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.
In 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
Good point.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/
Mods. Comments not enabled.
Oops! Werner already.
Now they are…
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
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.
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.
“So here is a graph from the 1980’s,..”
Do you have a link to this graph? I don’t know what you are referring to…
Sorry…there are two articles right next to each other on WUWT discussing similar topics and I commented in the wrong one. Here is the link to the other article. The graph is a short way down the page.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/
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
“What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1) ” now has comments …..
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.
A rich vein of humour on this thread. Thank you all.
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.
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!
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.
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
Exxon should sue the R20 for defamation.
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”.
We’ve got enough oil to last for several hundred years, and enough coal to last for several thousand.
No need to start worrying just yet.
MarkW says: “enough coal to last for several thousand.”
..
You are off by an order of magnitude.
…
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves
..
Based on U.S. coal production in 2013 at 984.8 million short tons, the U.S. estimated recoverable coal reserves would last about 261 years.
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
Exxon’s response to the anklebiters.
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.