This is not a private chat room for you to "direct" conversations to one." In Msg Msg: 73100 you say "... but you posted again, and directly to me." Whew fella, you is confused. Well, which is it?>>
Poor man. I have strained your capacity to understand so that you are exhausted. But you seek to improve yourself by asking and I will try to help. Uhlike you, I do so with the full acceptance that others may (or not) read and reply as they see fit. So, you see, the answer to your question is: both. For the pompous notion that you own messages for private communication is yours, not mine. Yet, if you clearly present a question intended for me, I may reply (or not) as I see fit. Your lame attempt to belittle me with the assertion of "confusion" and the denegration of women merely validates your own lack of clear thinking an arrogance, repectively.
A point for you Nancy! Au Revoir means "until the next seeing".
A sudden change in your usual signoff and especially to "au revoir" can only mean that you expected him to respond. A prerecorded anticipation of his compulsion to interlope! Kudos!!!
A bientot Nancy.
In Msg 73083 you said, "This is not a private chat room for you to "direct" conversations to one."
In Msg Msg: 73100 you say "... but you posted again, and directly to me."
Whew fella, you is confused. Well, which is it? You're more confused than any 3 women I know. Or maybe...
"Such language hardly befits a man of your massive intellect, social and environmental consciousness, and ethical stature."
Who says skank?
Poor little man. You are so frustrated. Two �stupids� and one �moron.� I forgot, I must explain. You used the term stupid twice and moron once in a characteristic name-calling motif.
But you see, poor man, that I am not a liar. I would leave you for your t�te-�-t�te, but you posted again, and directly to me. Had you simply controlled your impulsive desire to appear superior by not posting this latest rather foolish thing, perhaps I would have left you in your little dismal world of virtual self gratification. But you were weak. And since this is a message board and not your private venue, I respond. You seem to believe that you are superior to others and thus control them. This is quite incorrect.
Despite your childish name-calling I am pleased to note you decided to eschew the obscenities. Such language hardly befits a man of your massive intellect, social and environmental consciousness, and ethical stature.