The incredible collapsing ‘#ExxonKnew’ climate change lie

From The New York Post

Comprehensive Opinion Piece on the ever shrinking lawsuits against Exxon.

On Tuesday, the progressive legal war on Exxon will head to trial in a case most notable for … how badly it has fizzled.

It started back in 2016, with “a move many are hailing as a ‘turning point,’ ” as EcoWatch proclaimed: 20 state attorneys general launching an “unprecedented, multi-state effort” to probe and prosecute the oil giant.

The central charge — seemingly bolstered by Pulitzer-nominated journalists: Exxon had for decades hidden “key climate science.”

This is a good summary of the trajectory.

The claim: Exxon had long known that consuming oil would cause global warming but hid the facts. In fact, the company for decades published findings closely matching mainstream science. No one has ever produced any evidence of a coverup.

Which is why Schneiderman (before the revelation of horrifying personal conduct ended his career) was forced to find a different rationale: Big Oil, he said, might be “overstating” its assets by “trillions,” by failing to account for potential future regulations that restrict fossil fuels.

Oops: The company had warned about the risks of new rules; that’s why a Securities and Exchange Commission probe cleared it of those charges.

And the case that now-AG Letitia James takes to trial Tuesday is a huge comedown from even that claim, charging that Exxon fraudulently used two sets of books to state the risks. The company says it merely releases different estimates for different purposes, with full disclosure.

The charge is not only a far cry from the original #ExxonKnew allegations, it’s also almost certain to fail. Putting the best face on this fact, climate-change warrior Andrew Revkin tweeted Wednesday: “Some lawsuits are fought for the win, some are fought for the documents. The NYS #exxonknew suit is far more likely to be the latter.”

This sums it up.

In fact, the entire thing has been a shameless exercise in prosecutorial abuse, from the outrageous harassment of nonprofits whose research the climate-crisis crew dislikes to the ethically dubious private funding of staff in the New York AG’s Office.

Read the complete piece here.

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “The incredible collapsing ‘#ExxonKnew’ climate change lie

  1. Were any lawsuits ever filed against municipalities for failure to warn bond purchasers of ‘expected’ future climate-change costs? Or similar lawsuits against California’s bond sales?

    Clearly, since they believe climate change is going to be devastating, they should include warnings and cost estimates in their bond offerings.

    • Is this how you’re attempting to deflect from the known causes of climate change, which are the many different ways that fossil fuel companies continue to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

      • Oil companies don’t spew gases Lyle … little ___ like you do. The oil companies merely produce the fuel that u consume everyday to maintain your lifestyle.

        • Could you help me out here, Stewart Pid? I have been trying everything, google, bing, etc and can’t find out what “____” means? Curious minds want to know.

        • It is true that we emit CO2 from fossil fuels to maintain our lifestyle, but it is more than that. We burn fossil fuels to stay alive!

          I would suggest to Lyle that if he denied himself and others the use of fossil fuels, plus any item delivered or created with the use of fossil fuels, that he would not survive one year. And if he lives in a mid-latitude or higher region, he might be praying for a lot more greenhouse gases just before he froze to death. If he managed to survive through his wits and good fortune, someone with less wits or good fortune would probably kill him for what he had, or kill him for the meat on his bones!

          I invite Lyle and all those who think Exxon Mobil is despicable, to immediately give up all use of fossil fuels and associated derivatives!

          • Yes, if enough like him quite using it might even lower the price for the rest of us.
            It is difficult to see how exxon could be held responsible for supplying a need. A life without fossil fuels would be bleak indeed in my part of the world.

          • James Clarke,

            Why is it an all-or-nothing dichotomy? Why demand that people who would like to see lowered CO2 emissions completely give up all emissions to show their support for CO2 mitigation? This suggests people think they must make terrible sacrifices in order to do anything at all, and it scares people away from even trying. I belong to a solar energy cooperative, and my electricity bills are lower than they were before I joined. “Lazard’s annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis reports solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have decreased by 9% and increased by 23%, respectively” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#1e85a79531f3) People can car pool, take public transport, eat less meat, combine errands into single trips, use energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances…there are many things we can do on an individual basis that don’t involved huge sacrifices. It’s not just a question of climate change: if energy independence is as important to our national security as Trump has asserted, conservation, efficiency, and diversification of sources can help. Less demand theoretically lowers prices, and this might be especially true in the future, as it gets more expensive to extract the energy we have. The renewable industry also creates jobs.

            “The renewable energy industry has become a major U.S. employer. E2’s recent Clean Jobs America report found nearly 3.3 million Americans working in clean energy – outnumbering fossil fuel workers by 3-to-1. Nearly 335,000 people work in the solar industry and more than 111,000 work in the wind industry, compared to 211,000 working in coal mining or other fossil fuel extraction. Clean energy employment grew 3.6% in 2018, adding 110,000 net new jobs (4.2% of all jobs added nationally in 2018), and employers expect 6% job growth in 2019.

            “E2 reports the fastest-growing jobs across 12 states were in renewable energy during 2018, and renewable energy is already the fastest-growing source of new U.S. electricity generation, leading the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to forecast America’s two fastest-growing jobs through 2026 will be solar installer (105% growth) and wind technician (96% growth).”

            The idea that CO2 mitigation will ruin our economy deserves skepticism, especially considering cost decreases, and the new technologies that are being developed, such as economical grid-level storage and new, inexpensive, extremely versatile solar materials. Fossil fuels are not going away (they are used in all sorts of manufacturing, of course), but there’s no reason we can’t decrease our dependence on them and curb our CO2 emissions. In conjunction with increased carbon capture, a net zero emission scenario is possible, but only if people are willing to cooperate, rather than get mired in divisive partisan politics, emotion and bias – including the baseless assumption that scientists are stupid or lacking in scientific integrity (my pet peeve!).

          • “Why is it an all-or-nothing dichotomy?”

            Because we’re constantly told it’s an existential threat to the existence of humanity, sorry, personity?

            Getting rid of just a little CO2 won’t save the planet, right? That’s what the left is screaming about, right?

          • @kristi silber
            Oh, please!… Not again the silly story of the Lazard report on LCOE!
            How could anyone possibly compare the LCOE of intermittent sources like wind and solar to baseload dispatchable ones?
            They are not in the same class. Add the necessary storage costs and losses, and you’ll see where the LCOE of wind and PV go, they hit the roof.
            Every place where wind and/or PV have been installed in large amounts have high electricity costs, how come if they are so cheap?

          • @kristi silber

            It seems you need to read the report. The report states that you cannot directly compare the LCOE of intermittent sources with those of firm sources. This is in line with the EIA, IEA, UNEP, IPCC etc

            Why do you reject the scientific consensus and the report?

          • If you compare the megawatt-hours produced per job for “renewables” (excluding hydro, which is dispatchable), with fossil-fueled sources (and hydro), you find that your renewables aren’t even on the same planet.

          • Kristi, people can make choices regarding their lifestyle under a free-market system but some of the offerings to reduce or eliminate fossil fuels are far from a freedom of choice. Also, regarding your comment on national security:

            1. Making our transportation system reliant upon the grid is not wise.
            2. Many of the “green technologies” require substantial rare earth elements which are supplied (for the present, at least) by countries not particularly friendly to the United States.
            3. We are energy independent (for the present) and wars have been started, won or lost based on the status of a country’s energy supply.

          • Rick October 21, 2019 at 6:02 pm

            It is difficult to see how exxon could be held responsible for supplying a need.

            Fossil fuel law suites are the same as tobacco law suites, addictive drug law suites, etc., ……. ya have to sue the entity that has enough money to pay the lawyers …….. cause ya can’t be suing every doctor, pharmacist or retailer that was instrumental in the delivery of said product.

          • Jeff Alberts,

            Just because SOME people on the left think fossil fuels must all be replaced doesn’t mean there has to be a dichotomy. I personally don’t think it’s a realistic goal to abandon fossil fuels or stop climate change. But it is realistic to slow down climate change, giving people and the biota more time to adapt.

          • Robertok06,

            I saw a NOVA episode the other day, and there was a manufacturing corporation CEO who decided to go with renewables strictly because they made business sense. Why are so sure that they are more expensive? You have to take into account that once installed, the energy is free, and that has to be included in the cost analysis. Of course, one then has to make assumptions about the future cost of fossil fuels, too – but they will never be free, and that’s only part of the cost of running a power plant, much less building one.

            “For example, Colorado’s Xcel will retire 660 megawatts (MW) of coal capacity ahead of schedule in favor of renewable sources and battery storage, and reduce costs in the process. Midwestern utility MidAmerican will be the first utility to reach 100% renewable energy by 2020 without increasing customer rates,”

            And, as I pointed out, there are new technologies being developed. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss their importance, even if they are not yet on the market.

          • JRF in Pennsacola,

            1. I never said anything about making our transportation system reliant on the grid.
            2. Rare earth metals are used in all kinds of things
            3. Yes, we are energy independent for the moment, but Trump still wants to open the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and is using energy independence as an excuse. IF that excuse is justified, it suggests there are concerns about future energy independence. Conservation, efficiency, and diversification of energy sources is a way to mitigate that concern. We ought to be thinking of the future, and the big picture. China has an advantage over us in that they can make 25-year plans without worrying that every 4 or 8 years a new administration will come along and undo everything that was done with the long term in mind. It’s wasteful, and hard for industry to plan ahead. We should be thinking about the future if we are going to maintain our global economic dominance.

          • Robertok06 and Dan,

            “The trend began in the windy plains and upper Midwest, where Xcel Energy’s utilities have announced plans to retire about half of their coal-fired capacity in the coming years and replace it largely with wind energy.”

            “‘We’re looking at [wind energy prices] in the low teens to low 20s [in dollars/MWh] — not starting prices, but levelized across the 25-year life of the project,’ Xcel CEO Ben Fowke told Utility Dive last year. ‘That beats gas, even at today’s prices.’

            “The trend began in the windy plains and upper Midwest, where Xcel Energy’s utilities have announced plans to retire about half of their coal-fired capacity in the coming years and replace it largely with wind energy.

            “In some jurisdictions, utilities and their regulators are beginning to look at energy storage to stabilize the grid as a non-emitting alternative to natural gas. Last week, California regulators approved utility PG&E’s plan to replace three natural gas plants with energy storage, a decision made possible by steady price declines in batteries illustrated in a separate Lazard report”

            I highly doubt PG&E would do this simply out of the goodness of their heart. It would have to make economic sense. Perhaps some Californians as individuals would be OK with spending a bit more on electricity, but it seems doubtful that corporations would do so with making a fuss. There would be a risk of them moving to other states if the electricity costs became too high.

            And as I said before, my electricity costs have gone down. Of course, the solar “farm” was installed before there were tariffs on Chinese panels. (Why was that one of the first things that got tariffs, when our solar panel industry is comparatively small? Perhaps because of the political clout of the fossil fuel industry? Trump’s failed attempt to revive coal mining? That shouldn’t have to come at the cost of another energy industry, which is a growing employer.)

          • What is the difference between the Titanic and California?
            Answer: The Titanic still had its lights on when it went under.

          • MarkW,

            “Kristi, lots of stuff makes business sense when government is picking up most of the tab.”

            True. So how about cutting subsidies to all energy industries, and see where they stand?

            Example: “Several states are also grappling with uneconomic nuclear plants. Two federal appeals courts have upheld state nuclear subsidies in New York and Illinois, while New Jersey and Connecticut are currently considering how to keep unprofitable nuclear plants open.”

            Or the tax deduction for exploratory oil drilling, when it comes up with nothing. It seems to me this should be a risk that is inherent in the industry, and should be part of its costs. The oil industry receives millions of dollars in state and federal subsidies.

            Subsidies to renewables have declined. They were time-limited, part of Obama’s economic recovery package. The Lazard report considers costs of renewables without subsidies, and still finds them comparable, and declining.

            And how do you know what subsidies PG&E is receiving? Link, please.

          • HIvemind,

            “If you compare the megawatt-hours produced per job for “renewables” (excluding hydro, which is dispatchable), with fossil-fueled sources (and hydro), you find that your renewables aren’t even on the same planet.”

            Ummm, what’s your point? Are you considering the long-term in your figures? And why would it be a good thing if non-renewables don’t employ as many people per unit energy? Employment is considered in the cost, and employing people is a good thing, no? Expertise is an export product, and there is a lot of potential for renewables in the developing world. Automation has reduced the number of coal jobs, and that is part of the problem for miners.

            I don’t understand your argument.

          • Kristi Silber

            It sounds like it takes 15 times as many people to produce the same amount of green energy as fossil fuels. Doesn’t sound very productive to me.

          • Kristi, absolutely we should worry about future energy independence! That’s exactly why the hunt goes on for fossil fuels and the safest place to do so is within a country’s borders or territorial waters. Florida has banned (constitutionally!) drilling in state waters which I think is a mistake. That issue should have remained in the legislature (Florida can get proposed amendments on a ballot too easily, in my opinion). Note that Japan had to go beyond their borders in the 1930s for resources which was a contributor to the start of war in the Pacific.

            As a biologist, I am particularly sensitive to the environmental effects of a variety of activities and would fine the stew out of an organization that was arrogant, or stupid enough, to criminally endanger an ecosystem (and incarcerate if appropriate). Such cases have occurred, usually involving waste disposal for instance, and vigilant monitoring is required to combat such. However, I do not believe that he fossil fuel industry is culpable climate-wise as I do not see any proof (actual scientific proof) that the current warming is beyond natural variation based on paleo-climate data. American business should make a profit based on customer need, and believe me, fossil fuels are needed.

            You only commented generally about national security but I would add to my earlier comments that the issue includes more than just the amount of the resource. It includes transportation/distribution, nexus points, protection of infrastructure, recovery strategies from disruption and most importantly, reliability, to name a few. Your comment about diversification is well-taken, however, and a free-market choice to use solar for personal use or a community use should be available. But, our fossil fuel energy infrastructure is diverse, as well, in terms of geography, types of fuel, transportation methods and storage. That’s not to discount solar, wind, hydro and nuclear as diversity options but just to mention that “fossil fuel” is not one egg in the basket. (David Middleton’s articles do a far better job on this subject than me!)

            Side note: I have a natural gas, whole home backup generator because of the threat of hurricanes. Solar was far more expensive, even with incentives, for a backup system that matched the reliability of the generator and solar was not as robust under hurricane conditions. You seem happy with your solar experience but do you have a storage solution included or rely on the grid for continuous power?

            My other comments regarding your mention of national security, particularly transportation tied to the grid, were in opposition to proposals, such as the GND, to go carbon-neutral by a certain date to include the elimination of fossil-fueled vehicles. And, you are correct, the rare earth elements are used in a variety of areas, particularly electronics, but the demand for such would skyrocket when tied to these proposals to eliminate fossil fuels. We have some deposits but they are mostly closed to production efforts because of a variety of regulations.

            My time is up. Enjoy your day!

          • Kristie Silber- re 7:30am
            “2. Rare earth metals are used in all kinds of things” Yes they are, in your smart phone and other electronics they are use by the milligram. In solar panels they are used by the kilogram. In Windmill generators they are used by 100’s of kilograms.

            I agree, we should look towards the future. Knowing what kind of resources are in Alaska is very important. If it’s huge, like the Permian basin is, it means we will have more energy for longer.

          • JRF in Pensacola,

            “However, I do not believe that he fossil fuel industry is culpable climate-wise as I do not see any proof (actual scientific proof) that the current warming is beyond natural variation based on paleo-climate data.”

            Well, this is a key point in which we differ. I don’t know what kind of “actual scientific proof” you want, or what you believe the issue to be. It’s not that the Earth has never gotten as hot as it is now. The problem is that humans are changing the climate, they are doing it rapidly, and unless we change our ways, it will keep warming. I don’t like the term “catastrophic” to describe it, but there’s good evidence that it could lead to regional or local natural catastrophes and mass migration. Humans have migrated before in response to climate change, but they have never invested so much in urban areas, never lived as densely or at such a high global populations. Some areas will likely benefit, with the land becoming more productive. However, it seems that the negative aspects are outweighing the positive ones already, so it’s hard to imaging that changing.

            As a biologist, you know that it takes time for natural communities to adapt to change, and that some species adapt and evolve more quickly than others. This has the potential to throw ecosystems out of equilibrium. Invasive species could become even more of a problem, as natives struggle, leaving niches open to those with more phenotypic plasticity and which thrive on disturbance – or the climatic features that once kept them in check are not longer there. Bark beetles and other herbivorous insect are a good example. Streams and lakes may become too warm for some animals to reproduce. Then there are all the changes that are happening in the oceans – where will that go?
            The possibilities are hard to even fathom. (I’m using the “may” and “could” kind of wishy-washy terms that scientists often use when suggesting likely, but not certain scenarios, or hypotheses in general.) … The point is, the problem is the rate of change and the fact that it’s going in one direction. And humans are responsible. Humans are changing the Earth’s climate! Seems crazy, but there’s is much evidence, it all adds up as we come to understand it better, and there is no other plausible explanation. It’s not the sun.

            Most here will disagree with me, of course. I believe the scientific community and the research they do is on the whole trustworthy. I believe there is broad consensus on the basic premises, and that it is important. I believe the models are useful even though they are imperfect. I believe there is reason for concern, and reason to act. I don’t believe we need to destroy the economy or prevent the developing world from development to make a difference. I don’t think the timeline of the IPCC is reasonable. It’s a goal, that’s all. I do think we need policies to spur change. The free market and personal choice can’t be relied on to do enough, especially when so many people are under the impression that renewables are expensive and unreliable.

            I’m connected to the grid. So when necessary, I have fossil fuel power. But most of it is solar. They can be used in conjunction, so that less fossil fuels are used overall. But prices and technologies are changing, as are the planning of renewable developments, so that soon it will be possible and economical to have whole regions that get their electricity from renewables, without subsidies. But plenty of industries are subsidized, and sometimes that’s what it takes initially to get them off the ground so that they do become self-sufficient.

            Transportation is a tougher problem.

          • Philo,

            You might be interested in this:
            https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1519221/rethinking-use-rare-earth-elements

            Excerpt: “The high-temperature superconductor (HTS) generators currently under development also require very small amounts of REEs.

            “The HTS being developed under the EU-funded EcoSwing research project uses “much less than 1kg of REEs” — largely Yttrium — per megawatt, says Jürgen Kellers, managing partner of engineering firm ECO5. The world’s first superconducting generator was installed in an Envision turbine in Denmark this autumn ”

            Many new technologies in the renewable energy industry are being developed. It’s not reasonable to only look at past technology when assessing its potential.

          • Kristi:
            Well, you are correct, the we differ. Other than UHI, I do not see what you see regarding climate change caused by human activities. The USCRN is flat since inception and that is a purpose-built, triple redundant system designed to monitor climate in the US. It is not subject to infilling, adjustments and the like and is one of my “canaries in the coal mine” regarding earth’s climate. No, the system is not world-wide and it is of short duration to date but if climate is changing, that system should show the effects.

            However, you mention rate of change as one of your “canaries“ and I understand your point and I will look to the USCRN to validate. I will agree that we have seen some warming since emerging from the last ice age, which is to be expected, and that is confirmed by the “greening of the planet” as shown by satellite data and I will also say that that warming/greening has been beneficial in terms of food production. I worry that any substantial cooling could impact world-wide food production and that will lead to bad times for, perhaps, billions.

            You mention rate of change in regard to ecosystem stability. Has earth seen rapid change before? Except for the after-effects of major impact events, I’m not sure that paleo-climate data has the sensitivity to reveal such but I’m guessing that similarly rapid change has occurred. A worthy thought but a situation that has happened many times in earth’s history. Will a small amount of warming cause us to spiral into some ecological nightmare? I think not. Certainly hope not but I believe that ecosystems may (which is the only word one can use) be more stable than many believe. And change, even rapid change (unless a total extinction event, of course) is most likely the mechanism that spurs an explosion of new species. But I wish we knew more about mutation rates in a changing environment (Pielou)!

            Now, let me emphasize that I’m not saying we should close our eyes, do what we want and trash the planet. I’m all for efficiency, new thinking/ideas/technologies as long as they are cost effective, do not make the poor, poorer and are not based on political ideologies (I am very anti-socialist/communist…..communism is evil and socialism is just a step or two away). Requiring solar in new housing sounds great but makes it more difficult for folks to purchase a home. Maybe it’s better to offer that to the buyer and let them decide.

            I know we have expanded this discussion beyond the original thoughts. It’s late in Pensacola. Although we disagree in certain areas, I appreciate your time and thoughts.

      • Can you be a bit more specific? I am not aware of any empirical evidence that conclusively links the use of coal, oil or natural gas to measurable changes in the climate. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Starting perhaps with your scientific qualifications in this field?

        • Even if fossil fuels do affect the climate, the suppliers are still not culpable.

          Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable? Judge Alsup

          This is not like the tobacco cases. Tobacco can not claim any benefits. The benefits of fossil fuels, on the other hand, far outweigh any harms. Furthermore the consumers of fossil fuels should be held equally or more responsible once they should have known that fossil fuels cause global warming. I would say that happened around 1988 when Dr. Hansen gave his congressional testimony. I would say that the plaintiffs have no case unless they quit using fossil fuels after 1988. There is a legal principle that plaintiffs have a duty to mitigate damages.

          This is one of those cases where, even if we accept the arguments of the alarmists, they are still full of male bovine excrement.

          • Tobacco has benefits, mainly people enjoy smoking it.

            The issue with tobacco is that the tobacco companies DID know it caused significant health problems and withheld that information. Trying to compare oil companies with the tobacco companies seems to be particularly simple-minded even for the Alarmists.

          • Yeah, Those dirty SOBs hid it on the sides of every pack of cigarettes they’ve sold since 1965 knowing full well nobody would ever look for it there. How dare they!

          • Tobacco has benefits. It’s marvelous if you’re the occupant of the Offal Office and want to jazz up your encounter with an aide.

          • This is not like the tobacco cases. Tobacco can not claim any benefits.

            Coffee, tea, soda pop, beer, wine and whiskey can not claim any benefits either, …… and they are just as addictive as tobacco.

            The issue with tobacco is that the tobacco companies DID know it caused significant health problems and withheld that information.

            There is absolutely no scientific evidence that has ever been presented that justifies the claims that “human tobacco use is the cause of significant health problems”. Tobacco smoke will exacerbate the discomfort caused by other health issues or conditions, the same as does perfumes, air fresheners, bug sprays, etc., etc., but tobacco smoke is NOT the source of the problem, …… and it does not cause cancers.

            Tobacco has benefits.

            It sure does. Especially iffen you compare the addiction of E-cigarette “vaping” ….. to tobacco cigarette “smoking” ……. because said E-cigarette “vaping” will cause you major health problem and/or cause your death within 24-36 months of your first usage, …….. whereas tobacco cigarette “smoking” will surely cause you health problems before you attain the age of 60, …. or 70, …. or 80 ….. or 90, ….. or surely guaranteed before you are 112 years old.

            Cigarettes are only dangerous to your health and well being simply because they are an extremely important “Cash Cow” for government’s extortions of “sin taxes”.

          • commieBob,

            Hansen’s 1988 Senate testimony was based on his climate model that proved to be disastrously wrong 12+ years later when temperatures failed to increase as he predicted and have yet to do so 31 years later.

            Climate models don’t work, period.

        • We should not be falling for or promoting an appeal to authority; “experts” are wrong all the time. The Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass and Energy do not change regardless of the appearance or absence of alphabet soup after someone’s name.

          Noone in ancient times had degrees and looked at all they accomplished.

      • What known causes? The sun has no impact? The atmosphere in general has no impact? The oceans have no impact? Open your eyes to the wider picture.
        Arrhenius came to his conclusions based on closed systems, the atmosphere is open, there are too many other influences that are not taken into account.

      • Lyle,
        Please can you provide evidence or data for your claim that greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel companies are the known cause of climate change. All I can find are opinions, not evidence backed by science.

        • Oldseadog,

          When fossil fuels are burned, the CO2 is a different isotope from other CO2 sources. By looking at ratios of these isotopes, scientists are able to ascertain that fossil fuels are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. The ability of CO2 to capture infrared radiation, and the main predictions of what would happen as a result of increased CO2 have been known for over a hundred years. Those predictions are being fulfilled. There is no other way to account for the myriad changes we are seeing, and especially the rate at which they are happening. You can look it up for a more detailed explanation, there’s plenty of information out there.

          • …on the other hand…..Physicist: CO2 Retains Heat For Only 0.0001 Seconds, Warming ‘Not Possible’
            https://climatechangedispatch.com/physicist-co2-heat-retention/

            Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat loss from the surface” as a blanket does. A blanket covering a warm body slows heat loss by inhibiting CONVECTION and CONDUCTION, and very little by inhibiting RADIATION.

            And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second.

            A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will, therefore, have no detectable impact.

            Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters.

            Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.

            Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second.

            If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 PPM or 400 PPM – effectively doesn’t matter. The time-lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.

            Consequently, Nahle concludes “carbon dioxide does not have an effect on climate changes or warming periods on the Earth.”

          • “There is no other way to account for the myriad changes we are seeing, and especially the rate at which they are happening.”

            Do you know the rates of change 1000 years ago? 2000? with the degree of accuracy we know today? Of course you don’t. Proxies can’t tell you, they don’t have the temporal resolution, nor do they always measure what is claimed. At best, we can say “we don’t know”.

        • Oldseadog,

          When fossil fuels are burned, the CO2 is a different isotope from other CO2 sources. By looking at ratios of these isotopes, scientists are able to ascertain that fossil fuels are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2. The ability of CO2 to capture infrared radiation, and the main predictions of what would happen as a result of increased CO2 have been known for over a hundred years. Those predictions are being fulfilled. There is no other way to account for the myriad changes we are seeing, and especially the rate at which they are happening. In the past, it has been not only CO2, but also other factors that have driven climate change, such as variation in solar radiation, atmospheric aerosols, and methane levels. Nor does anyone expect CO2 and its effects on the surface to be exactly correlated, as there are processes (El Nino, for instance) that operate in conjunction with the overall planetary warming.

          There’s plenty of information and evidence out there. If you want to pursue the truth, I recommend not restricting yourself to sites that promote uncertainty and denial. Look at all the evidence you can find, and decide for yourself. Plowing through the original literature is very time-consuming, though. One thing to do is look for information that comes with references, and make sure they are published in a peer-reviewed journals (not by a think tank, blog, or the media). You can also pick a few to look at to make sure the results are not being misconstrued.

          • KS,

            Dear God, you just failed first year high school Science, Physics and Chemistry.
            Which isn’t really a problem if your only twelve, but it is a serious problem if your older than Eighteen.

            “When fossil fuels are burned, the CO2 is a different isotope from other CO2 sources.”

            OK, I’ll bite, here’s a link to some basic Chemistry texts. You need to look up the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements.

            https://www.springer.com/gp/campaigns/periodic-table?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI64K2ppmv5QIVfyCtBh28mgUzEAAYAyAAEgLEU_D_BwE

            Once you have done that, please let us all know which so called chemical isotope your discussing.

            Please don’t feel you need to rush this, we can wait.

          • Kristi,

            You are a long way from just wrong.
            The article you linked to has nothing to do with Carbon (Co2) Dioxide, the invisible gaseous substance.
            The NOAA article you linked to refers to Carbon, the solid, and it’s various isotopes.

            Now, let’s look at Carbon.
            Carbon (from Latin: carbo “coal”) is a chemical element with the symbol C and atomic number 6.
            Carbon is nonmetallic and tetravalent, making four electrons available to form covalent chemical bonds.
            Carbon belongs to group 14 of the periodic table.
            Three isotopes occur naturally, 12C and 13C being stable, while 14C is a radionuclide, decaying with a half-life of about 5,730 years.
            Carbon is one of the few elements known since antiquity.

            Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen.
            Carbon’s abundance, its unique diversity of organic compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables this element to serve as a common element of all known life.
            Carbon is the second most abundant element in the human body by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.

            Now to Carbon dioxide the gas, which has nothing to do with the solid.
            Carbon dioxide (chemical formula CO2) is a colorless gas with a density about 60% higher than that of dry air.
            Carbon dioxide consists of a carbon atom covalently double bonded to two oxygen atoms.
            Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in Earth’s atmosphere as a trace gas.

            However, in either case, the chemical and physical properties do not change, nor does the position of each on the periodic table.

            Both elements are essential for life.
            They do not contribute to, or create global warming.
            As for so called global warming, I trust that you understand that once overall Carbon dioxide levels drop below 200 ppm, all life on this planet, and by that, I mean ALL LIFE, will cease to exist.

            As for a preferred Carbon dioxide level for earth, that would be best around 1800ppm to 2400ppm.

            This figure isn’t something that was pulled out of a hat, this was once the natural Carbon dioxide level of earth, in it’s second greatest flora and fauna event.

            Everything did fine back then, for more than sixty five million years.

            As for today, you argument is that the planet wouldn’t eventually tolerate Florida summer conditions.
            Sadly, nobody appears to have explained this to the inhabits of Florida, who oddly enough, moved there for just that type of weather.

            Then we have this issue, which all alarmists would just like to airbrush away, but it is what it is.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

            Not that I recommended the bias and inaccuracy found in Wikipedia, but even they have to admit to the facts.
            So, who are they blaming for those two previous warming events?

      • Not at all. Just a question to clarify a point of law. If the state of CA knew, or should have known of potential damage to the state from Climate Change, they had a duty to disclose the risk to potential investors. Certainly, damage to state properties or facilities could impact the state’s ability to make good on the terms of the bond. Failure to make full disclosures in the bond prospectus would constitute financial crimes.

        Nothing to do with the known, or unknown causes of Climate Change, just how it might affect a bond offering.

        • State officers who are Democrats who promoted 15 20, 25 or 30-year-maturation bonds ar guilty of felony fraud, because they know investors will not be repaid, because they know the world will be ending in 12 years.

      • No, but your comment is an attempt to deflect from the proper application of justice. Lefties always want to accuse others of wrongdoing, but never pay for their own.

      • The fossil fuel companies do not spew out gasses into the atmosphere. All they do is sell their oil , coal or natural gas to billions of people across the globe, including you Lyle and me, who need it to survive through the generating of electricity and the working of industry. It is people like you and me who are responsible for putting gasses into the atmosphere. Can we assume that you personally do not consume anything, including food or running a car, if it is created from the use of fossil fuels? Furthermore, fossil fuels are not the known causes of climate change as much as the climate zealots like to say it does, to justify their misguided aims. You need to open your mind and consider what a terrible world we would be living in if oil, gas or coal were not available to us.

      • Lyle – are you referring to the environmental phenomenon which was ‘called global warming’ in a previous incarnation, and ‘global cooling’ before that?

      • “…the known causes of climate change…”
        If by “known”, you mean “hypothesized but with zero empirical evidence”, then I know what you mean to say, but still wonder what it is you actually said.
        This entire sentence is a veritable case study in poor construction and horrendous grammar.
        For one thing, I thought you warmistas only believed in one cause for all bad things.
        How many causes are there?
        Does the part after the comment refer to deflecting, or to “known causes”?
        How many ways are there to “spew” a combustion product gas?
        Is it the companies that produce a fuel doing the spewing, or those that eagerly buy and burn them in order to heat homes, get to work, manufacture goods, transport freight, produce power, convert into raw materials, make fertilizers, refine metals, etc? Are you suggesting no one would want them if no one was offering them for sale?
        Since you use the plural, greenhouse gasses, one must infer you are also condemning water vapor.
        Is any process that causes water to be added to the air on your list of planet killers?
        What exactly is it you mean to ask?

      • Lyle is nothing, if not consistent.
        Consistently wrong that is.
        Only a tiny number of people deny that CO2 causes climate change. However the science clearly shows that CO2 is a very minor driver of climate change, responsible for at best a few tenths of a degree of change over a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Nobody is deflecting anything. Pointing out how various political groups are both claiming the CO2 is harming them while at the same time releasing bonds to people without informing them of the risks of CO2 is highly hypocritical and also illegal.

        Fossil fuels don’t spew anything into the atmosphere. The people who buy fossil fuels do that. Which would include you Lyle.

      • The fossil fuels that save hundreds of lives every day in a myriad of different ways? Oh so evil saving people.

      • I would suggest that if ExxonMobile and the other oil companies decided to immediately stop sale and distribution of liquid/gas fossil fuels, there would be a near immediate court order issued to prevent any interruption of supply. In fact, if they seriously tried to stop providing these commodities, there would be demands that the entire industry be nationalized so the government could assure uninterrupted supply and people could continue to spew greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, grow and distribute food, heat their homes, drive to work, stay alive, etc.

        • This is a perhaps a quasi attempt at just such an end. If the states’ AGs were to be successful they could bankrupt the oil companies and force them to nationalize. They don’t want oil to stop. They want to control the flow.

      • That’s mostly just plant food. CO2 is plant food.

        Now, I’m all for reducing actual pollution like carbon soot, carbon monoxide, sulfur compounds, etc.. However Carbon Dioxide is a beneficial trace gas that our ecosystem could use more of, a lot more of. We get up to many thousand PPM of CO2, it could become problematic. Until then, I’m not worried.*

        * former U.S. nuclear submarine Atmosphere Control Technician.

      • See
        ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY ) for radiosonde evidence that the atmosphere obeys the ideal gas law and no greenhouse effect is present. It falsifies the greenhouse warming hypothesis that is being used as fact to support the claims of “climate crisis” that are frightening and demoralizing our children and youth.
        So the the mechanism causing the “crisis” is itself missing and could not have been the cause of recent warming let alone any crisis resulting from any warming that they might have measured no matter its cause.
        Exxon’s fossil fuel extravaganza has had no warming effect in our atmosphere and will not in the future and they now know that as empirically proven fact.

        • DMA,

          You might want to read this before concluding that your youtube video explains away all the research done on this topic. Just because someone makes an argument doesn’t mean it’s correct. There is good reason for the peer review process.
          http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/02/global-warming-solved-in-open-peer.html

          “The journal is called “Open Peer Review Journal”, subtitle: “for rigorous open peer review”. Being an unknown journal, I was curious who was behind this journal, but the homepage does not mention an editorial board. Fortunately, there is also a blog by the Connolly family called Global Warming Solved. At this blog they state that they themselves have started the journal.”

          You might want to look at the discussion in the comments on the Connolly website before investing belief based on a youtube video. Frankly, the physics arguments are mostly beyond me, and I don’t have the time right now to study them, but it seems to me that they are proposing ideas that are no better demonstrated using their definition of “the scientific method” than the greenhouse effect. To suggest that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all makes no sense to me. It’s as if they set out to try to disprove a theory, then formulated a hypothesis to take its place, even going so far as to replace our understanding of the jet stream and hurricanes.

          If they want to be taken seriously, they need to submit it to peer-reviewed journals. If they are right, it will change everything, but to take them at their word that they are is not warranted.

          • “Just because someone makes an argument doesn’t mean it’s correct. ”

            The irony is strong with this one.

          • You just brought an old retort to mind…let me look it up…perturbed…pest…ah, here we are, “petard.”….Oh, never mind, if she doesn’t realize it herself, why should I poke fun at her?

          • Kristi,
            Please tell us what peer review has to do with the scientific method, as you understand it.
            In the meantime, I will tell you the answer, which you can rebut with your own views: Peer review has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method, at all.

            Peer review is part of the publication process.
            As such, it has been deliberately hijacked by the global warming mafia, and is now acting as a means by which contrary opinions and findings are censored.
            Biased gatekeeping is not any part of science, nor is publishing, per se.
            Publishing is one of the means by which information is disseminated.
            Besides for that, nothing about the peer review process has ever been meant to be a verification of any given hypothesis, finding, or refutation of a finding.

            If any of this is news to you, then be advised: You have no idea what you are talking about.
            As for rejecting an idea out of hand because it is beyond you, this is an admission that you have no basis to be critical of the idea. IOW…whatever you say about it is nothing more than an opinion based on ignorance.

      • Is this how you’re attempting to deflect from the known causes of climate change, which are the many different ways that fossil fuel companies continue to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?

        First off, Lyle confuses equal treatment with deflection.

        Second, Lyle assumes that there are “known causes of climate change” that can clearly be linked to fossil fuel companies. There are no such known causes. Current attribution to fossil fuels is sadly unsupported by any real proof.

        Third, as somebody already mentioned, fossil fuel companies are not the ones spewing “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere. Lyle really needs to think about this one. Who is doing the spewing? ANSWER: Consumers of fossil fuels are doing the spewing. Why do so many people consume fossil fuels to spew? ANSWER: Civilization as we know it is based of fossil-fuel energy. And CO2 is NOT the problem there.

      • The only “known” causes of climate change are varying tilts of the Earth’s axis and asteroid impacts. Even volcanic eruptions only affect things for a handful of years unless the are catastrophic. I keep looking for CO2s effect and can’t find it. Earth’s been warming since the Little Ice Age bottomed out, and even COOLED OFF after the fossil fuel orgy known as WW2 and the reconstruction of Europe. It only warmed up since the late 1970’s, since the introduction of pollution controls!

      • There are no known causes of climate change, because correlation doesn’t prove causation. There are only theory and models, which have in every case proved unable to predict climate with any accuracy.

      • Lyle, There are no provable known human causes of climate change – there are a lot of assertions with no evidence to support them. Due to the massive nature of planet weather dynamics, there is no way to do a “controlled test” of anything! Reducing pollution makes life more pleasant, but in modern industrial nations like America there is not much more that can be done – compare current conditions to those of decades ago shows we have done extremely well. Rational people will conclude that the main driver by far of our climate is the Sun. Take a deep breath, live your life and stop bothering people.

      • No, this is an attempt to hold those states to the same standards they are attempting to hold others to.

        It seems you have a problem with consistently supporting hypocrisy.

      • Lyle,
        I pity you for the way your mind works. There is only one cause for climate change and it is not human activity. It is an all natural movement of energy through-out our planet. The energy originates from our sun and galactic cosmic rays. It is absorbed by our oceans, land-masses and plant life. It is then moved around by the movements of our oceans and also the interactions between the oceans, land-masses and atmosphere. Our contribution never gets past, small ,short-term, local effects.
        CO2 is innocent of all charges.

      • Meanwhile, elsewhere, after a blackout last week –

        “Yesterday all of the town suffered a blackout from early afternoon, and many parts of it were without power for some eight hours, including being plunged into darkness until after 10pm.

        It was a hot and humid day but still under 40 degrees which will no doubt be exceeded in summer.

        People who wanted to watch the Bathurst 1000 on TV missed out.

        People who had generators started them up, using $700 equipment to keep their fridges going while the three year old generators at Owen Springs power station, officially worth $75m but reportedly blowing out to $100m, were useless.

        During the course of today the News will report about the causes of the blackout, what will be done about them, and what are the strategies are in place for switching the town to 50% renewables by 2030.

        Many of the current problems are said to be linked to integrating solar into the gas-powered system and the use of batteries to iron our fluctuations.”

        more – https://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2019/10/14/no-power-for-eight-hours-on-hot-humid-day/

        Apparently the fossil fuelled Owen Springs Power Station was not on active standby.

      • “Thousands of residents in Central Australia went without power yesterday afternoon, with some experiencing blackout conditions for up to nine hours.

        Electricity was cut across the Alice Springs region around 2:30pm yesterday and was not restored in some areas until 10:47pm.”

        “”It shouldn’t happen … there seems to be an unacceptable failure here between the battery and the gensets [generation sets].

        “We should be able to handle switches between solar and gensets.” ”

        “Mr Duignan said while Alice Springs Hospital and about 5,000 customers were back online within 30 minutes, some people were forced to wait about eight hours for power to return.

        The outage was caused by a cloud which rolled in to Alice Springs about 2:00pm on Sunday, which caused a “reasonably large increase” to the system, Mr Duignan said. ”

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-14/michael-gunner-nt-review-alice-springs-blackout/11599546

        So a cloud caused the grid to go into overload? Bizarre.

      • The more they spew the longer we live now that this giver of life has reached the end of its billion year fall. How cruel it will seem that our life blood was so foolishly condemned.

      • @Lyle

        To make Solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles we would still need to dig, pump/frack fossilized resources from the earth.

        Living is an act of consumption. Biology requires biology to live and sustain itself whether that biology is ancient or current.

        If you think switching to plant based economic systems will decrease our industrialized footprint then you clearly have not thought.

      • Known cause? In 2002 the global ave of CO2 was 372 ppm. In 2017 the global ave was 401 ppm. This represents a 8% rise in CO2. Over that exact same time period the global ave temp (satellite data) rose 0.05 degrees C including the rise from a massive el nino in 2015. If one includes the error bars there is zero temperature rise with a 8% rise in CO2. Care to explain how this is possible if CO 2 is the primary drive of global temperature change?

  2. The Exxon Knew crowd has at its heart this one idea: Exxon Knew it was going to end life on Earth and went ahead with their suicidal plans because, you know, profit, or greed, or something bad. Coming from the mining side I am always amazed at the suicidal ideation ascribed to almost all natural resource endeavors. What does this show?

    • Coming from the mining side, you should be aware of how much damage your industry does around the world., even to the point of aiding and abetting the murder of opponents.

      Why is Exxon any different? The trail of oil is strewn with the blood of indigenous people the world over.

      • The privileged, easy life you have wouldn’t exist without extractive mining of resources. Be thankful, not some ungrateful, know-nothing idiot. The corporate, colonialist greed that drives unnecessary pollution of the environment and murder of indigenous peoples is a totally separate matter. Try to learn to separate the two for your own mental health.

      • Why is Tesla any different? The trail of lithium-ion batteries is strewn with the blood of indigenous people the world over.

        Sorry, Lyle. Had to fix your mistakes.

      • Lyle,

        You make many assertions but fail to provide any evidence which supports your assertions. Please provide some – any – evidence if you make an assertion in future.

        Thanking you in anticipation that you will start to behave properly.

        Richard

        (He can’t because he is now banned, his spam filled account indicated he was not going to behave properly) SUNMOD

      • Lyle,
        Have you ever wondered where all the metals around you come from? The ton of copper for winds in wind turbines, or the many tons in large generators bringing electricity to your home? Or the lithium and cobalt in your cell phone’s batteries? Or the base materials for all the plastics all around you in your devices and car?
        If you don’t know, then your life’s education has been truly defective.
        Lyle, I can only conclude you are a stupid troll, certainly not a smart troll.

      • Lyle,

        I also come from the mining side so I understand this a while lot better than most. Without mining, there will be no green power revolution.

        So the more people like you fight everything due to lack of knowledge or just plain old stuffing your head in the sand, the greater comfort I take in the fact that if you greenies get what you want, most of you won’t survive.

        Think I’m joking? No electricity for refrigeration so how are you going to keep food? No petroleum for fuel? How is that food going to get to your local supermarket? No mining? Where is the copper and rare earths for battery powered electric vehicles going to come from? Again, no vehicles? Ho is food going to be planted, harvested, and brought to market?

        And you wonder why we consider liberals a “less intelligent” form of life?

      • Wow, Lyle is clearly mainlining the Marxist rhetoric.

        All businesses are evil. The bigger they are the more evil they are.
        That’s why we need to turn everything over to the government, because government is pure and never, ever does anything bad.

      • Gee Lyle, coming from the moron side, you haven’t a clue how much mining damage you’ve supported as a consumer. We can start with the phone or PC you are using to access this site and post comments. Next, we can proceed to the mining and/or environmental destruction associated with whatever energy forms you would like to see replace fossil fuels (not to mention the past, current, and future fossil fuel use of you and your family.

      • Saying “mining” does all that is like saying all governments are guilty of awful things, including genocide and murder (actually for real), because a few are. So are all government equally bad then? You agree wecshoukd ban all governments because you know, genocide?

      • Lyle, I have conducted myself personally and professionally with the highest standards, including suggesting that some mineralized areas should be removed from development consideration (where the downslope risk to existing houses was difficult to control), publishing radiation safety standards for workers, neighbors, and politicians as a Uranium Exploration Company President, formed Transparency Committees with project neighbors and yes even environmentalists, advised a country to include paying into a reclamation bond as activities advanced so reclamation was guaranteed, hired and trained indigenous local workers, and supported numerous Nature Exhibits, including working on the paleo-environment of the great dinosaur tracks in Malargüe, Argentina. I ran a placer gold assessment project near Nevada City, in California, and personally assured General (Ret.) Chuck Yeager that if the project went ahead we would complete the reclamation in a way to provide recreational and/or development opportunities to the County. I don’t need some jerk to give me good conduct advice, thank you. Also thanks to the other great comments herein, this is a wonderful website.

      • “Lyle October 21, 2019 at 10:28 am
        Coming from the mining side, you should be aware of how much damage your industry does around the world., even to the point of aiding and abetting the murder of opponents.

        Why is Exxon any different? The trail of oil is strewn with the blood of indigenous people the world over.”

        Utter falsehoods.
        Not a single valid claim in the lot of rubbish oily lyly posts.

      • Quite so Lyle, but you forget to mention the fact that much of the blood is caused in Africa by bitter fighting over who gets to benefit from oil on the one hand and on the other by people breaking pipelines to get at free stuff with resulting explosions. As for the oil wars in the Middle East, if you agree with the hypothesis that mere greed drives them, there is a good case to be made for them being caused by rich countries desperate to keep their standard of living based as it is on oil.BTW that would be people like you who thanks to an oil based economy can afford to tinker with PV panels and batteries — systems way beyond the reach of the world’s poorest. Poor devils have to make do with dung, wood or charcoal.

      • For the 2nd time:

        All resources need to be extracted; even if you were the only human on the planet you need to extract resources to live.

        @Lyle

        To make Solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles we would still need to dig, pump/frack fossilized resources from the earth.

        Living is an act of consumption. Biology requires biology to live and sustain itself whether that biology is ancient or current.

        If you think switching to plant based economic systems will decrease our industrialized footprint then you clearly have not thought.

  3. The Teenage Super Sleuths created these videos to help in lawsuits. They dumb the science down to the level that an average jury and judge can understand.

    Complete Global Warming Science Fair Project
    https://youtu.be/ZUVqZKBMF7o

    NASA caught withholding data! (not a conspiracy theory but a fact)
    https://youtu.be/vEYKkKaQlWI

    Also, Dellingpole did a great job exposing the flaws in the Lawsuits:
    Delingpole: Finally ‘Climate Change’ Gets Its Scopes Monkey Trial–and the Bad Guys Are Gonna Lose
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/03/31/delingpole-finally-climate-change-gets-its-scopes-monkey-trial-and-the-bad-guys-are-gonna-lose/

    Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/

    Comprehensive Climate Change Beatdown; Debating Points and Graphics to Defeat the Warmists
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/11/comprehensive-climate-change-debating-points-and-graphics-bring-it-social-media-giants-this-is-your-opportunity-to-do-society-some-real-good/

      • Because the fraud was in another country. A Jurisdiction issue.
        If I steal something from an Ecuadoran and make it back to the US, Ecuador would have to ask for my extradition for my return there to be prosecuted under Ecuadoran law. US law wouldn’t be able to prosecute me under criminal laws here in the US.
        But he did lose his law license (disbarred) so his ability to earn a living in his chosen profession has been eliminated. In prison he wouldn’t have to worry about paying for his room and board.

  4. They knew. They tried to bury it. Interesting how this author would applaud the alleged “collapse” of the case. It shows the anti-science bias and the fealty to large, corporate interests that this journal is known for.

    • Lyle, Exxon knew what everyone else knew. Not exactly a secret, ya know. But now they will just go along with whichever way the winds of public opinion blow. They know that people will continue to need petroleum, and that any imposed financial punishment for using oil will just be paid by the consumer anyway. Government will continue to make more money off oil than the oil companies do. No point in fighting the public relations battle if they don’t have to.

      • Exactly so Roy Spencer. Add one more thing…

        They also know that any lost fossil fuel production can and WILL be willingly replaced by China’s old friend. ( R U S S I A ). Exxon isn’t the only source of oil in the world. It may be, however, that R U S S I A would have to speed up progress in drilling the Arctic seabed to keep up with demand. Still, they aren’t building all those nuclear powered icebreakers just to deliver groceries.

    • Knew what? That one day a 16-year-old girl from Sweden would be brought at great carbon expense to New York to scream at UN delegates? It’s a clown show over there on the alarmist side of the ledger.

      Maybe Exxon knew that, maybe they are surprised by the depravity on scene at your average climate protest.

      Who knows?

    • *sigh*
      We had BenBen, (remember him?) along with Griff, for a while. I actually liked those two. Griff still stops by occasionally.
      Now we have Lyle.
      We will give Lyle a little while to settle in.

      (No he is gone, got caught, now BANNED) SUNMOD

    • They knew what?
      That by 2019 the human race would be in a state of unprecedented prosperity, that food production would be setting new records nearly every year, that lifespans and health would be increasing to levels undreamt of in past ages, that the planet would be 17% greener within a few decades, that deserts would be shrinking, Pacific islands adding new land area, famines will become a distant memory, violent storms will become ever more rare, adverse weather in general will kill less and less people than ever in history, the climate liar mafia will have to alter historic records to make it appear that there is substantial global warming, that the ocean will continue to rise at the same nearly unobservable rate as it has since the 1800s…or that half-witted morons will attempt to wrest control over the global economy, destroy our industrial infrastructure, do their damnest to bring about social chaos and the collapse of civilization, engineer a globalist coup of democratic countries and install socialist lunatics in power…
      You seem to think they have a crystal ball on the future.
      Which part of “prosperity” rankles you, Lyle?

    • They knew. They tried to bury it

      Okay, I’ll bite. What *exactly* did they know that *wasn’t* publicly available to everyone else? Be specific or be revealed for the know-nothing that you appear to be.

    • They buried it by publishing the papers openly?

      Lyle, is there anything you know that is actually correct?
      Is Lyle really your name?

      (He is banned, let him go) SUNMOD

      • Thank you, SUNMOD. He (it) added nothing to the conversation. And people, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS! Ignore them and they will wither and leave.

    • Or the fealty to the truth perhaps rather than what we would like to be true. Yiu claim “they knew” and then say they have tried to bury it. But so far all these law suits have failed to show that. So you “know” so something that has not bad proven and think you are clever. Bizarre.

    • People like Lyle have no idea what words like “know” even mean.
      They believe their feelings are knowledge, their thoughts are facts, their fever dreams are omniscient precognition, that a failed hypothesis is “the science”, and that abject ignorance can be cured by believing what one is told, at least if one has sufficiently selective attention and never steps out of the leftist echo chamber.

  5. Is filing frivolous lawsuits the best way to spend taxpayer’s money – my money? Do public servants serve the public, or do they do whatever they please? Can we indict them?

  6. The whole proposition was preposterous. It basically said that Exxon’s scientists knew more than mainstream climatologists. If that was the case then it tells us everything we need to know about those mainstream climatologists. For those who don’t get it: that they were stupid. A somewhat odd position to take if you want the whole world to follow the climatologists’ recommendations.

    • A true cost/benefit analysis of our greenhouse gas emissions would show a huge net benefit right now. The costs don’t even begin to exceed the benefits until we warm past 2 degrees C, which is not at all likely to happen. If anyone insisted on placing all the blame on fossil fuel companies (which is perhaps the most insane thing about this case), then they would also have to give them all the credit. An honest judicial system would have to award hundreds of billions of dollars to said companies, paid by governments representing the human race.

  7. I always learn a lot (of bad things) from libs on how things really work like court show trials and private funding and outsourcing for public justice. I just wish they were not current events also.

    • Trump has now appointed a whole lot of federal judges, and they will be around for a long time. The days of show trials and legislation via sue-and-settle deals may finally be over.

  8. Lyle=troll: ignore
    Newminster: Can I add your response as a footer in my emails:

    “Can you be a bit more specific? I am not aware of any empirical evidence that conclusively links the use of coal, oil or natural gas to measurable changes in the climate. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Starting perhaps with your scientific qualifications in this field?”

    I’ve grown tired of “because”, “the consensus”

    • Sorry to do this a 2nd time as well:

      @Kevin A and @Newminster:

      “Starting perhaps with your scientific qualifications in this field?”

      We should not be falling for or promoting an appeal to authority; “experts” are wrong all the time. The Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass and Energy do not change regardless of the appearance or absence of alphabet soup after someone’s name.

      No one in ancient times had degrees and looked at all they accomplished; stuff civilization forgot and had to invent again. One the greatest technological tragedies of our species was losing the Library of Alexandria.

  9. Why are the AG’s only doing this now? Surely they knew over 30 years ago. They made no public comment or preparation or legal challenge back then. Either they were then complicit, ignorant and lacking diligence, or it’s a pile of dongo’s kidneys.

  10. Who knew advocacy reach could scale up like this without facts and only some bad, untested models? This is the price for not passing the Waxman Markey bill or the GND. Institutional chaos.

  11. Those that believe that the use of fossil fuels is bad should stop making use of all goods and services that make use of fossil fuels. But they are not doing that. They are buying food, clothes, and other products that at the very least have been moved by fossil fuel burning trucks. They are entering buildings and walking on surfaces made from materials moved by truck. They are drinking water that travels through pipes which would not exist if it were not for the use of fossil fuels. After all it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. Agriculture in this country makes heavy use of fossil fuels. I guess farmers that make use of fossil fuels should stop farming and turn their fields back into wild areas so then what are we all going to eat?

  12. This is pulled from an article over on ZeroHedge (https://www.zerohedge.com/political/prying-open-overton-window):
    “The Overton Window describes the spectrum of concepts, policies and approaches that can be publicly discussed without being ridiculed or marginalized as “too radical,” “unworkable,” “crazy,” etc. The narrower the Overton Window, the greater the impoverishment of public dialog and the fewer the solutions available.

    Those holding power in a socio-economic-political system that’s unraveling devote their remaining energy to closing the Overton Window so that only “approved” narratives and policies that support the status quo are “allowed” into the public sphere.

    Everything outside this narrow band of status-quo-supportive narratives is immediately disparaged as “fake news,” “Kremlin talking points,” or other highly charged accusations designed to close the Overton Window–a process Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman called manufacturing consent: if no “outside” ideas are allowed, people accept the status quo as “all there is and all there can possibly be.”

    There is another source of a narrow Overton Window: the cultural, social and political elites have no new ideas and so they cling to doing more of what’s failed, relying on the past successes of now-failing strategies to cement their power.”

    There’s an Overton Window in the climate discussion and the warmists are doing their best to slam it shut.

  13. These people suing Exxon are no different than Meth addicts suing one of their suppliers. While they are suing the supplier they are still buying fossil fuels in the same way an addict buys his next fix. Exxon has always known that unless you went to nuclear power that there is no competition for fossil fuels. If Exxon did not supply these addicts then some other company would. If no one supplied these cities with oil they would would sue to force Exxon to sale them oil. The hypocrisy of these leftest makes me sick.

  14. Lyle.

    Even a fugitive, hiding from authority for 17 years ‘needed’ product that wouldn’t exist without eeevil fossil fuels:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49874969

    The drones eventually spotted a blue-coloured steel tile on a steep cliff as well as traces of household rubbish nearby.

    He used plastic bottles to get water from a nearby river. Beats running 30x with a large leaf in both hands I guess.

  15. Those who hate fossil fuels are really just showing their hatred for humanity in addition to weapons-grade ignorance. They are basically psychopaths, pretending to be saviors of “the planet”.

  16. And the equally incredible need for such a lie by the very people we are supposed to believe and give up fossil fuels because of their claimed planet killing property.

  17. It would be useful to promote the fact that at around 180ppm of C02 Photosynth’s ceases to function. Now if you want to worry about something worry about that.

  18. Apart from the fact that debating a big lie is futile and only lends it legitimacy, yet it’s done constantly, there are two kinds of alarmists : professional liars and dupes. And the deeper the dupe the more immune to facts and reason. But the liars, forget it! They have shameless disregard for the facts and Never Give Up the lie because the Lie is their livelihood. And they’re everywhere like a malignant cancer, funded by Tens of Trillion$ with the goal of depopulation [oh no? ‘Zero Carbon’ – how much more in your face can it be?] So the professional liars who’ve descended on WUWT ignore facts, reason and real science, except to hone their ‘craft’ and become better bulls*tter$.

    So imo the ONLY effective response is to question their motives.. Who are they? Who writes their checks? Reasonable questions of anyone pushing the fraudulent alarmist agenda. They’ll claim it’s a dodge of the facts when it’s they who dodge the facts; and they’ll try to draw you back into pointless debate. Don’t let them. Don’t go on the defensive, stay firmly on the offensive. Attitude is everything to the smoke & mirrors fraudsters so beat them at their own game. With the facts 100% on your side it’s EASY if you stay in control and disregard their bulls*it like they disregard the facts and Repeat Repeat Repeat.

  19. why Stop at Exxon ? Next they will sue the car companies for selling co2 producing machines. Then the utilities for burning co2 producing coal and natural gas.

  20. When the legal action collapses and is found out to be baseless, the outcome will likely not be reported by mainstream media or downplayed if it is reported. The initial assertion that Exxon knew will continue to be believed, even when shown to be false because the news was not published or made light of.

    Humans have a bad habit of believing the first thing they are told until they find refuting evidence or become suspicious. If the refuting evidence is deliberately suppressed, they will believe that initial assertion until their dying day. Worse still, the lie will become intergenerational. For example, few realize that the Nazis were Socialists-calling them “right wing” is a flagrant lie that lets Socialism in general off the hook for their Nazi Socialist crimes against humanity. The big lie about the Nazis has been believed by most people for over 70 years.

    If mainstream media are actually fair, unbiased and genuine, they would devote equal coverage for the dismissal of the case as what was reported during the entire saga. Thus, a front page headline for a front page headline. An editorial for an editorial. Big coverage for a couple of years for big coverage for a couple of years. Only fair.

    • Exxon has very deep pockets. Perhaps they will pay for huge ads, and report the ‘news’, pointing out how much taxpayer money was wasted, and the collusion in the AG offices with climate activists.

  21. JRF in Pennsacola,

    1. I never said anything about making our transportation system reliant on the grid.
    2. Rare earth metals are used in all kinds of things
    3. Yes, we are energy independent for the moment, but Trump still wants to open the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and is using energy independence as an excuse. IF that excuse is justified, it suggests there are concerns about future energy independence. Conservation, efficiency, and diversification of energy sources is a way to mitigate that concern. We ought to be thinking of the future, and the big picture. China has an advantage over us in that they can make 25-year plans without worrying that every 4 or 8 years a new administration will come along and undo everything that was done with the long term in mind. It’s wasteful, and hard for industry to plan ahead. We should be thinking about the future if we are going to maintain our global economic dominance.

    • Kristi, not sure why your comment repeated here but for all readers, this exchange occurs earlier in this thread.
      JRF.

Comments are closed.