Exxon hits back on ridiculous RICO allegations: ‘When it comes to climate change, read the documents’

Read the documents.

Go ahead, you really should. Read the documents on the InsideClimate News site purportedly proving some conspiracy on ExxonMobil’s part to hide our climate science findings.

Climate_Change_Feature_10-2015In case you need help finding them, the link to the documents on theInsideClimate News site is right here.

Why do we want you to read them?

Because you will see that they completely undercut the allegations made by InsideClimate News in its series about ExxonMobil – allegations that were subsequently echoed by activists like Bill McKibben and Naomi Oreskes.

McKibben, for instance, wrote, “Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.”

But if you read the documents, it will become clear the opposite is true.

Reading the documents shows that these allegations are based on deliberately cherry-picked statements attributed to various ExxonMobil employees to wrongly suggest definitive conclusions were reached decades ago by company researchers. These statements were taken completely out of context and ignored other readily available statements demonstrating that our researchers recognized the developing nature of climate science at the time which, in fact, mirrored global understanding.

What these documents actually demonstrate is a robust culture of scientific discourse on the causes and risks of climate change that took place at ExxonMobil in the 1970s and ’80s and continues today. They point to corporate efforts to fill the substantial gaps in knowledge that existed during the earliest years of climate change research.

They also help explain why ExxonMobil would work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and leading universities like MIT and Stanford on ways to expand climate science knowledge.

So read them. I am guessing that InsideClimate News is counting on readers not doing that and instead just trusting its “reporting” and “analysis.

And while you are at it, check out this 10-page document listing the over 50 peer-reviewed articles on climate research and related policy analysis from ExxonMobil scientists from 1983 to the present.

It’s replete with the titles of articles such as “Marine biota effects on the compositional structure of the world oceans,” “Testing Distributed Parameter Hypotheses for the Detection of Climate Change,” and “Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Every one of these and the dozens of other articles listed was written with the aim of enhancing the state of the world’s knowledge on the issues surrounding climate.

Read all of these documents and make up your own mind.


Reposted from Exxon-Mobil perspectives, h/t to Matt Dempsey

WUWT has no connection to Exxon-Mobil, and was not asked to republish the article, it is provided as counter-balance to some of the ridiculous charges that are being circulated about use of the RICO act to silence and/or prosecute climate skeptics.

 

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “Exxon hits back on ridiculous RICO allegations: ‘When it comes to climate change, read the documents’

    • the science is settled after all
      climate scientists can concentrate on politics full time
      oh wait … that’s why we have the IPCC
      I’m slowly learning

    • Exxon-Mobil is a vast energy and petro-chemical business. They are probably trying to figure out how to find and exploit more raw materials. Although Coal must be a competing source, I doubt that EM needs to spend much effort trying to submarine coal energy.

      And I am sure they also want to know the real provable impact of their industry on the environment.

      Energy companies have as much interest in living on this planet as anyone else, so they are motivated to find out what their business activities really do. And they aren’t going to settle for James Hansen’s view of what he thinks that is.

      Everything we own comes out of the ground in some way. Get used to it.

      If I had anything to say about it, the California High speed rail project would be required to implement their entire operation completely without non renewable sources. So they would have to use only renewable energy, and only use physical materials, that already are out of the ground, and merely need to reclaimed/recycled to use for the railway and trains. NO fossil or petrochemical sources for anything they need to build their project.
      (And NO taxpayer funding).

      Consumer reports; who lauded the TESLA model 20, as breaking all their chart records, when they gave it rave reviews, has just announced that they are now not recommending the TESLA model S. Evidently owner reports of reliability have not given it rave reviews like CR did.

      • I suggest that Exxon-Mobil would be more interested in keeping coal viable as a source of energy. There is far more money to be made from petro-chemicals and plastics that can be recycled than to burn the stuff for energy. The same for the other big oil companies. They would vastly prefer you to burn the methane gas that is generally associated with it than to burn the oil itself.

      • Tom, sorry to burst your optimism, but working for big oil, it’s all about how we can improve the bottom line. Some of that is through research and legitimate ways, but a good amount of this comes down to subsidy farming. Why do you think all the big oil companies supported cap and trade in Europe and then America: because we can make a killing off of it.

      • George

        Yes you are correct, Exxon is above all an ENERGY COMPANY. It has in the past, and should continue to search in the future for all likely opportunities to do business and make profits in the energy sector.

        Greens very often have little understanding of the business world. Mature industries produce low returns on investment with low opportunity for growth and high risk of obsolescence. Mature industries are often a zero-sum game where market share must come from the competition (i.e. coal).

        In contrast, new industries offer the potential for much higher return on investment and market growth for early entrants. Exxon would rather make higher returns from limitless resources than rely solely on resources with finite bounds which are sold in mature marketplaces.

        Would an oil company attempt to gain market share by painting its competition in an unflattering light? That would be logical. But the meme that large energy companies want to thwart the development of new energy technologies just doesn’t hold up.

    • I bet a penny to a pinch of shit that ALL those papers from EM contain actual science relating to climate and/or the environment.

      Unlike the overwhelming majority of ‘papers’ from the team and their sycophants that merely guess how global warming will affect their chose field in some way, way down the line.

    • No on one side we have the truth. To preserve the balance we need a basket full of lies.

      The IPCC provides that.

    • This is merely a slipshod attempt to pull the old “Ross Gelbspan trick” of alleging “evil intent of monied interests to confuse and sidetrack the scientific debate”.

      And just in time for the run-up to Paris 2015

      Exxon-Mobil, BTW, has likely (TM – IPCC) donated far more to “Green” organizations and research than all funding from all sources provided to skeptics – ever.

      • “Witchdoctors” (traditional healers vilified by missionaries) provide about 85% of frontline medical services in deep rural areas of Africa.They also accept chickens.

        Comparing traditional healers (sangoma, iQira, iNyanga etc) with climate scientists is an affront to science. The fact that they know the available renewable resources that can provide medical benefit should not distract us from recognising that they are far more skilled than Western medical practitioners at treating psychosomatic illnesses – often a major portion of clinical visits. They are successful because they take the time necessary to make a proper diagnosis and know how to build the patient’s confidence to overcome stress-related conditions. My doctor pushes pills, then more pills for dealing with the side-effects of the first pills.

      • A quote from a medical consultant:
        “95% of conditions will get better with no intervention; the art of the consultant is convincing the patient that the consultant had something to do with it.”

  1. What I find interesting is it seems like climate modelling hasn’t advanced much in 30 years. Even with the exponential increase in computing power over those years the same issues seem to be raised about computer models and simulating the earth’s response to CO2.

    • If the code doesn’t change, all the super computers do is generate the same garbage out.. only faster.

      • More computing power allows you to decrease the size of the computational cells that the atmosphere and oceans are divided into. Smaller cells means that fewer features have to be parameterized and rounding errors build more slowly.
        Of course if the algorithms themselves and the data used for tuning are garbage, then it won’t make any difference.

    • rgb[at]duke has commented frequently on this. If you trust his opinion with regard to what would really be necessary to begin to attempt reasonably accurate modeling, computing power will need to go up by around 10^6 for the current best available super-duper computers.

      • + differential equations don’t model well on sequential & linear digital computers. Faster processing doesn’t compensate for a flawed algorithm.

      • I agree that no mafter how much computing power you have, if they are using the wrong equations, assumptions, and analysis, the only thing they will get is more of the same wrong predictions from the last 20 years. I think the proof that the math is wrong is in the constant failed predictions.

      • Faster processing isn’t meant to compensate for flawed algorithms,. it’s there to allow you to calculate better algorithms in a times span less than the heat death of the universe….;)

      • The math is seldom (if ever) wrong.

        What is wrong is the model to which the math is applied. If the model does not behave exactly the same as the earth (or real universe), then no math can make the two behave identically.
        g

        And don’t forget, that in the end, Heisenberg, will never allow you to get the correct answer (if there even is one).

        g

    • It’s worse than just GIGO. The algorithms used inside the models don’t reflect real-world behavior of gases/water in the wild, where interactions and inconsistent mixing are chaotic, unlike the experience in a lab.

      • Sir, you have breathed in far more than your fair share of that marvellous substance that allows life on this planet to thrive. Your bill is in the post. Live long and prosper.

        (and thank you btw)

    • Stove
      October 22, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      What I find interesting is it seems like climate modelling hasn’t advanced much in 30 years. Even with the exponential increase in computing power over those years the same issues seem to be raised about computer models and simulating the earth’s response to CO2.

      I must disagree. Climate modelling HAS advanced. The computers are much more powerful now. The programs are much more complex.
      Their problem is that reality has disagreed with their output.
      So on the computer end only, they have advanced. On the “This will happen unless we do this” end…..they might have a future in the computer gaming industry.
      “What might have happened if Admiral Jellico hadn’t ordered that turn shortly before the German fleet was spotted?”
      Whatever outcome the model may spit out, it won’t change anything real.
      Our real problem is that climate “gaming” is being used as an excuse to try to change everything.

      • You are correct, But only if the they factor in the cause of Sir Admiral Beatty saying, “There is something wrong with our bloody ships today” :-l
        michaelv

    • Advances seem to indicate much lower climate sensitivity which means a no-worry situation re CO2. That is why their is only one formula to learn if you want to be a climate scientist and the terms are unchangeable. They have been clinging to the high climate sensitivity and filling the atmosphere with aerosols and other things to keep scary climate science from changing.

    • It’s climate physics that has not improved much in the last 30 years.

      Really, climate physics hasn’t improved much over the last 50 years because the physics used by Manabe and Wetherald, 1967 is pretty much the same as the physics used in climate models today.

      The reason for no improvement in physics is because all the money and effort has been siphoned off into climate modeling.

      If the treatment of Richard Lindzen is representative, one might conclude that climate modelers are hostile to climate physicists, because new physics may falsify the model. So, starvation of climate physics suits the current Gospel approach to climate modeling.

      Climate modeling itself has improved only to the extent that the models have gotten more phenomenologically detailed and the computing power has improved by many orders of magnitude. But climate models are no more predictive today than they were in 1967.

      • The models suffer from four effects:
        1. As noted above, the cell resolution is still too poor to be very useful.
        2. The mechanisms simulated are completely unphysical — ignoring the real world’s behavior.
        3. The temperature and other records they are being tuned with are the adjusted, politicized records.
        4. And any model runs that don’t produce politically desired results are discarded.

        With that combination, it is no surprise that out-of-sample modeling so poorly compares with reality, both in the past and going forward.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

      • Sorry, I meant to say that the series is an attempt to revise the models, identify the errors in them and propose a corrected set of models to be use for the climate model.

      • I have glanced at that work, no more. But I think the real problem with all the models is the attempt to integrate what is fundamentally a set of fractal equations, and I don’t think Dr Evans’ model is doing anything to fix this.

        In my opinion, what is needed is to treat the Earth like the chaotic system it is. When you do that, you start to think more in terms of chaos theory, for instance attractors. Wherever you start in the input, you will find yourself being pulled to them. I could point to two climate attractors – call them ice age and temperate. The Earth seems to be stable in either of them, but swaps to the other after a period.

        Just my 10 cents worth.

    • It is wrong to call these computer models they are mathematical models run on computers. Calling them computer models gets us into a silly discussion about computing power as is seen below. If the math is wrong, or doesn’t reflect reality then the results are wrong, regardless of how fast computer get.

      • Your point is well taken. An erroneous formula, such as exist in profusion in many Standards and Regulations, can provide an erroneous answer eventually or quickly depending on the resources applied. It is not really garbage in and garbage out, it is data in and garbage out. DIGO. The problem may be the data, but that is all we have. If the formulae are defective it won’t matter because the answer (a prediction of a future state) is going to be incorrect.

        If the IPCC accept that the data is not defective, then the poor performance of the models has to be attributed to the formulae. If the data is defective (sampling errors, site bias and all that) the result could also be wrong even if the formulae are correct. Either way the process is not producing a useful prediction of the future state of the climate.

      • There is an important distinction to be understood here.

        You can get wrong answers for two reasons.

        1/. You started with the wrong model that doesn’t apply to the physical reality. GIGO.

        2/. You had the right model, but had to approximate so much that the answer it gave is meaningless. Kilometre grids where significant stuff happens in 100 meter grids or less .. hourly plots where stuff happens in minutes, approximating dust instead of counting grains…etc..

        In the latter case computing power allows you to us a finer grid, and for finite element analysis of chaotic time series, that means you can predict further ahead.

        If your computer tales longer to predict the future than the time the future takes to arrive…;-) …then you need a faster computer!

      • The standard approach among climate modelers is (from conversations and papers) that the models are correct. The only problem is parameter uncertainty.

        Modelers then assume that all the simulation errors are already present in the climate base-state, such as a simulation of the 1850 climate. Subtracting the projected climate from the base-state climate is then supposed to produce perfectly accurate anomalies. Except for parameter error.

        The perfect anomalies are justified in terms of linear response theory. But the applicability of linear response theory to climate projection is just an assumption. It has never been tested.

        This is the negligent quality of thinking that powers AGW.

    • Enron was a major player in getting the Kyoto Protocol in place. Shell shows up prominently, and they appear as well in the Climategate emails as funders for East Anglia climate pursuits. BP many years ago made the largest-ever donation to California’s Berkeley University — $500 million! — to fund anything that hard-left Berkeley cared to pursue. Berkeley even complained when BP wanted to be able to make suggestions as to the spending. All the majors have funding footprints in the climate scares.

      Part of the deal, evidently, is that they go along meekly with being whipping boys in the public media, with the promise that the cronyism will ultimately pay off handsomely for them.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  2. “I am guessing that InsideClimate News is counting on readers not doing that and instead just trusting its “reporting” and “analysis.”

    – that’s exactly it, and that’s what their readers will do, too. Why bother with facts?

    • “Ignorance is strength” George Orwell ‘1984’
      The strength of the alarmist argument relies upon ignorance.

    • I’ve read the “smoking gun” Exxon memo. There’s nothing whatever dishonest in it. It’s a straightforward description of contemporaneous thinking about CO2.

      The major critical difference between the Exxon memo and the current approach to climatology, is that the Exxon memo is honest about the huge uncertainty in climate modeling.

      So, the climatological effect of CO2, if any, is recognized in the memo as unquantifiable. This very basic scientific integrity toward data and theory is the central factor that is completely and entirely missing from the modern alarmist monologue.

  3. My experience of climate science in late 70’s, early 80’s was that everybody who knew anything about it was ringing the alarm bells as loud as they could. The difficulty was drawing attention to the potential scale and nature of the problem. It was an issue that was not understood or taken seriously by anyone except those working in the field.
    Now the situation is polar opposite and the people who did the early work and fort to bring the issue to public consciousness are condemned for obscuring the issue.

    Revisionary historians at their worst.

    • When I was in college in the late 60’s/early 70’s the fear was global cooling. My geology professor dispelled this as nonsense having an understanding of the geological record. I am sure his reaction to CAGW would be the same today.

      • However, if he is still living he is no doubt retired and would be considered as senile if he retorted against the climate change meme.

  4. McKibben, for instance, wrote, “Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.”

    …wow, who would have thought that Exxon was smarter than 97% of climate scientists…and Bill McKibben

    • In those early days, wasn’t the concern for Global Cooling. No doubt any discussion of Global Warming would have brought up the d****r word.

    • Guardian – McKibben

      “Exxon knew all that there was to know about climate change decades ago, and instead of alerting the rest of us denied the science and obstructed the politics of global warming.”

      jGuardian knew in the previous decade that fossil fuels were going to destroy the biosphere. Where did the Guardian Media Group have some of it’s investment funds invested? Fossil fuels according to the Guardian in April 2015. It coulda been an April Fools joke coz you canna make this up capm!

      Guardian – Wednesday 1 April 2015
      Why the Guardian Media Group is getting out of fossil fuels
      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/01/guardian-media-group-divesting-fossil-fuels

      Previously they saw the hypocrisy of someone else lending to fossil fuels, while having some of their investment funds invested in fossil fuels! LOL

      Guardian – 8 December 2011
      European Investment Bank criticised for ‘hypocrisy’ of fossil fuel lending
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/08/european-investment-bank-fossil-fuel

      Ya canna make this up capm.

    • Really? which fossil energy company are you talking about. Got any names/quotes because the Democrats have been claiming for years the big, reliable companies are ignoring green energy. Were they lying?

      • Yes they were lying. Just because mom and pop were democrats doesn’t mean that their party is above reproach:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Gorgonio_Pass_Wind_Farm

        “In August 1997, ExxonMobil and Southern California Edison jointly constructed a combination oil refinery and storage facility. The plant continues to operate as a refinery while at the same time storing a healthy oil reserve. The refinery and storage facility works in tandem with the wind farm to utilize the energy created in the necessary processes in the refinery process.[4]”

  5. If anyone should know about modelling complex, multiparameter systems it is Exxon. A standard of field production is to build a reservoir model, based on well and seismic information, to assist in field optimisation. Programs such as Eclipse are similar to climate models. Reservoirs can be extremely complex, and the first step in using the model is to see if a good hind cast of field performance can be achieved, before trying any predictive stuff. Anyone who has used such models knows full well that it is very easy for the model to wander off into the wrong part of multi parameter space, and produce garbage. Forward prediction gets worse the further one moves from present day. Complex though reservoirs are, they are nowhere near as messy as the climate system. I doubt any practising reservoir engineer would be impressed by the predictions decades ahead that are rammed down our throats by the climate ‘modellers’

    • Having worked for Exxon/Esso in the past, the Exxon Research Labs were legendary and would put most universities to shame. Exxon employed some of the top scientists from all fields and their work in geology, particularly in regard to past sea level changes, has become part of geological curricula in universities. Their scientific research and rigour would leave modern climate “scientists ” for dead. There is just so much wrong with the fundamentals of climate “science”.

  6. FTR – The Los Angeles Times, a couple weeks back, filled their Sunday’s front page with their own “investigative report,”

    What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic By Sara Jerving, Katie Jennings, Masako Melissa Hirsch and Susanne Rust Here: http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/#about

    “About this story: Over the last year, the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, with the Los Angeles Times, has been researching the gap between Exxon Mobil’s public position and its internal planning on the issue of climate change. As part of that effort, reporters reviewed hundreds of documents housed in archives in Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and at the University of Texas. They also reviewed scientific journals and interviewed dozens of experts, including former Exxon Mobil employees. This is the first in a series of occasional articles.”

    Sounds like more to come?

    Then, the paper’s editorial board weighed in, with, “Exxon’s damaging denial on climate change.” Here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-exxon-climate-change-20151015-story.html

    Oddly, I see no reference (quick search through it) to the “InsideClimate News,” report. Weird.

  7. CO2 has no effect on climate. This has been demonstrated for at least 500 million years with enough CO2 in the atmosphere for life to evolve and no sustained temperature change. Identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).

    Observation that CO2 has no effect on climate is also documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845.

  8. I just don’t feel to bad for Exxon and Shell. When they climbed in bed with the CAGW faction to kill off coal (their major competitor) and promote natural gas for immense profits, anyone with an IQ over 40 would have figured out that Natural Gas and the oil companies would be next to be sacrificed on the CAGW altar.

    • The only problem is that even if you did not use either Gas or Oil for energy production, you will need them as feed stock for just about everything that modern civilization depends on. I don’t think the Greenies fully comprehend that…

      • You are assuming that the greenies give a flying flip about modern civilization.
        Most of them would love to have the rest of us return to the 1700’s, or earlier.

      • …you will need them as feed stock for just about everything that modern civilization depends on

        No. you dont. Hydrocarbons are synthesised by plants from water, CO2 and energy (sunlight).

        Humans can synthesise them from water, CO2 and energy (of some other sort e.g. nuclear)

        The only irreplaceable things are elements. We cannot synthesise gold, copper, tin, aluminium, lithium etc. etc.

        There were made in cosmic scale supernovae that we have no hope of reproducing on earth for many decades, if at all.

        But everything else can be made given enough cheap energy.

        Do you see why energy is massively geopolitically important, and who controls it controls the civilised world?

    • Not only that, they were hoping to be given the task of pumping CO2 into the ground to extract more oil/gas and be paid to do it. Currently, it costs them millions to do so.

    • Good Catch, Mareeba! I am so used to nonsense from that crowd, that item slid right past me.
      In any event, the accusations make no sense. If AGW was real, Exxon could use their inside knowledge, from their own research, to get ahead of the issue. Then they could ride the wave and make a ton of money. And rhere would be nothing wrong with that. They positioned themselves to provide a new set of goods and services as the demand developed.

      But it did not happen. Why?
      Because AGW did not happen, that’s why. It so much did not happen that after 35 years of AGW and CAGW, it had to be rebranded as “Climate Change”. Sad, really.
      Now they are trying to claim that Exxon knew about it all along, even though AGW is still (18+ years) not happening. Pathetic.

  9. How many times has the government investigated “big Oil” over the years with no findings of misconduct?
    More from crazy Socialist Senator Sanders. I wonder which Federal law is in his head:
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/257489-sanders-calls-for-federal-probe-of-exxonSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is asking the Justice Department to investigate whether ExxonMobil Corp.’s climate change research strategy broke federal law.

    The Democratic presidential candidate cited a recent investigation by InsideClimate News that found that Exxon, prior to its merger with Mobil, concluded from its research in the 1970s that climate change is a real threat but later spent millions of dollars sowing doubt about global warming.

    Sanders asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to determine whether the oil giant’s actions were illegal.
    “These reports, if true, raise serious allegations of a misinformation campaign that may have caused public harm similar to the tobacco industry’s actions — conduct that led to federal racketeering convictions,” Sanders wrote in the Tuesday letter.

    “Based on available public information, it appears that Exxon knew its product was causing harm to the public, and has spent millions of dollars to obfuscate the facts in the public discourse,” he said. “The information that has come to light about Exxon’s past activities raises potentially serious concerns that should be investigated.”

    Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), another Democratic presidential candidate, called for a Justice probe of Exxon on Friday, based on the InsideClimate series and a similar Los Angeles Times investigation.

    “We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer. Let’s do the same for oil companies & climate change,” he tweeted, with a link to a story about two House Democrats asking for the investigation.

    Exxon has denied the charges in the media reports and pointed to the money it has spent on climate change research.

    “Our scientists and researchers were among the first to grapple with the fact there might be a connection between the carbon dioxide emissions from humanity’s use of fossil fuels and climate fluctuations,” Ken Cohen, Exxon’s top lobbyist, wrote in a recent blog post.

    “It should surprise no one that we have remained committed to pursuing climate change research since that initial discovery.”

    • Sherman, set the WAYBAK machine to 1972. “Yes, Mr Peabody”.
      It has been a long time since the rumors of the great 100 mpg carburetor conspiracy. Back then, fuel injection was restricted to dragsters. (Fuelies, we called them, or Top Fuel). Nobody could imagine that in 20 years, everybody would be driving one.
      Aaahh, the memories.

    • The 100 mpg carburetor exists; I’ve seen it demonstrated. Still has a little glitch, but should be available as soon as they can make it work almost as well uphill as it did downhill. Maybe then they’ll give me back my lawn-mower.

      • @ jorge, thanks, LOL +1 for sure. ( on the downhill you put the gears in neutral switch of the engine and depending on the hill the GPM is actually even better! Oh dang the good old days)

  10. Apparently all Exxon did was reference the climastrologists GCM “predictions” (and we know what they’re worth). The work that Exxon did was simple CO2 projections versus oil burned. So looks like the only thing they did wrong was use blundered temp forecast data to start with. So now congress will attempt to persecute them for not being true to the IPCC and their “experts” meanderings.
    http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes-2/#comment-2053709

  11. Bill McKibben is one of the most untrustworthy commentators of the times. He claimed in 2013 that “we had already melted the Arctic.” Well, the Arctic is not melted at all. So never trust this guy. He is a liar.

      • Made me think of this old joke:

        A guy walks into a bar and sees a really foxy lady.
        He up to her and says, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”
        She says, “Sure!”
        He says, “How about for $10?”
        She slaps him and says, “What kind of a girl do you think I am!?”
        He says, “We’ve established that. Now we’re just haggling over price.”

      • To me this is McKibben’s timely distraction from the whole RICO fiasco, with a bonus of something to chat about in Paris.

    • Don’t be too hard on Bill, he isn’t a climate scientist, in fact he isn’t scientist at all, he really is just a know nothing loudmouth. You can’t blame him for being a fool.

      • I’m not being left much of a choice here. He’s either a fool or a liar.

        Despite Anthony’s report of a courteous meeting with him, I suspect he is both. More double-dipping.

  12. slightly off topic: but noticed the local “weather report” now has “climate center” and “climate forecast” instead of weather center and weather forecast like they did but a week ago…. “curiouser and curiouser”

    Cheers Joe!

  13. “…They point to corporate efforts to fill the substantial gaps in knowledge that existed during the earliest years of climate change research…”

    And which still exist.

  14. WUWT has no connection to Exxon-Mobil, and was not asked to republish the article, it is provided as counter-balance to some of the ridiculous charges that are being circulated about use of the RICO act to silence and/or prosecute climate skeptics.
    =============
    No wonder, the way that is working out for them.
    The truth will out.

  15. More important than who is funding the skeptics are the hard questions the skeptics are asking. If climate science knows the answers they should answer these questions. If instead they choose to go after the funding and shut down the questions is a tacit admission that the don’t have the answers.

  16. Okay it was known at the time of the “Late Great Unpleasantness” tobacco was bad for you, Perhaps they had greater concerns in the matter of life & death at the time. Now pollution is common knowledge. But Co2 as a pollutant is only by unsubstantiated models.

    http://tobacco.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=Introduction

    For myself i am going to build a 1-35 tamya T-34 kit I have found that I have had since 1984.
    I will be careful to vent the glue fumes. .. I know that as a kid, when I bought the model (and hundreds! more}
    michael

  17. AGW, Climate Change or whatever they call it now is not and was never based on science. Whether we call it politics or religion is mostly a question of personal preference as it is some of both. It is about, and almost entirely about, power. Often called “secular humanism” it preaches or argues hysterically that humans know everything, control everything and are to blame or be credited for everything.
    Talking to the left is like talking to preschoolers. The only thing they are sure off is they need to feel empowered, important and loved. But they love to be listened to and taken seriously.
    I LIKE preschoolers.

  18. One thing I have learned over the last five or six years is that the more we learn about the Earth’s climate systems, the more we understand that we don’t know as much as we need to.

    So here is a graph from the 1980’s, back before we knew ANYTHING. And, as with any good conspiracy theory, SOMEONE already knew EVERYTHING.

    I hope to hear more stuff like this from Bill McKibben and the gang.

  19. Turns out most of us knew everything about CAGW in the 1980s as well.
    @015 nearly 2016 and still no measured AGW.
    So nothing in ignorance 1984.
    Nothing in reality 2015

  20. In listening courageously to the commentary about this on ‘Democracy Now!’ and the associated McKibben interview, chiefly as a misguided attempt to explore aversion therapy, I merely re-encountered tiresome, low wattage patsie journalism at its malodorous best.

  21. Looks like things are emerging and rather than a whole lot of people accepting the fact they had been duped by propaganda, in their stubborness refuse to face the truth.

  22. Like so much of the CAGW rhetoric, the attack on Exxon-Mobil and the oil industry in general is all about misdirection. The implication is that the petroleum producers are the ones who have the most to lose is severe restrictions are placed on the emissions of greenhouse gases. This obscures the fact that almost all the emissions occur at the combustion point; that is, the ones who would be most affected are not the producers but rather the consumers of fossil fuels. Companies like Exxon-Mobil, Shell and BP can always invest in alternative energy sources and in fact are already doing so. However, if, as the IPCC claims is necessary, the OECD countries try to cut emissions by 80%, it will eliminate most of the energy services upon which modern society depends. The victims of CAGW idiocy are the people, not the oil companies!

  23. Yes this is absolutely true, EXXON is evil.

    If EXXON had came clean the entire globe would have immediately stopped using energy or reduced it drastically. No more trucks or cars or electric can openers for you! The economy would have blossomed due to the bicycle, thermal underwear and candle industries booming.

    On the other hand, this internet thing would not have happened. I like my internet. Forget the evil stuff, EXXON deserves a medal for ensuring the birth of the internet!

    Sarc aside in a sane world, EXXON does not need to be vilified or exalted as heroes, there was and is a growing demand for energy which they provide at a good profit. If there are any villains, it is us, humanity at large, who creates this huge demand. This includes the meat-head journalists who write nonsensically dishonest green propaganda.

  24. These are truly the most ridiculous accusations.

    So what if Exxon were well informed about the state of Alarmist AGW theories?

    What legal obligation is on the board to accept that as gospel? Are they not allowed to disagree? Silly me, not in the minds of Climate Alarmists they aren’t

  25. The fact that Climate Change policies include biomass and ethanol belies the entire premise of Global Warming as these actually create more carbon emissions than common petroleum.
    All this points to the other “tent pole” … sustainability. This is all about “Peak Oil”. It’s about preparing the world for the end of oil, but lying to the masses with a tale fit for a cheap TV preacher.

    Climate Change is the “secular Apocalypse”.

  26. Mike the Morlock
    October 22, 2015 at 5:50 pm : That problem was from using Battlecruisers against Battleships, but they were dispersing the German fire. The Falklands showed the real mettle of Battlecruisers in WW1. And our Battleships did the trick at Jutland. Never saw the Grand Fleet again in the war, and they fled for good reason. Results do count.

Comments are closed.