Slam Dunk on Why We Shouldn't Trust Exxon When It Comes to Global Warming

This is a very simplified way of approaching the issue of global warming. So simple in fact that perhaps even Republicans who think the Earth is only 10k years old should be able to understand.



For me, there are a few other slam dunks on this argument:

A. No real scientist would disagree that the Earth is getting warmer. Most would not even disagree with the cause and if you say I am wrong, then please point me to one article in a scientific journal claiming otherwise. And no, I'm not talking about articles written by someone who works at the creationist museum.

B. Venus is more than twice the distance from the Sun as Mercury. The average temperature on Mercury is 440 degrees F; the average temperature on Venus is over 800 degrees F. Some people say the Sun is responsible for global warming by either getting bigger or getting hotter but looking at Mercury with a lower average temperature than a planet more than twice the distance from the Sun shows that atmosphere plays just as important role in determining the temperature of a planet. Mercury has virtually no atmosphere or greenhouse gases. Venus, on the other hand, is 96% CO2 which coincidentally is a greenhouse gas also present on Earth and also created when fossil fuels are burned. Over the last 150 years, since the dawn of the industrial revolution when we started burning coal and oil/gas, CO2 in our atmosphere went from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. You can ask the Venusians what they think about higher CO2 concentrations creating higher atmospheric and surface temperatures but I am sure the CEO of Exxon has a better explanation.

C. Who stands to gain/loose from global warming? Police always look for a motive in a murder case; who has the most to gain by this person being dead? Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Energy Companies, Coal Mines, Agriculture etc. all sell, process, burn, mine, or need fossil fuels to power their products and all these companies could be either put out of business with a switch from fossil fuels or would incur great expenses to redesign or reinvent in order to stay in business without the use of these fossil fuels. Since they have such a vested interest in debunking global warming, listening to their "scientists" about global warming would be about as advisable as listening to Phillip Morris' doctors who said smoking was good for you. That doesn't necessarily make what they have to say wrong, but they certainly have a vested interest in saying its wrong. On the other side, you have scientists who live in Antarctica or work at a University; they don't sell products that run on hydrogen or some other non-fossil fuel. They don't stand to gain anything from global warming nor do they stand to loose anything by reporting that the Earth is warming due to mankind. So when it comes to smoking, are you going to trust your neutral doctor, who is qualified and only looking out for your best interest or are you going to trust the tobacco companies well paid "doctors"?