Naomi Oreskes: Exxon Misled the Public about Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Where’s your smoking gun Naomi? Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes have accused Exxon of not revealing internal CO2 projections based on Exxon’s public plans to grow their business. But this latest “revelation” in my opinion is just as flimsy as the rest of Oreske’s #ExxonKnew narrative.

ExxonMobil misled the public about the climate crisis. Now they’re trying to silence critics

Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes

Newly leaked documents reported by Bloomberg News show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought

In 2017, we published the first peer-reviewed analysis of ExxonMobil’s 40-year history of climate change communications. We found that the company and its parents, Exxon and Mobil, misled the public about climate change and its severity. Central to this conclusion was the contrast between what Exxon and ExxonMobil scientists said in internal reports and scientific articles versus what Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil told the public in non-peer-reviewed publications and in “advertorials” – paid advertisements dressed up to look like opinion pieces – in The New York Times.

Newly leaked documents, reported recently by Bloomberg News, show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought. While the company privately has an internal “plan for surging carbon emissions…by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece,” according to Bloomberg, ExxonMobil executives “shield their carbon forecasts from investors.” In other words, ExxonMobil drew up plans to expand fossil fuel production, internally calculated how much this would increase their carbon dioxide emissions, then failed to disclose those estimates to investors. Indeed, the company has never publicly disclosed its emissions forecasts. In response to the Bloomberg report, ExxonMobil claimed that the leaked documents were not up-to-date, but declined to provide “any details on the new projections,” according to Bloomberg.

First, ExxonMobil has not challenged any of our findings about the 187 documents analyzed in our original study. They do not deny that Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil all had early knowledge that their products have the potential to cause dangerous global warming. Nor do they deny that Exxon, Mobil, and ExxonMobil all promoted doubt about climate science and its implications in order to delay action.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/16/exxonmobil-misled-the-public-about-the-climate-crisis-now-theyre-trying-to-silence-critics

Those projections Exxon chose not to publish – they are under no obligation to publish them. From a Bloomberg link provided by Oreskes

Exxon’s Plan for Surging Carbon Emissions Revealed in Leaked Documents

Internal projections from one of world’s largest oil producers show an increase in its enormous contribution to global warming

By Kevin Crowley and Akshat Rathi
5 October 2020, 19:00 GMT+10 Updated on 

Exxon Mobil Corp. had plans to increase annual carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece, an analysis of internal documents reviewed by Bloomberg shows, setting one of the largest corporate emitters against international efforts to slow the pace of warming.

In a statement released after the publication of this story, Exxon said its internal projections are “a preliminary, internal assessment of estimated cumulative emission growth through 2025 and did not include the [additional] mitigation and abatement measures that would have been evaluated in the planning process. Furthermore, the projections identified in the leaked documents have significantly changed, a fact that was not fully explained or prominently featured in the article.” Exxon declined to provide any details on the new projections.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-05/exxon-carbon-emissions-and-climate-leaked-plans-reveal-rising-co2-output

I decided to take a closer look at one of Oreskes original #ExxonKnew memos.

There is no doubt that Exxon received early warnings about global warming, some of them expressing serious concern. But the opinions expressed in some internal documents were not very alarming.

Naomi Oreske’s 2017 study referenced an internal Exxon memo, Glaser 1982. Oreske’s reference link to Glaser 1982 was not very helpful, it just linked to a Google Scholar search page when I tried it. So I tracked down a direct link to a copy of Glaser 1982 from Inside Climate News.

Judge for yourself (original document source Inside Climate News).

Page 1Full PDF Document

Consider the “warning” at the bottom of Page 4, continuing to the top of Page 5:

“There is currently no unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest”.

Imagine you were an Exxon executive in 1982 reading a statement like that. Would you have a) hit the panic button and explained to shareholders you were going to close the company, or b) regarded Glaser 1982 as an interesting scientific document, of little importance to current operations?

At the bottom of Page 5, Glaser 1982 provides advice on the appropriate response;

Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century, or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to remove uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the roles of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. It should also allow time to better define the effect of carbon dioxide and other infrared absorbing gases on surface climate. Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world’s economies and societies.

Oreskes charge against Exxon that they concealed knowledge of dangerous climate change is clearly false.

Exxon executives received an indication there might be a problem with global warming in the future, but the picture was confused. Some internal reports took an alarmist position, others like Glaser 1982 suggested immediate action would be premature, that the case for immediate action was weak.

Executives had to make a decision based on competing viewpoints, so they chose the more conservative viewpoint. That is what senior executives in a major company do.

Internal documents like Glaser mostly provided a review of existing public knowledge, so the charge that Exxon was concealing something is absurd. The information Glaser summarised in the internal document was public knowledge. Glaser just put existing public knowledge together into a neat document, and supplied an opinion as to the best interpretation of that knowledge.

Glaser advised Exxon it was premature to do do anything radical to address global warming – so Exxon executives chose to follow Glaser’s advice.

Lets not forget, 1982, when Glaser wrote the review for Exxon, was just nine years after the 1973 oil crisis. Exxon executives in 1982 would have felt a strong sense of duty to ensure the reliable supply of oil, to prevent anything like the 1973 oil crisis from ever happening again.

Glaser 1982 advice that climate change might not be a problem to date has been vindicated – nothing bad is happening to the global climate. Even NASA says the world is greening. Observational evidence to date suggests anthropogenic CO2 is good for plant life and food production. The only indication anthropogenic CO2 might not be a good thing is a bunch of defective computer models which have never demonstrated useful predictive skill.

Fast forward to 2020; Oreskes is getting excited about a leaked document which indicates Exxon’s plans to raise fossil fuel extraction would increase global CO2 emissions. A calculation anyone could likely have performed, just by looking at Exxon’s public production forecasts.

Oreskes might not like the fact Exxon plans to grow their business, and she might not like some of the decisions taken by Exxon executives, but for now at least, growing your business is legal, and publishing every single internal memo is not mandatory, even if your business is fossil fuel.

Naomi Oreskes, you’ve got nothing.

118 thoughts on “Naomi Oreskes: Exxon Misled the Public about Climate Change

  1. And even if Exxon DID know, it wouldn’t actually matter as the increased production of CO2 is only a GOOD thing for the earth and the flora and fauna living on it. Now it turns out that they didn’t know. So Naomi Oreskes investigations are entirely pointless.

    • What nonsense. Apart from higher temperatures and more extreme weather, there’s a point at which more CO2 is damaging to crops. I know you can’t cite any research to back up you ridiculous assertions, which appear these days to be almost a mantra, repeated as part of the pseudo religious cult which ‘skepticism’ has become.

      Its one thing to cite scientific evidence which challenges the accepted climate science: rote posting of this stuff is just cult behaviour.

      • griff,
        John Wright (no relation) is absolutely right and it is your post that is nonsense. Let’s take a look….

        “I know you can’t cite any research to back up you ridiculous assertions, ”
        John’s assertion was:
        “the increased production of CO2 is only a GOOD thing for the earth and the flora and fauna living on it….”
        This was clearly proven by a large NASA study published in 2016. Even the BBC’s Roger Harrabin was forced to admit that increased CO2 was greening the planet:
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346
        He says:
        “A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.”
        So, griff, are you seriously saying that the greening of the planet is a bad thing?

        “Apart from higher temperatures…”
        I’ll give you that. There has been global warming. The world cooled about one degree C during the Little Ice Age. Clearly, when the LIA ended (around 1850) it would be followd by one degree of warming. This is precisely what happened. The recovery from the LIA was obviously natural and very, very beneficial. If there had been no global warming we’d still be in the depths of the Little Ice Age. Are you seriously suggesting we would be better in the colder world of the LIA?

        “….and more extreme weather”.
        The data (e.g. Accumulated Cyclonic Energy from the NOAA) clearly shows that there has been no increase in the overall intensity of hurricanes. The data shows no increase in wildfires globally or in the US. No increase in tornadoes or floods. The EMDAT database shows that deaths from extreme weather has been falling for decades and is now at almost record low levels.
        Global warming reduces temperature differentials which drive storms. The only thing which has increased is the media hype.

        ” there’s a point at which more CO2 is damaging to crops.”
        Really? That’s news to me. Then how do you explain the huge body of research that shows plants and trees grow much better when exposed to higher CO2? How do you explain the global greening?

        ” rote posting of this stuff is just cult behaviour”
        I note you didn’t “cite scientific evidence”, which ironically suggests that what you are doing is “just cult behaviour”.

        griff, perhaps we should thank you. Every time you post, you demonstrate exactly how cultists behave.
        Chris Wright

      • griff, at the same time Exxon Research was producing some guide-line reports about the increasingly visible topic of CO2 they were also developing the science known as “Sequence Stratigraphy”. This was an effort by a research team, led by Dr. Peter Vail, that recognized that world-wide seismic records correlated better than anyone previously realized. Exxon then published 500 million years of the sea level curve, which represented 500 million years of varying states of H2O (solid, liquid, gas) and the resultant sedimentary record. Take a guess how much natural variation in sea level there is? Four Hundred Meters (400 m). This also was at the time of acceptance of continental drift, and the advance of geologic knowledge of our own planet leaped forward. Exxon was in the business of petroleum production and they were very good at it.

        • Scissor, if griff was still in touch with reality, he might respond: greenhouse CO2 benefits are maxed out at about 1,000 ppm (parts per million), and humans get dizzy at about 5,000 ppm. At the common 1,000 ppm CO2 the monster in “Little Shop of Horrors”, 1986, enjoyed both enhanced photosynthesis and tasty humans.

          • Humans don’t get dizzy until far higher levels than 5,000 ppm. 5,000 ppm is the OSHA limit for continuous exposure, 8,000 the limit for 8 hr exposure, similar to the US Navy for submarines.

            “We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer.

            This is backed up by the publication from the National Academies of Science Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants
            which documents effects of CO2 at much much higher levels than the medical study, and shows regular safe exposure at these levels…

            Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46

            My brother was an officer on a nuclear-powered attack sub and agrees that even the highest levels recorded cause no noticeable problems. People don’t generally begin to have any effects from CO2 until levels reach 20,000 ppm or above.

          • “the monster in “Little Shop of Horrors”, 1986, enjoyed both enhanced photosynthesis and tasty humans”

            gotta be one of the funnies films ever- I never laughed so hard hearing the plant talk

            “FEED ME!”

      • “there’s a point at which more CO2 is damaging to crops.”

        More UNMITIGATED RUBBISH from griff.

        There are thousands of papers showing the absolute benefit of enhance CO2 on crops.

        And what would you know about citing science??

        You have NEVER been able to cite any actual empirical science that shows warming by atmospheric CO2.

        You know NOTHING of science.

        Extreme weather HAS NOT increase,even the IPCC says that., (because they can’t manipulate that data.)

        Temperatures have only increased at El Ninos, so NO HUMAN CAUSATION whatsoever.

        Instead of making up anti-science fantasies, how about you answer the questions, griff..

        1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

        2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

        If you can’t answer them, you remain as you have always been……

        …. just another ranting zero-science nutter.

      • Another Ralph Wiggum moment from grief.

        “there’s a point at which more CO2 is damaging to crops”

        Why then, do commercial growers pump the stuff into greenhouses (real ones, NOT the imagined atmospheric one) at over 3 times the atmospheric level? Are they trying to ki11 tomatoes?

        Stop reading the grauniad grief, it damages your brain.

      • Griffy-poo says:

        “…repeated as part of the pseudo religious cult which ‘skepticism’ has become.

        Its one thing to cite scientific evidence which challenges the accepted climate science: rote posting of this stuff is just cult behaviour…”.

        The skeptics are in a cult Griffy? The skeptics? Wow Griffy-poo, when you get things bass ackwards, you REALLY get things bass ackwards. Allow me to explain.

        1) What is one of the main components of a cult, Griffy? How about a doctrine or belief system for its members to believe in? Who are the ones with the doctrine or belief system here Griffy, the skeptics or the climate alarmists? I think it’s the alarmists. The skeptics are the ones challenging YOUR belief system Griffy — YOURS.

        2) Cults often have messiahs or leaders they look up to for maintaining the faith. So let’s see…there is Greta Thunberg, former USVP Al Gore, Mikey Mann, Katherine Hayhoe. Over there in the UK, you have Roger Hallam of XR (which is itself a cult) and George Monbiot. There may be others I can’t think of off the top of my head. Love your XR women who dress in bright red garb with the white-out faces. That could only happen in a cult.

        3) Cult members consider their beloved belief system to be infallible and unquestionable. Is that not the way you look at the climate scare narrative Griffy? If it is supposed to be infallible and unchallengeable Griffy, it is not science. I submit that this is exactly the way alarmists like you see it. Anyone who questions it is treated like an Orwellian thought-criminal or religious heretic. Protecting the cult’s doctrine from criticism and challenge is required to keep the cult strong and its members faithful. Any evidence which throws the doctrine into question must be either attacked, suppressed or ignored. Cults are the opposite of science.

        4) Cults make false unsupportable claims which the cult members accept on religious faith without checking for evidence to support them. Their faith precludes them from bothering to check. Turning CO2 upside down and making it an evil demon pollutant is one of those claims. Claiming storms are getting worse and more frequent is another. CO2 at some point is going to damage crops? Really Griffy-poo? Evidence please.

        I could go on Griffy, but I think I’ve made my point sufficiently. As I like to say, one of the worst things about being in a cult is not realizing that you are in one. The climate alarmist narrative is a smokescreen for pushing political and ecological activist agendas Griff. As a cult, it has demonstrated success at serving that purpose.

        • “The skeptics are the ones challenging YOUR belief system Griffy — YOURS.”

          I don’t think Griff gets this. He thinks skeptics must have a theory to be skeptics. He doesn’t seem to understand that real skeptics challenge other people’s claims, they don’t put out claims of their own other than with climate change, skeptics do claim that the alarmists don’t have any evidence, but that’s not something skeptics have to prove, that is something the alarmists have to refute (and they never do, which is evidence enough that the skeptics have it right): The alarmists have no evidence of Human-caused Climate Change.

          Extreme weather is not evidence of Human-caused Climate Change since the Earth has had extreme weather long before human-derived CO2 became a debating issue. It is no more extreme now than in the past.

          In order to be a climate alarmist today you have to assume a whole lot that is not in evidence. In fact, everything about alarmist climate science is assumptions built on assumptions. Not a shred of evidence to back up the assumptions.

          Griff and the other alarmists are living in a false reality. Assuming things that are not true seems to be a weakness many humans have. Of course, their delusions are fueled by a Media that creates the false realities in the first place. Easily misled/Gullible, is probably a good description for many alarmists (and Democrats/Leftists).

          • Quite a few alarmists have declared that unless we come up with a better theory, that we are logically required to go with theirs.
            Once again demonstrating that alarmists just don’t do science.

      • Like most things that griff knows, this to is utter nonsense.

        1) The evidence that CO2 is capable of raising temperatures by more than a few tenths of a degree at most, is non-existent.
        2) The evidence of more extreme weather likewise does not exist.
        3) There is no evidence that high levels of CO2 is damaging to crops.
        4) Research that backs up every word of this has been presented time and time again.
        5) Religious cult describes you alarmists.
        6) As to rote posting, your repeated lies fit that category perfectly.

      • griff posted, foolishly: “Apart from higher temperatures and more extreme weather, there’s a point at which more CO2 is damaging to crops. I know you can’t cite any research to back up you ridiculous assertions . . .”

        It is a widely known fact that commercial greenhouse growers (that can afford to do such) regularly add CO2 to maintain their greenhouse atmosphere CO2 concentrations at or above 1000 ppm in order to significantly improve the growth rate of their plants.

        Given that were are currently at about 415 ppm CO2 concentration in the global atmosphere, there is nothing to worry about regarding CO2 damaging crops . . . unless you are addressing what might happen many millennium into the future.

        Now, you were saying something about ridiculous assertions . . .

      • This post is pretty strong evidence to support my belief that griff is a joint product of more than one author.
        Compare the word choice, sentence complexity and over all tone of this post to the average “griff” post of the last week or so.

      • griff, your use of “cult behaviour” is just perplexing….there is no need to insert that “u” in behavior and the automatic spell check reminded you….please try to be a little more careful with your behavior in the future. Thank you.

          • I think the point is that if you write skepticism, then you should also write behavior. Why didn’t “griff” write scepticism?

            The griff entity does seem to be awake at all hours. Personally I have always thought “griff” is a chatbot. Maybe it got a version update with a bug in its spelling rules.

      • Only one here “rote posting of stuff ” is YOU, griff.

        YOU are the cultist, an AGW religious fanatic.

        YOU are also the one that cannot produce any scientific evidence to back up any your mantra based rantings.

      • Griff, the nonsense you spout is certainly absurd. The question is whether the fictional global temperature is rising faster than it had been. Since records show a low point in the early 1800’s its no surprise that the climate cycle has broken through the chill from the little Ice Age and the eruptions of Tambora and Krakatoa causing the temperatures rise.

        Given dozens of climate models that aren’t sound, a huge amount of political hyperbole, such as yours, is the pseudo religious cult driving the world news. Just read the history of climate change on the UNEP and UN websites. The UN record shows that the IPCC and other “climate” functions were solely aimed at showing that the overall temperature of the earth is warming by only investigating how mankind was doing the warming. Actual science need not apply.

        The world is in the middle of an interglacial period. The ice core records show fairly clearly that the temperatures in the last 8 interglacials dropped precipitously as much as 9deg C over a short2-3000 years and then gradually recovered with many ups and downs until the next drop into a glaciation. These glacial warming periods average between 10,000-20,000 years. Currently we are 10-14,000 years into an interglacial period so drop into another glacial period would not be unexpected.
        Virtually all of the computer climate models don’t even consider the actual facts of the ice core record so there is no reason to think they would show cooling since the possibility isn’t included. At best they will abruptly change course, so to speak, as any model of a chaotic process will do, but this possibility has been suppressed in the models because it doesn’t fit the expectations.

        The climate operates on periods of thousand to tens of thousands of years. Go back into your hole until you’ve got enough data to work with meaningfully.

  2. NOBODY KNOWS, even now, how much, or if indeed any, of the highly beneficial warming has had a human CO2 causation.

    Nobody KNOWS now …….. and nobody KNEW then !

    The CO2-haters on this blog have made that patently obvious that there really isn’t any evidence.

    And quite a lot of evidence that it HASN’T

    • The Exxon report says:
      “This should provide time to remove uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the roles of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide.”
      Until 2011 when Salby analyzed the evolution of CO2 in the atmosphere it seems no one questioned the assumption that the known increasing CO2 was human caused. By then the dogma was well established and focused on silencing him and those that checked and agreed with him. Now there is ample evidence and analysis (Berry, Harde, Humlum, Munshi) to demonstrate that human emissions are lost in the natural flows of CO2 and add very little to the rising atmospheric CO2. The problem is the “settled science” ignores this evidence rather than trying to falsify it. So the Exxon Knew dogma lives on with no foundation and very little effort spent examining that missing foundation.

      • Well said. If Trump and the GOP survive November, they must be compelled to put this and other key contradictions on the table. That’s the only hope of restoring science to this major issue and repealing the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. If Trump and the GOP don’t survive November, or if they do but continue their pattern of complacency, always waiting for the next left shoe to drop, the window of opportunity will have been lost. They along with willing corporate victims like Exxon will then have earned their deserved fate. Not clear, however, that their shareholders and the public at large will deserve it.

    • “… ExxonMobil seeks to obtain testimony and documents from Respondent Pawa about a variety of topics, including, but not limited to: (i) Mr. Pawa’s attendance at the La Jolla conference; … (iv) Mr. Pawa’s communications with climate change activists, including, but not limited to, Drs. Frumhoff and Oreskes ……
      http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Exxon-v-Oreskes.jpg

      Matt Pawa being one of the attorneys leading several “Exxon Knew” lawsuits. Probably not as sensational as the release of the ClimateGate emails or the current Hunter Biden emails, but it sure would be fascinating to see how far back Oreskes’ emails go, regarding what she knew and when she knew it.

  3. “Exxon lied” is political catch phrase turned into far-left/green conspiracy theory through overuse. Fact is: we, the public, paid Exxon to deliver essential fossil fuel to keep us alive. Exxon gave the public what we asked for. With fossil fuels, people like Naomi Oreskes would not even exist.

    Exxon knew nothing because we still know nothing about the “dangers of CO2”. The only thing some people working for Exxon could’ve known is that mathematical modelers wrote scare stories forecasting doom. Exxon directors ignored the stories because the saw through them for the propaganda they were; plus they have a duty to their share-holders and customers – not to far-left political propagandists. The difference between then and now is: today our politicians believe scare stories, and, apparently, approve conspiracy theories.

    • Correct, Mike……Exxon and other energy companies worked hard to deliver essential energy supplies to feed our increasing demand for this vital resource.

      Thank goodness for the oil, gas & coal industries for providing us with most of the benefits we enjoy from their efforts!

  4. Exxon has been a traditional target of preference for the left for decades now. Why this should be is completely unclear. Well back in the last century you could find people in the UK at gas stations demonstrating – against Exxon. The grounds were quite different then, and the movement was not the green movement, which barely existed. It was some kind of left splinter group and the grounds were then left political.

    Its a mystery. Why are they not demonstrating against BP, Shell, Saudi? Even the Chinese state oil company? What is it about Exxon that produces this fury? All of the above are bigger than Exxon, which in total does a small fraction of total global oil production.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue
    If you were really worried about oil, you’d not be just going for Exxon.

    • The Exxon Valdez oil spill off the Alaska coast caused a lot of hatred against Exxon. We were constantly bombarded with images of pathetic crude oil-soaked water fowl and sea otters. Countless “heroes” selflessly traveled north to clean these unfortunate critters using Dawn dish-washing detergent.

      I knew people who declared they would never put Exxon gas in their vehicles in protest of the perceived-at-the-time poor clean-up of the mess by Exxon personnel.

      Exxon survived this boycott, the Alaska coast recovered, the critters recovered, the makers of Dawn were in for some windfall profits based on their magnanimous donation of lots of the stuff, but there are still people who refuse to put a Tiger in their tanks because a reportedly drunken Exxon tanker Captain screwed up.

      • there are still people who refuse to put a Tiger in their tanks

        The funny thing is that most wholesale gasoline is sold at the rack with the proprietary additive packages being added on a per truck basis. You don’t know what refenery/company the base gasoline mix actually came from.

    • Isn’t it still Esso in the UK? I guess that the UK sophisticates like griff would know the connection to Exxon, though, as soon as they are told what to protest.

  5. Actually neither Exxon nor Oreskes know anything. They cannot. CO2 is not a climate driver and therefore emissions are irrelevant .

  6. In the 1980s, the Australian experience of global warming by oil and mineral companies consisted mainlky of sending their chosen employees to conferences and meetings to exchange state-of-art knowledge. We had bodies like the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association APEA with Keith Orchison as exec officer for a spell and the Australian Mining Industry Council, AMIC, with Lachlan MacIntosh.
    At gatherings, several a year, some joint, some sole, these organizations would discuss industry directions, happenings, trends etc., that had the potential to require high level management at CEO or Board level. “Climate Change” was not a specific phrase at this time, but there was some minor discussion of global warming as the 1992 Rio Earth Summit approached. At AMIC, late 1980s, we talked about whether Gro Harlem Brundtland, PM of Norway, might be invited to Australia by us to discuss the latest global developments.
    You would think that the global threat of increasing carbon dioxide in the air would be on some agenda in these years if it was valid. However – others might differ – I can not recall this ever happening.
    In hindsight, the likely reason for absence of discussion about CO2 as a threat was that it was not posed that way in any important or credible paper made known to us. We were aware of an occasional green pamphlet or media interview, but these embraced unlikely extremeism and that was not our concern. If greens wanted to look stupid, they could do it without our help. It was just not often that the matters arose. We employed geologists from Friends of the Earth types of activist bodies in a non-discriminatory way and enjoyed taking the mickey out of them as they were anti-uranium in a company with large global uranium assets.
    (Nothing since has happened to cause me personally to change these attitudes and concede that some greens were right).
    Some colleagues in industry at that time might recall closer encounters, but until I left mining in 1993 I cannot recall any paper or minute or internal document that pointed to impending CO2 dangers, let alone had plans to combat it as an existential threat.
    So, for this part of the extractive industries, we did not hide anything from the public because, simply, there was nothing to hide.

  7. Exxon admit the greenhouse effect is real.

    The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is of concern since it can affect global cellmate. Carbon dioxide and other trace gases- contained in the atmosphere such as water vapor, ozone methane, carbon dioxide, oxides
    of nitrogen, etc. absorb part of the infrared rays reradiated by the earth. This increase in absorbed energy warms the atmosphere inducing warming at the earth’s surface. this phenomenon is referred to as the greenhouse effect.

    • Water is a special case being that it can condense/precipitate out of air as a liquid or solid. It is certainly a greenhouse gas, but it is not a trace gas in terms of concentration as it is present at high levels under many conditions.

      • Scissor
        The fact that water can precipitate is not important. It just creates an upper limit on how much WV can exist in the atmosphere. However, the precipitated water is rapidly replenished by evaporation and transpiration. What it means is that for any given Koppen climate region, WV is relatively constant, with deficits primarily in desert regions such as the Sahara and Arctic. There is no question that WV is more abundant than CO2, and has a larger impact on radiative cooling. The thing is, the absorption of both WV and CO2 should be considered together because the WV absorption bands alone alone are almost saturated and the impact of changing CO2 is negligible. What should be considered is the increase in temperature for a doubling of absorption by both WV and CO2. Because the WV is relatively constant and abundant, and CO2 is a trace gas, it will be a VERY long time before the sum can double.

    • Now convince us that this much-advertised greenhouse effect is more significant than all of the other causes of climate change on earth. For an excellent rundown on all of the other climate changes, see “Climate Change in Prehistory” by Burroughs. Fair warning – when you pick it up, you will be faced with an appendix containing a list of approximately 270 peer-reviewed scientific articles which are referenced in the book, a 10 page glossary of terms, and several pages of suggested additional reading.

        • SO WHAT.!

          Its an assumption driven “guess/speculation” using erroneous science, put forward by some AGW “believer” twit in a back desk office somewhere.

          They didn’t “KNOW”.

          Nobody KNOWS, even now.

          In FACT, even people like YOU have proven that you do not “KNOW” (anything)…

          … being totally unable to put forward any actual real science to back up your “CO2 warming” nonsense.

          CO2 warming has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

          • Not sure I understand your anger but here is a plot of temperature from the arctic showing ~5°C rise (as predicted in the exxon report):
            http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php
            The science is to do with emission height and the temperature at that height. I think you will agree that incomingt energy should equal outgoing energy with stable temperatures. So if the emission height is cooler then less energy will be transmitted from the GHGs. The energy balance is then disturbed and the earths temp must rise to equalise the energies to return to stability.
            The Exxon report also says that the seas act as a capacitor slowing the temperature changes in the atmosphere (from the report they suggest 20+years)

          • You know nothing of the science except what you are fed and regurgitate.

            And its all BS speculation, unmeasured and unobserved.

            No rise in Arctic temperature this century except at the El Nino.

            https://i.postimg.cc/J050xMy6/UAH_NoPol_2000-2020.png

            and a 5C rise in mid winter in the Arctic.. SO WHAT !!!

            Perfectly in line with the AMO

            Why start at 1960….. I wonder 😉

            https://i.postimg.cc/nhHDvyVG/arctic-temp.png

            https://i.postimg.cc/Z5Kh4nnz/iceland.jpg

            El Ninos are nothing to do with human CO2 arming anything.

            referencing twitter now.. seriously !!!.. ROFLMAO !!

            half-runt.. forever the ignorant TWIT !

            Try again.. half-runt !

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • ” energy should equal outgoing energy with stable temperatures.”

            Except we haven’t had stable incoming energy, have we..

            https://i.postimg.cc/Hk5PgR0m/Solar_vs_CET.jpg

            Also the out going OLR tracks with the natural temperature increase.

            https://i.postimg.cc/QdXnDknT/CERESvUAH.png

            So no energy is being “trapped”

            The temperature gradient of the atmosphere is PROVABLY, (by analysis of weather balloons), controlled by the pressure/ density gradient.. ie gravity.

            There is no way in which atmospheric CO2 can overcome that control for even a second.

            Why choose to remain IGNORANT all your life, just to support a failed cult religion ???

          • twitter link was really to
            https://rabett.blogspot.com/2020/10/how-greenhouse-gases-heat-surface.html

            The only science I know is from reading the work of scientists, Where does your information come from Breitbart? Other blogs? I do not have time to do all the analysis personally – do you? or do you just parrot what others have said?

            Arctic Temperatures – no idea where you got your plot. But here is anothe from RSS satellite data:
            https://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

            Looks to me like 1.5°C rise from 1979 to present.
            Why does this matter? Well you need to understand the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation with respect to north European temperatures,

            Temperature vs TSI no correlation despite your unreferenced graph.
            Here’s one from NASA. https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2165/ also you need to see what Leif Svalgaard says on the subject.

            Evidence for warming by CO2 – global average temp above to level set by albedo and TSI. The physics behind GHGs, If you are looking for a back yard experiment provin this it is unlikely you will find one.

            The Exxon document presumably researched this and came up with a figure of 1.6 to 3°C
            Current 413ppm CO2 from their plot should give ~1°C rise and this is approx. what is being seen at present. (not a bad document from 38 years ago)

            you say “Also the out going OLR tracks with the natural temperature increase.” and “So no energy is being “trapped””

            A plot https://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif of global – only small positive slope
            Arctic
            https://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Arctic%20NOAA.gif
            greater positive slope

            Where does all this increase in energy lost to space come from? Solar output has not changed significantly (anyway its gone in the wrong direction for the last ~7 years).
            The increase in energy loss is because the global temperature has increased. If the outgoing flux was increasing without more energy being retained then the temperatures would be decreasing – they are not. Please give your explanation of where this energy comes from.
            The increase in flux leaving the planet shows that stable temperatures have not been reached and we are due for more warming. The only source of energy on this planet is the sun and its output only changes insignificantly.

          • RSS is “adjusted” busing “climate models . it is USELESS.

            Leif’s data shows a strong period of higher TSI in the latter half of last century.

            Grand solar maximum

            Try to learn

            Glad you are able to see that as the temperature increases NATURALLY out of the coldest period in 10,000 years (be very thankful of that) there is a balancing output of OLR.

            You are learning..

            But oh so slowly !!

          • “Where does all this increase in energy lost to space come from?”

            ROFLMAO

            Trip over yourself and fall face first into your own BS.

            So funny ! You make a mockery of yourself.

          • “the work of scientists”

            Yep, the very best…… not bloggers like the rabbet !

            Who deals in mindless speculation and mind-numbed erroneous theoretical constructs

            that bare zero relationship to how the atmosphere actually works.

            ….. unbacked by anything except fantasy.

            No data, no anything . Just a little bit of anti-reality farce to suck non-scientific twerps like you in.

            Hint.. radiation within the atmosphere is a bit player.

          • or you could ignore the FACT that the Stratosphere is COOLING

            Hence LOWERING the altitude of emission,

            ….. and there’s more CO2 emitting.. hence more energy out

            FACT don’t matter to you, do they half-runt. !

            Grimm Bros did much better with their fairy tales.

    • “The carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is of concern”

      Yep, the current LOW level of atmospheric CO2 is of concern…

      …. the planet still needs MORE atmospheric CO2 to help plants and crops grow even better.

      The rest of your post is just blatant anti-science nonsense.

      Regurgitation of the DUMB AGW anti-science mantra never looks good, half-runt.

      Makes you sound like a CULT member or something..

      Seems it is all you have, though……… no surprise about that, is there!

    • Ghalfunt, lots of people who acknowledge the “greenhouse effect” is real do not see it as a problem. The reason is that natural feedbacks are negative.

      http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

      “These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic.
      A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should
      lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the
      climate simulations. ”

      “It is the earth’s internal fluctuations which are the most important cause of climate and
      temperature change. These internal fluctuations are driven primarily by deep multi-decadal and
      multi-century ocean circulation changes of which naturally varying upper ocean salinity content is
      hypothesized to be the primary driving mechanism.”

      • Only H20 slows the convective removal of energy from the Earth’s surface.

        It does that by transferring too much energy than it should in the first place (via latent heat)

        Anything else is a scientific misnomer.

        • fred250 October 17, 2020 at 1:31 pm
          Only H20 slows the convective removal of energy from the Earth’s surface.
          It does that by transferring too much energy than it should in the first place (via latent heat)
          ——————
          second line does not make sense to me sorry!
          However — conduction from earth to atmosphere is possible. Molecular interaction cause the heat energy to be transferred to all air molecules. GHG wil then have a possibility of releasing photons carrying the energy. However this will not release to space below 10km because molecular collision will be the main form of energy transfer to all gases. Above ~10km GHGs will have time to release a photon before a collision occurs. Some will still hit other molecules of the same GHG transferring the energy. Some photons will reach space.

          A solid surface (water/earth/trees etc) will emit a grey/black body spectrum of photons. Photons that do not resonate with the GHG frequency will reach space (unless clouds or dust etc intervene). The water will also emit some photons that reach space. It will also evaporate causing increase in water vapour which will absorb photons and by collision transfer energy to other gasses. It will also keep the water at a more constant temperature reducing its black body emissions.

          • “second line does not make sense to me sorry!”

            You have proven nobody can educate you. Not my problem.

            Funny watching you copy paste stuff you very obviously know nothing about.

            Please keep making a fool of yourself..

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • You want to mention “black body” then we have to discuss emissivity…

            We can go to here http://www.biocab.org/ECO2.pdf

            And read the actual science…..

            Doubling the density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes the total emissivity of carbon dioxide decreases, as long as the radiant energy emitted by the surface does not increase causing an increase of the air temperature; therefore, the total emissivity of carbon dioxide is inversely proportional to its effective pressure and, consequently, to its density in the atmosphere. The same effect has been verified on the tables of total emissivity of carbon dioxide obtained by Hottel, Leckner and other contemporary scientists . This fact confirms that carbon dioxide operates as a coolant of the atmosphere and the surface, not as a warmer of the mentioned systems.

            I’ll repeat that last bit, because I know you have difficulty with basic comprehension.

            This fact confirms that carbon dioxide operates as a COOLANT of the atmosphere and the surface, not as a warmer of the mentioned systems.

            Also, I’ll add in the first line of the conclusion.. just for you half-runt

            CONCLUSION
            Carbon dioxide does not contribute appreciably with the greenhouse effect. The contribution of carbon dioxide to the current anomaly of temperature at its current concentration in the atmosphere is really insignificant.
            ——
            Carbon dioxide emitted by human activity cannot be the cause of climate change as it is incapable physically of causing a significant anomaly of the atmospheric temperature.

          • And read the actual science…..

            At the surface the emissivity of gasses is just about irrelevant. The mean time between collisions is much smaller than the time it takes to create a photon so energy is transferred from molecule to molecule by collision. It is not until you reach an altitude of about 10km that the emissivity of ghgs becomes significant and collisions are less frequent than photon emissions from GHGs. Of course o2 n2 emit very little energy in the form of photons so will need to collide with a GHG molecule to loose energy.

            More CO2 means higher emission altitude (to space) without further photon absorption. This means it will be from a lower temperature and will thus require a higher ground temperature to maintain energy in= energy out.

          • So you didn’t read or understand any of the science at all, did you ! 🙂

            Just a regurgitation of nonsense that you don’t understand.

            So funny that you continue to double down on your gross ignorance.

            You are BEYOND REDEMPTION !!

          • The TOTAL IGNORANCE in thinking that the atmosphere is controlled in any way by the tiny radiative fluxes within it.

            You either live in a padded cell, never seeing the light of day, or you are so totally ignorant of anything going on around you as to be nothing more than a brain dead zombie.

            As you say, not until 10km.

            And the mean free path is measured in metres

            You have just totally DESTROYED the fallacy of back-radiation.

            Well done.. fool ! 🙂

          • Now, once you have got over your copy-paste fetish attempts at distraction that you you really are TOTALLY CLUELESS….

            how about answering the questions..

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • speed , path , time
            molecule (v/m s−1
            ) , (λ/nm) , (τ/ns)
            Ar 380 63 0.165
            CO2 362 39 0.108
            N2 454 59 0.130
            O2 425 63 0.149

            Mean free time at 1 atm is about 130ps
            an interesting discussion:
            https://sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html#:~:text=At%20low%20altitudes%2C%20the%20mean,a%20billion%20times%20as%20long).
            Suggests that it can take up to a second to receive a photon and then to transmit a photon. Most of the discussion seems to be about sea level and not 10km up where loss of energy to space begins

          • “More CO2 means higher emission altitude (to space) without further photon absorption.”

            That idiocy again.. So funny

            As you are at a higher altitude, the AREA of emission increases with the square in the change in altitude, so MUCH more emissions into space, hence much more COOLING

            Why do you copy paste JUNK science without thinking?

            Is it because you are incapable of thinking…

            … all your comments point to that being the case. ?

          • Thanks for the insults – they are quite amusing – I will treasure them keeping them for parroting back.

            radiation from ghgs wherever they have a chance to radiate their energy (~10km up) will be effectively 50% up and 50% down.
            Non GHG do not significantly radiate but collisions between ghg and non ghg will occur and will transfer energy.

          • Great that you now admit that such a thing as back-radiation warming from atmospheric CO2 is impossible

            Your latest childish ploy at distracting from answering the simple questions, is just as much nonsense.

            Try again, drone,,

            Answer the questions and stop the childish copy paste attempt of stuff you are obviously totally CLUELESS about.

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

            What will you copy paste in petty, ignorant avoidance this time, I wonder ?

            You are making a monumental goose of yourself, and you are TOO DUMB to know it.

          • ” parroting back.”

            Like the Norwegian blue you are emulating ? Nailed to its perch !

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

            squirm on, little worm 🙂

          • “CONCLUSION
            Carbon dioxide does not contribute appreciably with the greenhouse effect. The contribution of carbon dioxide to the current anomaly of temperature at its current concentration in the atmosphere is really insignificant.
            ——
            Carbon dioxide emitted by human activity cannot be the cause of climate change as it is incapable physically of causing a significant anomaly of the atmospheric temperature. ”

            Poor empty zero-science half-runt !

            Cannot produce one tiny skerrick of scientific evidence.. So sadly pathetic.

            Squiggle and squirm, little worm. 🙂

          • “but collisions between ghg and non ghg will occur and will transfer energy.”

            You actually seem to be learning

            Now all you have to do is face the FACT that the atmosphere can only maintain as much energy as the gravity controlled pressure/density gradient will allow, ..

            .. and you will have figured out why you are INCAPABLE of answering the two simple questions.

            1… BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ANY

            2… There is NO human causation in any of the minor global climate variability

            Come on half-runt.. you can take that tiny last step .

            Overcome your brain-washing, and let truth come in. !

          • Surface area of earth as sphere radius 6371km (not flat) 510,064,472sqkm
            Surface area of sphere at radiating height of 10km 6381km (still not a flat earth) 511,666,935sqkm
            Assume the radiating height increases 1km then surface area for radiation is 511,827,320

            If you agree with this it may be worth calculating wheter the increase in area compensates for the decrease in radiating temperature.

          • Please state your exact requirement as you do not seem to be axxeping ang scientific evidence
            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation

          • Fred. May I assume that you agree that co2 is increasing?
            May ~I assume that you agree with science that the increase is because we humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb – if not then please show evidence that “something else” is doing this.

          • Poor half-runt

            Still flapping about like a goonie bird

            Andswer the questions

            dolt

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation

            So far you have not answered either, just faffed around posting copy-paste BS.

            Copy paste BS is not scientific evidence.

          • “decrease in radiating temperature”

            Which you only have someone else’s fantasy theory about

            And an increased number of radiating molecules.

            You are just using someone else made-up junk-science without a clue what it is about.

            Fantasy theories are NOT science.

            But then, you are CLUELESS about what actual science is, aren’t you.

            You poor inept twerp.

          • fred 250

            Unfortunately you will not answer my questions.
            Until you do I will assume that you do not want to

          • “May I assume that you agree that CO2 is increasing?”

            THANK GOODNESS for that, hey.

            More plant growth, more food.

            Just what the planet needs to support life.. 🙂

          • LOL, accusing someone else of not answering question

            You are a JOKE…… an empty abyss. !

            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • “be axxeping ang scientific evidence”

            You have not presented any empirical scientific evidence

            All you have put forward an unsubstantiated load of opinion based cut-paste.

            Do you even know the difference?

          • fred250 October 18, 2020 at 5:03 pm
            1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?
            —————————-
            Unless you can agree some physics there is no way ANYONE can answer your questions.
            Currently as I suspected you will just call real physics FAKE.

            There is no way I am going to write/copy loads of real physics just for you to shout FAKE

            This is just a waste of time.

            Perhaps you would like to show the physics behind your views?

          • fred250 October 18, 2020 at 3:41 pm
            “May I assume that you agree that CO2 is increasing?”
            More plant growth, more food.
            ——————————-
            Some food crops will become more toxic. Many do not need greater leaf production . Some types are harmed by increasing co2.
            ======
            Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels Prompt More Plant Growth, But Fewer Nutrients
            Alayna DeMartini
            APRIL 3, 2018
            Elevated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has propelled the growth of some plants, but more is not always better.
            COLUMBUS, Ohio — It might seem there’s an upside to the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plants are growing faster.
            However, in many species of plants, quantity is not quality. Most plants are growing faster, but they have on average more starch, less protein and fewer key vitamins in them, said James Metzger, a professor and chair of the Department of Horticulture and Crop Science in The Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES).
            =====
            The team grew cassava and sorghum at three different levels of CO2; just below today’s current levels at about 360 parts per million in the atmosphere, at about 550 ppm and about double at 710 pm.

            Current levels in the air are just under 390 ppm, around the highest in at least 800,000 years and up by about a third since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

            “What we found was the amount of cyanide relative to the amount of protein increases,” Gleadow told Reuters from Glasgow, referring to cassava.

            At double current CO2 levels, the level of toxin was much higher while protein levels fell.

            The ability of people and herbivores, such as cattle, to break down the cyanide depends largely on eating sufficient protein.

            Anyone largely reliant on cassava for food, particularly during drought, would be especially at risk of cyanide poisoning.

          • “1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

            Just ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.. moron…

            and stop your mindless yabbering

            1… You KNOW the answer to the first one is that YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE so stop flapping about wind sock in a gale.

            All you have done is copy/paste stuff you have ZERO knowledge of, and most of which is pure speculation, un-backed by ANY empirical evidence…..

            Are you really so DUMB that you can’t see that !!!

            2. You know that the slight but highly beneficial warming is the only change in the climate since the COLDEST period in 10,000 years…….
            … And you have ZERO EVIDENCE of any human causation.

            You also admit that increased CO2 causes all plant to grow better.. well done.. !!!

            … and if scientists are too dumb to work out how to balance the necessary inputs, that is their problem.

            Greenhouse growers produce some of the most nutrient rich produce there is, because..

            …… THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

            CROP YIELDS around the world are continuing to increase, because of the extra CO2 and

            ….. because farmers KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

            And nutrient levels ARE NOT dropping except in badly performed experiments.

            And even then, the TOTAL nutrient level did not.

            Anyone can grow cyanic food…. if they try to. ! Hard enough.

          • Funny how competent researchers “find no evidence ” of increased cyanide.

            http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N49/EDIT.php

            Rosenthal et al. report that after three and a half months of growth at elevated CO2, the above-ground biomass of cassava was 30% greater, while cassava tuber dry mass was over 100% greater than it was in plants grown in ambient air. This result, in their words, “surpasses all other C3 crops and thus exceeds expectations.” And they add that in contrast to the greenhouse study they cited, they found “no evidence” of increased leaf or total cyanide concentrations in the plants grown in the elevated CO2 plots. Thus, it would appear that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content will likely play a major positive role in helping to provide the doubled global food needs of mankind that will prevail at the turn of the century, which is but a mere 38 years from now.

            And show that CO2 helps cassava grow far better in dry climates.
            https://co2coalition.org/2018/12/31/the-interactive-effects-of-elevated-co2-and-drought-on-cassava/

            And anyone that doesn’t know how to treat cassava, which is KNOWN to have possibly dangerous levels of cyanide.

            Best way to increase cyanide content, is to give it too much nitrogen based fertiliser.

            Easy for a researcher to do that, accidentally, unknowingly…. or on purpose.

          • Poor half-runt..

            science prove it wrong yet again

            So sad.

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009884722030023X

            Growth in cassava was initially increased by elevated temperature. However, across time, simultaneous elevated [CO2] led to an increasing biomass advantage over plants grown at ambient [CO2] and temperature. Elevated temperature and [CO2] also significantly increased tuber initiation and early tuber expansion. Tuber and leaf cyanide concentrations were significantly reduced under elevated temperature, while elevated temperature and [CO2] produced tuber cyanide concentrations similar to the higher levels found in plants grown at ambient conditions.

            http://www.co2science.org/articles/V23/jun/a11.php

            Forbes et al. also report the average tuber cyanide concentration declined under elevated temperature conditions (compared to control) but remained similar in the elevated CO2 and elevated temperature treatment. With respect to cassava leaf tissues, the cyanide concentration in this portion of the plant was highest in the control treatment. Both the elevated temperature and combined elevated temperature and CO2 treatments had concentrations that were 29% lower.
            The authors also report that there was “no alteration in the quantity or diversity of leaf phenolic compounds” and “no significant differences in leaf nitrogen content per unit leaf area.” Lastly, plant water use efficiency in the combined elevated temperature and CO2 treatment was 38.7% greater than that reported under control conditions.

    • Being real and being a problem is two entirely different things.
      Only a handful of people deny the existence of a greenhouse effect.
      All of the known science shows that it isn’t a problem.

  8. “it can affect global cellmate”

    WTH is that, g-half-runt…. do you now have “global cellmate” with you in your basement ?.

    I hope he/she/it is the right gender to keep you happy.

    And stop with your utter BS anti- science regurgitation, you are making a fool of yourself..

    Is it intentional ?

    You have NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 causes warming..

    You know that, so why keep up the fantasy ?

    1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

    2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

    Two simple questions.. will you run and hide, or just rant mindlessly.???

  9. The Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias is honed to fine edge in some people — to the point of constituting near mental illness. Often these folks are often mouthy. Bad combo.

  10. from the Exxon doc:

    The “greenhouse effect” is not likely to cause substantial climatic changes until the average global temperature rises at least 1 C above today’s levels. This could occur in the second to third quarter of the next century. However, there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable they might not be reversible and little could be done to correct the situation in the short term. Therefore, a number of environmental groups are calling for action now to prevent an undesirable future situation from developing.

    Predictions of the climatological impact of a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” draw upon various mathematical models to gauge the tem¬perature increase. The scientific community generally discusses the impact in terms of doubling of the current carbon dioxide content in order to get beyond the noise level of the data. We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon’s long
    range energy outlook. The question of which predictions and which models best simulate a carbon dioxide induced climate change is still being debated by
    the scientific community. Our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3o to 3.1oC. The increase would not be uniform over the earth’s surface with the polar caps likely to see temperature increases on the order of 10 C and the equator little, if any, increase.
    Considerable uncertainty also surrounds the possible impact on society of such a warming trend, should it occur. At the low end of the predicted temperature range there could be some impact on agricultural growth and rainfall patterns which could be beneficial in some regions and detrimental in others. At the high end, some scientists suggest there could be considerable adverse impact including the flooding of some coastal land masses as a result of a rise in sea level due to melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. Such an effect would
    not take place until centuries after a 3 C global average temperature increase actually occurred.

    • So, all just anti-science SPECULATION and unproven model GIGO….

      Thanks half-runt..

      Thanks for proving at EXXON didn’t actually “KNOW” anything.

      Just the same as now.

      NO-ONE KNOWS anything

      Heck, even a guru AGW clown like you can’t even answer two simple questions..

      1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

      2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

      STILL WAITING !! Please show us what “climate science” actually “KNOWS”

      You have been totally empty so far.

  11. The Oreskies campaign against Exxon-Mobile is pointless. Even if Exxon-Mobile has lied through its teeth, no one can claim to be harmed by the lie. Everyone has received a flood of official and scientific pronouncements on the subject of climate change. If anyone chooses to rely on Exxon-Mobile, they do so at their own risk. But no one can claim that they relied by those statements and were damaged.

    Lies are only subects of legal action if they are relied on, and no one can claim reasonable reliance against any oil producer.

  12. So what? Exxon analogy…..
    The pizza delivery kid knows that my pizza consumption is bad for my blood sugar and my arteries, and my BMI. I don’t expect to be able to sue him for damages.

    • Nor can you blame/sue the people making the pizza (so long as they do it to expected practices)

      Nor the cheese supplier, nor the cow.

      Nor the pastry maker, nor the farmer that grew the crop that supplied the ingredients.

      The rest depends on what sort of pizza you like…. 😉

      “The pizza delivery kid knows that my pizza consumption is bad for my blood sugar”</em.

      Actually, I doubt the pizza delivery kid either knows, or cares. 😉

      Does he give you a warning when he delivers your pizza ?

  13. Hey, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes:

    If you are really concerned about organizations intentionally misleading the public about climate change™, I gently suggest that you start first with the IPCC and their claims/warnings made based on models that clearly and intentionally overstate reality (that is, measured data over the last 20 years).

    From there, you can move next to various MSM organizations (such as PBS) and social media managers (Facebook et. al.), and then on to individuals such as Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Thomas Karl, Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Prince Charles, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

    • And then on to almost every scientific organization headed by bureaucrats that look only to increased funding for their organization. Without polling members they fall into line like dominoes.

      From there, you can move to 195 countries led by strong men who are looting their countries and looking to other sources of money such as the UN Green Fund.

      From there, we circle back to the UN where Strong and others set the agenda for the end of capitalism.

  14. Since the Earth’s atmosphere clearly cooled over the period of 1945 to 1975, I’m wondering why Exxon Mobil chose to “hide this fact” from the public.

    What warnings should they have issued to the public regarding the possibility that consumption of fossil fuels (including oil, gasoline and diesel fuels) might have been a significant contributor to this global cooling?

    /sarc off

  15. From the article: “In 2017, we published the first peer-reviewed analysis of ExxonMobil’s 40-year history of climate change communications. We found that the company and its parents, Exxon and Mobil, misled the public about climate change and its severity.”

    How do you mislead someone about something that has never been shown to exist? If it has not been shown to exist and you make that claim, you are not misleading, you are telling the truth.

    The “Exxon Knew” meme is demonstrably untrue. There’s nothing to know since there is no evidence CO2 is doing anything detrimental to the Earth’s atmosphere or to humans.

    There was and is nothing to cover up.

    • Regardless of whether it exists or not. Everything Exxon “KNEW” was already public knowledge. How can you mislead the public regarding things the public already knows?

  16. “Exxon Misled the Public about Climate Change”
    You can’t mislead unless you know FACTS and they didn’t k now the facts just as nobody today knows the FACTS about climate change.

  17. Exxon Lied and People Died! They made me complicit by forcing me to buy their petrol! Where are my Reparations?! Exxon withheld CAGW data that only they could know about! If they had not lied we would have not passed the tipping point! Make Exxon pay before we all die and it is too late to collect what they owe us!

    There griff, I typed it for you. Thank me.

  18. Oreskes is one of those people who ultimately thinks that if one doesn’t behave and act like a socialist activist, one is committing illegal acts. The end of this is the Gulag, North Korea and current Venezuela.

  19. Wow! Is she really still around?
    She clearly is striving to remain relevant, just like H. Clinton.
    Really she is not and never has been a scientist. She has never participated in or authored any actual scientific work.
    She is merely a propagandist who’s narrative was useful to prop up the ideologic orthodoxy of the progressive socialists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *