Exxon accurately predicted GW in the 70s but kept casting doubt for decades

[Toddsterpatriot]

Both my wife and I work from home. We have been doing that for at least the last 10 years. We rarely turn on the A/C in summer.

So, you tell me. How much have I reduced my fossil fuel usage?

10%, easy.

We're saved.

 

[Dekster]

So the moral of this story is that Exxon's climate model has proven to be much more accurate than the ones from the people of letters.

 

[Magnus]

Global warming was debunked and exposed over a decade ago.

FYI

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate​

LOL This is from a guy who works for the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank known for its rejection of both the scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts of smoking.[3]

Founded in 1984, it worked with tobacco company Philip Morris throughout the 1990s to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and lobby against smoking bans.[4][5]: 233–234 [6] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[7][8]

Heartland Institute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Magnus]

10%, easy.

We're saved.

Yup, If everyone would do their 10%... we would indeed be saved.

Let me know if I can help you with anything else.

 

[Magnus]

So the moral of this story is that Exxon's climate model has proven to be much more accurate than the ones from the people of letters.

Good. That's one moral from the story. Now, can you find another? Come on, give it a try. I have faith in you.

 

[Magnus]

What about additional investments in actually useful energy, like nuclear?

Yup, I would agree. We should indeed look at nuclear as another alternative source of energy.

 

[Dekster]

Good. That's one moral from the story. Now, can you find another? Come on, give it a try. I have faith in you.

But for Exxon that rainy weather we had last night would have been the icy weather originally forecast. Thanks, Big Oil!!!!

 

[Magnus]

This is a big "so what". Are the OP and the writers of the Guardian article suggesting that Exxon Mobil should have shut down operations long ago as the "responsible" thing to do? Would the world be better off without all its transportation and power options today?

A little bit of "climate change" is a lot better than a return to a preindustrial hunter-gatherer based society that libs somehow think is so great.

They are suggesting that Exxon should have been honest. Just like the Tobacco companies that knew from their own scientific finding that tobacco use contributed to lung cancer and other diseases and yet continued to claim in public that tobacco was safe.

In short, some may say Exxon was hypocritical. Others may say they were criminals in their suppression of the true facts. Remember, tobacco companies had to pay huge fines for their crimes of suppressing data.

 

[Magnus]

But for Exxon that rainy weather we had last night would have been the icy weather originally forecast. Thanks, Big Oil!!!!

Sure. So, are you still working on finding the other moral of the story? Need more time?

 

[Dekster]

Sure. So, are you still working on finding the other moral of the story? Need more time?

I don't need to find another. You asked for another and I gave it to you. You're welcome.

 

[Magnus]

I don't need to find another. You asked for another and I gave it to you. You're welcome.

In other words, you couldn't find it? Aww... just when I thought I found a retard with some brains. Ah, well, the search goes on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, If everyone would do their 10%... we would indeed be saved.

Let me know if I can help you with anything else.

I know, a 10% reduction would be huge!

Not as much as the benefit we got from fracking.

We should frack a lot more, right?

And build another 100 nuke plants......to start. Right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, I would agree. We should indeed look at nuclear as another alternative source of energy.

Tell your green friends.
They don't like nuclear. Or fracking.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They are suggesting that Exxon should have been honest. Just like the Tobacco companies that knew from their own scientific finding that tobacco use contributed to lung cancer and other diseases and yet continued to claim in public that tobacco was safe.

In short, some may say Exxon was hypocritical. Others may say they were criminals in their suppression of the true facts. Remember, tobacco companies had to pay huge fines for their crimes of suppressing data.

Tobacco companies had to pay huge fines for their crimes of suppressing data.

They did? Can you post the law they broke?

 

[Magnus]

I know, a 10% reduction would be huge!

Not as much as the benefit we got from fracking.

We should frack a lot more, right?

And build another 100 nuke plants......to start. Right?

Fracking is good for the environment? Where do you get your facts? From the Heartland Institute? Gad, no wonder Rump loves his poorly-educated retards.

 

[DukeU]

LOL This is from a guy who works for the Heartland Institute.

Are you denying what was quoted and exposed in those emails?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fracking is good for the environment? Where do you get your facts? From the Heartland Institute? Gad, no wonder Rump loves his poorly-educated retards.

Fracking reduced CO2.

You didn't know that?

 

[Magnus]

Tobacco companies had to pay huge fines for their crimes of suppressing data.

They did? Can you post the law they broke?

Judge Kessler’s Landmark 2006 Decision Finding Big Tobacco Guilty In 2006, Federal District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found the major cigarette manufacturers guilty of violating civil provisions of RICO and guilty of lying to the American public about the deadly effects of cigarettes and secondhand smoke.

The nearly 1,700-page ruling found that: “Over the course of more than 50 years, Defendants lied, misrepresented, and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as ‘replacement smokers,’ about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, they suppressed research, they destroyed documents, they manipulated the use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction, they distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage smokers from quitting, and they abused the legal system to achieve their goal – to make money with little, if any, regard for individual illness and suffering, soaring health costs, or the integrity of the legal system.”

https://www.fightcancer.org/sites/default/files/history_of_doj_rico_lawsuit_fact_sheet_final_12.07.22.pdf

 

[Dekster]

In other words, you couldn't find it? Aww... just when I thought I found a retard with some brains. Ah, well, the search goes on.

I could give you lots of examples. You, however, are just too needy with nothing to offer in return.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.

A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.

A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.

The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in independent publications between 1977 and 2014.

Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that “there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.

“They could have endorsed their science rather than deny it. It would have been a much harder case to deny it if the king of big oil was actually backing the science rather than attacking it.”

Climate scientists said the new study highlighted an important chapter in the struggle to address the climate crisis. “It is very unfortunate that the company not only did not heed the implied risks from this information, but rather chose to endorse non-scientific ideas instead to delay action, likely in an effort to make more money,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University.

Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters. “If we include impacts from air pollution and climate change, their actions likely impacted thousands to millions of people adversely,” she added.

Revealed: Exxon made âbreathtakinglyâ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s

Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating

www.theguardian.com

...and did nothing to address the problem.