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

[Damaged Eagle]

You're on target by suggesting lifestyle changes are the answer. But you should also know that isn't appreciated by your side of the politics.l
You should try to walk that back.

Why???

I haven't flown in years.

If our leaders want to people to make lifestyle changes they should start it by setting an example.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Dante Reawakened]

For what?

for good measure

 

[ding]

for good measure

That would be a very short trial. Will the accused please stand. You are on trial for good measure. Case dismissed.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

That would be a very short trial. Will the accused please stand. You are on trial for good measure. Case dismissed.

I'd want a Grand Jury thing first. Drag it out. Show it on cable tv

 

[ding]

I'd want a Grand Jury thing first. Drag it out. Show it on cable tv

Have you ever been on a Grand Jury?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

for good measure

Sorry, there is no law...."for good measure".

You're free to stop releasing CO2 at any time.

 

[Dagosa]

Why???

I haven't flown in years.

If our leaders want to people to make lifestyle changes they should start it by setting an example.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Life style changes mean little. You’re stuck with what’s available for infrastructure and there is nothing anyone can do about it privately. Massive changes that make any differences are done through the government . That’s where focused money comes from and where change is initiated. Once started, it’s then up to private industry and capitalism to keep it going.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Life style changes mean little. You’re stuck with what’s available for infrastructure and there is nothing anyone can do about it privately. Massive changes that make any differences are done through the government . That’s where focused money comes from and where change is initiated. Once started, it’s then up to private industry and capitalism to keep it going.

And yet grounding most of the jets, especially the small ones that are privately owned and much of the commercial jet traffic, would make a fair sized dent in the CO2 emissions that progressives harp about.

Take a bus or train.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Dagosa]

And yet grounding most of the jets, especially the small ones that are privately owned and much of the commercial jet traffic, would make a fair sized dent in the CO2 emissions that progressives harp about.

Take a bus or train.

*****CHUCKLE*****

No it doesn’t. Jet travel for the entire US amounts to 3% of our total co2 emissions. Just repeating the same false information doesn’t make it true.

And yet grounding most of the jets, especially the small ones that are privately owned and much of the commercial jet traffic, would make a fair sized dent in the CO2 emissions that progressives harp about.

Take a bus or train.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Diesel bus and train fuel per passenger mile is much more polluting then . Jet travel.

Jet travel is 80% more efficient then it was50 years ago. It makes up LESS THEN 3% of total co2 pollution. If people drove cars or took diesel powered busses everywhere it would pollute much more.
Deniers are into this blaming people for flying in a jet when it’s THE MOST efficient and least polluting way to travel long distance !

 

[skookerasbil]

Saw this yesterday and thought of Crick...

The boy is in deep...


Judge Dismisses Lawsuit About Big Oil Conspiracy | ZeroHedge


Whoooops

 

[Dagosa]

Saw this yesterday and thought of Crick...

The boy is in deep...


Judge Dismisses Lawsuit About Big Oil Conspiracy | ZeroHedge


Whoooops

I see you can’t keep up with him. ..

 

[Papageorgio]

You're on target by suggesting lifestyle changes are the answer. But you should also know that isn't appreciated by your side of the politics.l
You should try to walk that back.

It isn’t welcome on either side of the two parties. If you want to pretend to be fair, then be fair.

 

[Magnus]

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

 

[Polishprince]

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No it doesn’t. Jet travel for the entire US amounts to 3% of our total co2 emissions. Just repeating the same false information doesn’t make it true.

3% of the total CO2 emissions is quite a bit for the small amount of people that air travel moves.

Diesel bus and train fuel per passenger mile is much more polluting then . Jet travel.

Where's your proof. Looks like we have some false information here.

Jet travel is 80% more efficient then it was50 years ago. It makes up LESS THEN 3% of total co2 pollution. If people drove cars or took diesel powered busses everywhere it would pollute much more.

False information abounds when one wants to cling to something they consider superior.

Deniers are into this blaming people for flying in a jet when it’s THE MOST efficient and least polluting way to travel long distance !

Then you'd best show everyone some real information about the differences in how much fuel is used by a jet airliner and a bus traveling the same distance then.

Here's an idea let's go back to the true vehicles that use real renewable fuel sources and are good for the environment.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[DukeU]

Global warming was debunked and exposed over a decade ago.

FYI

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

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Next on the agenda is we're going to take well over 50% of the farmland out of production and start growing renewable fuel that can heat our homes.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Now that you know, how much have you reduced your fossil fuel use?
25%? 50%? 100%?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

 

[Magnus]

Now that you know, how much have you reduced your fossil fuel use?
25%? 50%? 100%?

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?