HuffPost: The Dumbest #ExxonKnew Article… EVAH!

Guest ridiculing by David Middleton

Hat tip to Clyde Spencer

Exxon’s Climate Denial Set To Face First Public Scrutiny As Legal Woes Mount

Alexander C. Kaufman
HuffPost•March 19, 2019


It’s been nearly four years since leaked documents revealed Exxon Mobil Corp.understood that fossil fuel emissions caused the planet to warm before it began funding a Big Tobacco-style misinformation campaign to discredit climate science.

Now the world’s largest publicly traded oil company will face public questions for the first time over its role in creating a climate crisis that threatens to upend human civilization and render dozens of major cities uninhabitable before the end of the century.

On Thursday, European Parliament members are set to hold a hearing in Brussels that could strip Exxon Mobil of lobbying access and deepen the oil giant’s mounting legal woes.

[…]

Yahoo! News

I don’t know which is funnier… The Huffington Post (hereinafter HuffPuff) blog post… Or the fact that Yahoo! thought this was news.

Exxon’s Climate Denial Set To Face First Public Scrutiny As Legal Woes Mount

You mean these legal woes?

NY Attorney General Defies Judge’s Order in Exxon Case


On Thursday, European Parliament members are set to hold a hearing in Brussels that could strip Exxon Mobil of lobbying access and deepen the oil giant’s mounting legal woes.


HuffPuff

This will clearly deepen ExxonMobil’s nonexistent legal woes…

On 21 March 2019, the PETI and ENVI Committees will hold a joint Public Hearing on “Climate Change Denial.” The aim of the hearing is to explore the topic of climate change denial under different perspectives and to examine the communication techniques used in politics or by private companies and other actors in society to mislead the public on the negative impact of certain industrial activities or policies on the climate.

EU Parliament

ExxonMobil declined the invitation to participate in the hearing.


The organizers say Exxon Mobil declined an invitation to testify. Spokesmen for the company did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.

Under new rules, the European Union’s lawmakers could ban the company from lobbying the transnational parliament overseeing a market that in 2015 made up 14 percent of its global oil and gas production and into which it invested $2 billion last year to expand a new refinery. 


HuffPuff

If ExxonMobil lobbyists were banned from the EU parliament, it would have this much effect on their business:

While the broad category “Europe” accounted for 14% of ExxonMobil’s 2017 “upstream” business sector, these were the highlights:

  • Captured Cyprus offshore Block 10
  • Generated significant cash flow with divestment of operated assets in Norway
  • Supplied nearly 4 Bcfd of natural gas to European markets via pipeline gas and LNG
  • Completed concept selection for Neptun Deep project offshore Romania

I suppose the EU could get that 4 Bcf/d of natural gas from Putin. However, the EU parliament-overseen “market” does not make “up 14 percent of its global oil and gas production.”

  • The 4 Bcf/d of natural gas was produced elsewhere and sold to European nations.
  • With the divestment of ExxonMobil’s operated assets in Norway, the oil & gas production is from non-operated assets: “We retain a large presence in Norway through significant equity participation in 20 partner-operated offshore fields, with net production of 102,000 barrels of liquids and 397 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.”
  • The offshore projects in Romania and Cyprus aren’t producing yet and the EU Parliament has about as much control over this as the Obama Maladministration had over frac’ing.

The participants in the EU Parliament witch burning will be Naomi Oreske’s intern, Geoffrey Supran, and a handful of other political hacks.

The HuffPuff blog post actually became more Billy Madison as it went along…


In a boilerplate statement distributed since InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times published documents revealing the company understood the threat of climate change as far back as 1981, Exxon Mobil said: “We unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research contained in media reports that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research.”

HuffPuff

“Inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research” is an understatement. ExxonMobil and its predecessor companies didn’t know anything that wasn’t available to anyone with a subscription to the Journal of Geophysical Research and other publicly available journals.

This is typical of the inaccurate distortions…


1968 “THE ROBINSON REPORT”
In 1968, scientists with the Stanford Research Institute reported to the American Petroleum Institute about their research on atmospheric pollutants of interest to the industry. Summarizing the available science, the scientists saved their starkest warnings for carbon dioxide (CO2). They cautioned that rising levels of CO2 would likely result in rising global temperatures and warned that, if temperatures increased significantly, the result could be melting ice caps, rising sea levels, warming oceans, and serious environmental damage on a global scale.

One of the reproduced pages from this damning report referenced Möller (1963) as the source of a 1-7 °F rise in temperature due to a 25% rise in atmospheric CO2


1968 “THE ROBINSON REPORT”

Since Möller (1963) wasn’t a secret oil industry document, anyone else with a subscription to the Journal of Geophysical Research would have also been privy to this information. And anyone who even bothered to read the abstract of this damning paper would also know what we know today: “The theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable” if you factor in clouds…


On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate

F. Möller
Abstract

The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.

Journal of Geophysical Research

The full text of the paper is even better…


In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases).  Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg.  According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δ= -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δ= 0.

[…]

We recognize that for Δ= 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite.  Very small variations effect a reversal of sign or huge amplifications.

It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.

[…]

These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value.  No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied.  Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.

The idiots have even cited Vail’s work on sea level cycles as “evidence” of some sort of conspiracy. I hope that ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and/or Chevron file a RICO lawsuit against these @$$ hats. Every single one of the “secret” Exxon documents brandished by these morons can be parried in a similar fashion.

I’m surprised they haven’t gone after the authors of my college textbooks.

Historical geology…


Suggestion that changing carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere could be a major factor in climate change dates from 1861, when it was proposed by British physicist John Tyndall.

[…]

Unfortunately we cannot estimate accurately changes of past CO2 content of either atmosphere or oceans, nor is there any firm quantitative basis for estimating the the magnitude of drop in carbon dioxide content necessary to trigger glaciation.  Moreover the entire concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect is controversial, for the rate of ocean-atmosphere equalization is uncertain.

Dott, Robert H. & Roger L. Batten.  Evolution of the Earth.  McGraw-Hill, Inc.  Second Edition 1976.  p. 441.

Meteorology…


FORECASTING THE FUTURE. We can now try to decide if we are now in an interglacial stage, with other glacials to follow, or if the world has finally emerged from the Cenozoic Ice Age. According to the Milankovitch theory, fluctuations of radiation of the type shown in Fig. 16-18 must continue and therefore future glacial stages will continue. According to the theory just described, as long as the North and South Poles retain their present thermally isolated locations, the polar latitudes will be frigid; and as the Arctic Ocean keeps oscillating between ice-free and ice-covered states, glacial-interglacial climates will continue.

Finally, regardless of which theory one subscribes to, as long as we see no fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend, and the presence of ice on Greenland and Antarctica indicates that no change has occurred, we can expect that the fluctuations of the past million years will continue.

Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp 463-464

Physical geography…


The atmosphere’s blanketing effect over the earth’s surface has been compared to the functioning of a greenhouse.  Short-wave sunlight passes as easily through the glass of the greenhouse as through the atmosphere.  Because glass is opaque to the long-wave radiation from the warm interior of the greenhouse, it hinders the escape of energy.

As a planet, the earth is not warming or cooling appreciably on the average, because it loses as much radiant energy as it gains.

Kolenkow, Robert J., Reid A. Bryson, Douglas B. Carter, R. Keith Julian, Robert A. Muller, Theodore M. Oberlander, Robert P. Sharp & M. Gordon Wolman. Physical geography today : a portrait of a planet.  Del Mar, Calif. : CRM Books, [1974]. p. 64.

Funny thing, my Geomorphology textbook was written by Don Easterbrook… and it’s about the only Earth Science textbook I have that didn’t feature such “Big Tobacco-style misinformation.”

Even funnier thing, my college textbooks were turning a blind eye to the Climate Crisis du jour:

Science News, March 1, 1975

Fortunately climate models saved us from The Ice Age Cometh!

That ’70s Climate Show

We know for a fact that ExxonMobil was not the source of That ’70s Climate Show. Leonard Nimoy was the source…

While ExxonMobil, in one of its earlier incarnations, was valiantly defending the world against the godless hordes of glaciers marching on New York City…

Meanwhile, the HuffPuff blogger hadn’t even begun to be-clown himself…


Yet, in January, a report by researchers at more than a dozen environmental groups calculated that U.S. oil and gas production, particularly in the vast Permian Basin of West Texas, is set to add 1,000 coal plants’ worth of climate pollution to the atmosphere by 2050. That would make reaching the emissions cuts called for in the latest United Nations report nearly impossible.

Exxon Mobil’s response was telling. Two months later, the company said in a press release that it doubled its production in the Permian Basin last year and would “increase” and “accelerate” its output to 1 million barrels per day over the next five years.


HuffPuff

Hey Alexander C. Kaufman, HuffPuff blogger extraordinaire, here’s a hint: ExxonMobil is an “oil & gas company.” It is supposed to “increase” and “accelerate” its output… Technically, that’s what all businesses are supposed to do: “increase” and “accelerate” their output.

Alexander C. Kaufman, you earned five Billy Madison’s. Yahoo! News earned twenty-five Billy Madison’s for thinking his idiotic blog post was news.

Author’s note: If you have any doubt as to when I was being sarcastic and when I was being serious, err on the side of sarcasm.

Note to Clyde Spencer: a mutual textbook of ours is now available in digital format: The Oceans Their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology by Sverdrup, Johnson & Fleming.


References

Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975.

Dott, Robert H. & Roger L. Batten.  Evolution of the Earth.  McGraw-Hill, Inc.  Second Edition 1976. 

Easterbrook, Don J. Principles of geomorphology.New York : McGraw-Hill, [c1969]

Kolenkow, Robert J., Reid A. Bryson, Douglas B. Carter, R. Keith Julian, Robert A. Muller, Theodore M. Oberlander, Robert P. Sharp & M. Gordon Wolman. Physical geography today : a portrait of a planet.  Del Mar, Calif. : CRM Books, [1974].

Möller, F. (1963), On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate. J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.

Vail, P. R., R.M. Mitchum, and S. Thompson, III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 3: Relative changes of sea level from coastal onlap, in C.E. Payton, ed., AAPG Memoir 26: Seismic stratigraphy—Applications to hydrocarbon exploration: 63-97 (1977)


Further Reading

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken

“Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’

“Smoke & Fumes,” Part Deux: Exxon Knew “The entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is questionable.”

Even dumber than the dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’

What Did Shell Know and When Did They Know It?

The Guardian: “Climate change denial won’t even benefit oil companies soon”… Is it even grammatically possible to deny climate change?

NY Attorney General Defies Judge’s Order in Exxon Case

0 0 votes
Article Rating
66 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Craig
March 19, 2019 6:07 pm

The problem is that you’re looking at like a conservative. All of this makes sense to liberals.

R Shearer
Reply to  Craig
March 19, 2019 6:23 pm

And they ought to be going after the Rockefeller Foundation to pay reparations.

Chaamjamal
March 19, 2019 6:11 pm

Two tweets on this subject

Bill McKibben
New documents show yet more evidence that the oil industry knew an awful lot about climate change awfully early on. Many thanks

Response
The information was in the public domain. It was not a secret evil conspiracy. The only charge is that they “downplayed” the role of CO2 in 1970.
BUT BACK THEN SO DID CLIMATE SCIENTISTS saying that the aerosol effect can overcome the CO2 effect. Back then they had to explain cooling not warming.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/23/the-1970s-cooling-anomaly-of-agw/

Spuds
Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 19, 2019 8:59 pm

“Well, I wasn’t expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition!!!!!”?” https://youtu.be/1N6OOWtCYQA

I wonder what these people would of done during Stone Age as glaciers were retreating and ice dams were melting ~13K years ago ???

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/the-great-flood-of-new-york

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Spuds
March 20, 2019 7:59 am

No need to wonder, its recorded history: They would start burning witches.
Beware the ignorant fearful mobs.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Chaamjamal
March 20, 2019 1:31 pm

Bill McKibben
New documents show yet more evidence that the oil industry knew an awful lot about climate change awfully early on. Many thanks

But…but…but.. They weren’t “climate scientist” and “The Consensus” said we were heading for an ice age!

Sweet Old Bob
March 19, 2019 6:13 pm

HuffPuff is good , but I like HoofPoo better …
😉

Gamecock
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
March 19, 2019 6:54 pm

I like Huffing and Puffington Post.

Reply to  Gamecock
March 19, 2019 7:18 pm

How about Enough Is Enough Post. as in Stop, I can’t take anymore.

So ridiculous !!

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 19, 2019 7:49 pm

comment image

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
March 20, 2019 1:23 am

Their basic mission is to get their lies into the public eye, considering most fools believe the first thing the read, see or hear. After that, it’s more difficult for anyone to rebut it no matter how ridiculous the original assertion.

Schitzree
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
March 20, 2019 8:19 am

Yes! Repeat the lie, over and over. People will remember reading this, and there is never any doubt in the articles that they might be wrong.

If it ever makes it to court, and the lies are exposed, they will not report it. And the next time it comes up they will continue to act like it’s true. Most of the people will never even question it.

Hell, many have come to believe that Extreme Weather really has gotten worse. The whole Climate Crises is Built on a foundation of lies. The only real question now is can they keep it going long enough to grab enough power that they can make speaking the truth a crime.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
March 19, 2019 8:46 pm

Can’t compare with the WaPoo.

Mike Rosati
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
March 20, 2019 4:07 am

My kind of satire! Facts = Oats They ingest the knowledge/evidence, process it as only they can – Viola! Hoof Poo!

Steven Fraser
Reply to  Mike Rosati
March 20, 2019 1:27 pm

We usd to call that a ‘Stomach’

Marcos
March 19, 2019 6:14 pm

Ha…I live in the town that Humble Oil was named after. Or it’s vice-versa

Spuds
Reply to  David Middleton
March 19, 2019 8:52 pm

Wasn’t it operating as “ESSO” in the US before becoming “EXXON”… In Canada and parts of Europe, “ESSO” exists.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Spuds
March 19, 2019 9:07 pm

I thought they discovered that ESSO sounds like something rude in some language, so changed it. I’ve no idea why it was not changed in the UK or Europe, though.

tom0mason
Reply to  Spuds
March 19, 2019 9:23 pm

Here’s the Esso USA commercial from the late 1950 early 1960s

AGW is not Science
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2019 4:12 am

Thought it was a phonetic spelling for Standard Oil (S.O.).

Phil R
Reply to  David Middleton
March 20, 2019 6:10 pm

When I was a kid (60’s-70’s) my dad told me a joke where the punch line was, “I’m an Esso bee.” Went right over my head, but I think my mom yelled at him. 🙂

g
March 19, 2019 6:19 pm

Would I be mistaken that despite the billions of dollars spent on climate change research that very little has been validated since Moller wrote in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1963 ?

Gwan
March 19, 2019 6:21 pm

Would I be mistaken that despite the billions of dollars spent on climate change research that very little has been validated since Moller wrote in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 1963 ?

Larry in Texas
Reply to  Gwan
March 19, 2019 7:33 pm

No, you would not be mistaken. The catastrophe crowd just thinks you’re no fun. Lol!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gwan
March 20, 2019 1:57 pm

I checked and the record high for today, March 20, was 84*F set in 2012.
Yet the same site in 2014 (2 years after 2012) listed the record high for March 20 as 78*F set in 1921.
Perhaps a good portion of those billions of dollars spent on climate change research was spent on erasers?

Ken
March 19, 2019 6:36 pm

Everyone should go to this guys twitter account and let him know what
the real state of affairs would be if Europe would suddenly not have access to oil markets. I am sure he has not even considered the ramifications of his noble ideas.

LdB
Reply to  Ken
March 19, 2019 6:44 pm

Nah it is more fun to let this play out, watching Europe shooting itself in the foot is always good for a laugh. It was a bit like Merkel inviting half of Africa to come visit what could possibly go wrong.

Gamecock
Reply to  Ken
March 19, 2019 6:55 pm

It’s the decadence of the West. The EU attacks those who keep them alive.

Rob
March 19, 2019 6:40 pm

HuffPoo is an idiot box. I check it several times a day in order to know what the progtard masses are being instructed to believe.
Sad.
Funny.
But sad more than funny.

Steve O
Reply to  Rob
March 19, 2019 7:42 pm

It’s important to hear news from both sides. If you only read Breitbart, you’ll be better informed than if you only read HuffPo, but not as informed as you could be.

SMC
Reply to  Steve O
March 19, 2019 8:06 pm

Some say it is better to be uninformed than to be misinformed.

Jim Reedy
Reply to  SMC
March 19, 2019 8:56 pm

attributed to Mark Twain
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed’

Kevin kilty
March 19, 2019 6:59 pm

No one even needed a subscription, David. A person could read J. Geophy. Res. in the library–didn’t even have to ask for it in a hushed voice at the circulation desk.

HD Hoese
March 19, 2019 7:23 pm

This is what I learned. “The ocean, with its much higher carbon-dioxide content, should act as a reservoir for the atmosphere and the land, but the rates of exchange and the factors determining the equilibrium point are no means clear.” Revelle and Fairbridge, 1957, Chapter 10, Carbonates and Carbon Dioxide. Geological Society of America. Memoir 67(1):242. Easier to remember.

old construction worker
March 19, 2019 7:36 pm

‘The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case.’ ‘self-amplification’? Has there been an increase in the water vapor?
‘used in politics or by private companies and other actors in society to mislead the public on the negative impact of certain industrial activities or policies on the climate.’ Shouldn’t they be looking into “alarmist” which have been misleading us for now many years?

commieBob
Reply to  old construction worker
March 19, 2019 8:19 pm

Hansen’s feedback analysis relies on CO2 increasing the temperature and evaporating more water into the atmosphere, which in turn will trap more heat and raise the temperature even more.

Conventional feedback analysis, of the type used by Hansen, assumes there is infinite energy available. There is a power supply for the amplifier but the analysis ignores it. The problem for Hansen is that the climate’s power supply is the sun. We get a fixed amount of energy from the sun. That, in itself, invalidates Hansen’s analysis. In any event, MOB demolished Hansen by demonstrating that he had handled the feedback incorrectly. link

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  commieBob
March 19, 2019 10:06 pm

I was always taught that that is why thunderstorms form. To release that energy in the atmosphere.

Now that I think about it, I have no idea how it gets released by thunderstorm. But they do have enormous energy in their system.

David Hoffer
March 19, 2019 8:21 pm

Exxon, 269 billion, head office => United States

Royal Dutch Shell, 265 billion, head office => Europe
BP, 223 billion, head office => Europe
Total SA, 212 billion, head office => Europe
Eni, 131 billion, head office => Europe

I guess if your head office is in Europe you get a free pass?

Ed Bo
March 19, 2019 8:57 pm

When I read the long LA Times article on “Exxon Knew”, I just had to laugh.

One of their points in their 2017 article “proving” that Exxon knew was that they designed one offshore oil platform to allow for 500mm sea level rise over its 25 year life (ca 1990 to 2015) — 20 mm per year. Of course, they could have checked and seen that there was only about 50 mm total sea level rise over that period. But that would have involved using actual data…

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Ed Bo
March 19, 2019 10:09 pm

Aren’t they also designed for 60 foot waves?
So now their total height above water is 60 foot 2 inches?

Clyde Spencer
March 19, 2019 9:17 pm

“The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere.”

OK, that goes a long way towards explaining what is happening in the Arctic Winter, but not the Antarctic.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 22, 2019 3:57 am

that goes a long way towards explaining what is happening in the Arctic Winter, … not the Antarctic.
_____________________________________________________

It’s snowing in the Arctic Winter -and- in the Antarctic Winter –

the difference – the difference lies in snow flakes / dust

Tez
March 19, 2019 9:45 pm

They should sue the alarmists for the failed predictions of their distinguished scientists:
The demise of Polar Bears
NYC flooded
Permanent drought in Queensland/ California etc
No more snow.
End of the world in the year 2000
Melting of the polar caps
To name but a few

Chris Hanley
March 19, 2019 10:20 pm

Science News in 19795 thought that an ice age was coming because there wasn’t the sophisticated computer power back then that nowadays enables climate change practitioners to adjust the observational data to reflect what settled science tells them must be happening temperature-change-wise:
comment image

Fiona
March 19, 2019 11:44 pm

The objective is to destroy the brand. As they did with BP and are now going to do with Boeing.

StephenP
March 20, 2019 1:24 am

Why don’t you get runaway warming in actual greenhouses? The atmosphere in greenhouses is usually damp so the proposed increase in temperature could increase the amount of water vapour that is proposed as a major reason for global increase in temperature.
Could it be that with the increase in temperature the outgoing radiation increases until it reaches a dynamic equilibrium with incoming radiation being balances by outgoing?

E J Zuiderwijk
March 20, 2019 2:51 am

Eco loons believe in the man-made-climate-change unicorn. Apparently also Exxon believes in the-man-made-climate-change unicorn. Now one group of believers in unicorns is blaming another group of believers in unicorns that they did not do anything about the, ehh .., unicorns.

Am I watching a Monty Python scetch?

Schitzree
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
March 20, 2019 8:38 am

Monty Python understood far more about human nature then most people gave them credit for.

~¿~

John Endicott
Reply to  Schitzree
March 20, 2019 9:04 am

Well, their sketches certainly did. Listen to some of them talk politics, and they don’t seem to understand as much as their sketches would indicate that they do.

Jim
March 20, 2019 3:40 am

The repressive totalitarian world government regime needs a reason to take over. The HuffPo, greatest spreader of hate an division in the media.

Tom Abbott
March 20, 2019 4:09 am

Great post, David!

Love the Möller quote:

Abstract

“The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.”

And yet we have climate scientists who are just certain that *most* or *all* the warmth of today comes from CO2. Of course, the climate scientists are just speculating because none of them can put a number to the amount of extra warmth CO2 is adding to the atmosphere. All they can do is guess.

Guesses shouldn’t lead to certainty.

markx
March 20, 2019 5:00 am

It is the most ridiculous charge ever conceived.

Those brilliant Exxon scientists somehow fully understood the effects of rising CO2 and the risks of climate change, well before the balance of the world’s climate scientists worked it out by spending billions of dollars and another 40 years to research the matter.

The whole premise reeks. Or those Exxon guys deserve a Nobel Prize for being geniuses.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  markx
March 20, 2019 8:27 am

Plus, it’s blaming the lumberjack for the “forest destruction” of the wooden furniture you ordered all by yourself.

RPT
March 20, 2019 5:50 am

Good facts, but how important are facts?

Having a MSc in physics and a generation of experience, I know a very few facts for sure, and I know a reasonable amount I know that I don’t know. I often “win” a discussion based on facts, just to find that the discussion ended because the opponent run out of non-fact based arguments, not because the opponent realized he was wrong, he just simply lacked the knowledge to understand he was wrong

The entire strategy of the green mob is to put this question before lay-persons who have read the “truth” in the press and from politicians.

As one of the most famous lawyers an orators in history, Cicero, noted more that 2000 years ago, a trial is not about facts, it all about what you can make people believe.

John Endicott
Reply to  RPT
March 20, 2019 6:42 am

Good facts, but how important are facts?

apparently not all that important for some:
“There’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right” – All Out Crazy

March 20, 2019 9:06 am

With the ungodly amount of money being funded by governments for wind and solar energy for a little tiny bit of CO2 reductions at a time, and the government of Canada kicking me out of the country instead of giving me permanent residency as they should have, I am upset with every government in the world right now. I say we give the governments of the world, that were funding wind and solar power, one week to come up with $15 million to fund three hydrocarbon demonstration units. The ZEST™¹ (Zero Emissions SAGD Technology) Process makes Athabasca Bitumen emit 45% lower CO2 emissions than the Average USA Petroleum Refined in the USA, the ZECCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Coal Combustion) Process that make col emit nothing at all, and the ZENGCOM™¹ (Zero Emissions Natural Gas Combustion) process that does the same for natural gas. These three processes when fully utilized will reduce global CO2 emissions by 86.9%.
Since God put the fossil fuels underground for humans to use before they killed all of the whales, and guided my career so that I would know how to develop these processes and then asked me to develop them, I am pretty sure he wants fossil fuel use to continue, and he is not real happy that people are trying to shut it down. Guess who really controls the weather. Since the governments have been funding solar and wind power and I got kicked out of Canada, I say we give them 1 more week and if they don’t come up with $15 million for funding these three demonstration units, they get voted out of office as soon as possible, and industry pool their resources. The petroleum Industry could come up with $5 million for the ZEST™¹ Process Demonstration Unit, the coal industry comes up with $5 million for the ZECCOM™¹ Process Demonstration Unit, and the natural gas industry comes up with the $5 million for the ZENGCOM™¹ Process Demonstration Unit and these can be built wherever industry decides that they should be built. I do believe that industry will want the developer of these processes involved during design, construction, startup, and operation. Having the demonstration units close together would be a real advantage.
Un case the e0mail below does not work r-l0hood@ shaw.ca will work for at east 1 more year.

ResourceGuy
March 20, 2019 12:19 pm

This is one reason HuffPo unionized. It’s grueling, mental cruelty to write and research nonsense to this extent on a regular basis.

Svend Ferdinandsen
March 20, 2019 4:14 pm

Peoble should have known the impact oil use would do, and yet they continued using the products.
Should they stop selling it or should they have put a picture on with a burning globe?

Russ R.
March 21, 2019 6:38 pm

“Now the world’s largest publicly traded oil company will face public questions for the first time over its role in creating a climate crisis that threatens to upend human civilization and render dozens of major cities uninhabitable before the end of the century.”

How is Exxon”s behavior different from the behavior of other oil companies? If all of them quit producing oil, how long before “major cites” become uninhabitable? Weeks before it is chaos. Months before food and basic necessities of life are unavailable!
It is time for oil companies to cut off governments that are governing against the interests of the public.
There is no possibility we can do without oil, in major cities. These prosecutors cannot want it to stop flowing. So the only end game here is a government takeover of oil production. Because that worked so well for Venezuela….

%d bloggers like this: