Guest “No schist Sherlock” by David Middleton
INVESTIGATION
Exclusive: GM, Ford knew about climate change 50 years ago
Maxine Joselow, E&E News reporter Published: Monday, October 26, 2020[…]
E&E News obtained hundreds of pages of documents on GM’s corporate history from the General Motors Heritage Center and Wayne State University in Detroit. Documents on Ford’s climate research were unearthed by the Center for International Environmental Law. The Climate Investigations Center provided additional material on both manufacturers.
The investigation reveals striking parallels between two of the country’s biggest automakers and Exxon Mobil Corp., one of the world’s largest publicly traded oil and gas companies. Exxon privately knew about climate change in the late 1970s but publicly denied the scientific consensus for decades, according to 2015 reporting by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times that spawned the hashtag #ExxonKnew and fueled a wave of climate litigation against the oil major.
[…]
E&E News
The E&E “journalist” has a 2016 BA in English… She probably didn’t take much in the way of science courses, and certainly not in the 1970’s.
Note to Ms. Joselow: Everyone “knew about climate change 50 years ago”…
1963
On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate
F. Möller
AbstractThe numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.
[…]
In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases). Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg. According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.
[…]
We recognize that for Δf = 0.8 per cent per deg the temperature change becomes infinite. Very small variations effect a reversal of sign or huge amplifications.
It is not too difficult to infer from these numbers that the variation in the radiation budget from a changed CO2 concentration can be compensated for completely without any variation in the surface temperature when the cloudiness is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm l.e.
[…]
These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value. No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied. Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.
Möller, F. (1963), On the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in air on the radiation balance of the Earth’s surface and on the climate. J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.
1974
The atmosphere’s blanketing effect over the earth’s surface has been compared to the functioning of a greenhouse. Short-wave sunlight passes as easily through the glass of the greenhouse as through the atmosphere. Because glass is opaque to the long-wave radiation from the warm interior of the greenhouse, it hinders the escape of energy.
As a planet, the earth is not warming or cooling appreciably on the average, because it loses as much radiant energy as it gains.
Kolenkow, Robert J., Reid A. Bryson, Douglas B. Carter, R. Keith Julian, Robert A. Muller, Theodore M. Oberlander, Robert P. Sharp & M. Gordon Wolman. Physical geography today : a portrait of a planet. Del Mar, Calif. : CRM Books, [1974]. p. 64.
1975
FORECASTING THE FUTURE. We can now try to decide if we are now in an interglacial stage, with other glacials to follow, or if the world has finally emerged from the Cenozoic Ice Age. According to the Milankovitch theory, fluctuations of radiation of the type shown in Fig. 16-18 must continue and therefore future glacial stages will continue. According to the theory just described, as long as the North and South Poles retain their present thermally isolated locations, the polar latitudes will be frigid; and as the Arctic Ocean keeps oscillating between ice-free and ice-covered states, glacial-interglacial climates will continue.
Finally, regardless of which theory one subscribes to, as long as we see no fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend, and the presence of ice on Greenland and Antarctica indicates that no change has occurred, we can expect that the fluctuations of the past million years will continue.
Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th Edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp 463-464
1975
1976
Suggestion that changing carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere could be a major factor in climate change dates from 1861, when it was proposed by British physicist John Tyndall.
[…]
Unfortunately we cannot estimate accurately changes of past CO2 content of either atmosphere or oceans, nor is there any firm quantitative basis for estimating the the magnitude of drop in carbon dioxide content necessary to trigger glaciation. Moreover the entire concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect is controversial, for the rate of ocean-atmosphere equalization is uncertain.
Dott, Robert H. & Roger L. Batten. Evolution of the Earth. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Second Edition 1976. p. 441.
Get the picture yet?
Everyone (scientists) knew that CO2 was a “greenhouse gas.” Everyone (scientists) knew that, all other factors held equal, an increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 would cause the bulk atmosphere to become somewhat warmer than it otherwise would be. Everyone (scientists) knew that Earth doesn’t allow for all other factors to be held equal. No one knew how sensitive the Earth’s climate was to atmospheric CO2. To this day, no one knows. Every sentient being should know that the benefits of fossil fuels to the well-being of the world have far outweighed any harm that ~1-2 °C of warming may have caused… Particularly since that warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic period of the Holocene Epoch. There’s more evidence that the warming and CO2 fertilization have been, on the whole, extremely beneficial than harmful.
Let this sink in
This graph appears as Figure 3 in nearly every bogus climate lawsuit filed against oil companies over the past couple of years:
Here’s the same graph with HadCRUT4 NH overlaid on it:
HadCRUT4 tracks the bottom of the uncertainty range (just like modern climate models) and it is barely exceeding the “approximate range of undisturbed climate in past few centuries.”
Now, process this
According to IPCC AR4, all of the warming since about 1975 can only be explained by anthropogenic forcing. Natural forcing alone (as the IPCC understands it) would have led to the climate being cooler now, than when “the Ice Age Cometh”…
How could I possibly end a post about Detroit Motor City without a song from the great Motor City Madman?
Thanks, David, for yet another educational and entertaining post.
Regards,
Bob
PS: Personally, of Ted Nugent’s songs, I prefer “Stranglehold”, especially when I was playing the juke boxes in Texas ice houses (decades ago), because “Stranglehold” is over 8 minutes long. Gotta get your money’s worth.
PS: And for those of you so young you have yet to hear Nugent’s “Stranglehold”
Regards,
Bob
+42×1042
Takes me back
Have it on that good old fossil fuel based vinyl myself. And polycarbonate CD….. Because the vinyl copy wore out!
Is that possible?
Here, I just thought it was my turntable.
It was a tough choice… Free For All, Stranglehold, Cat Scratch Fever, Wango Tango… 😉
David?
How do they rank against a Beethoven symphony? Geoff S
I don’t think there’s a direct translation… But, ELO and/or The Moody Blues might be the Rosetta Stone
Yes
I think Jeff Lynne is the bridge
So… The Traveling Wilburys were a bridge to everywhere! 😎
DAVE –> Willbury’s — And anywhere. Miss the ones that have left us.
Brings a smile and memories of growing up in Michigan. Once in a while Ted would shop at the local Meyers store. I had a couple of girl friends that lived just down the road from him.
In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, ‘Alice’s Restaurant’, Pink Floyd’s ‘Careful with that axe, Eugene’ (live), Pink Floyd ‘A Saucerful of Secrets’ (Live), Hot Tuna ‘I See the Light’ long version, Jefferson Starship Starship live, And the ever classic Don McLean ‘American Pie’!
Uncalibrated models used to confirm that the models are correct. I have yet to hear from the climate science experts why the rate of temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 can be considered natural and the same rate of temperature rise from 1970 to present is all anthropogenic. If they prove that, scientifically, I will (maybe, not likely) convert to alarmism.
It was 2006 when we visited Glacier Bay in Alaska, and were handed maps of the area. Back then, we were being told the Glaciers had been melting since 1840, and it was all our fault.
The old mariners had been charting the area since about 1750, when that 65 mile long bay was completely occupied by a massive 65 mile long glacier. They kept updating their charts as the glacier melted, and it had started melting a little by 1800, when the population of the entire earth was on the order of 1/7 of today, and transportation was by horse, foot, and wooden sailing vessel. By about the start of the year 1900, prior to the invention of the airplane, a good dozen years before the mass production of the auto, and population about 1/4 of today, around 75% of the glacier was gone.
So what caused that melting? If we were the cause, tell me in detail how we have any chance of stopping the warming. If we were not the cause, prove to me that whatever was the cause is not the cause of any warming today. Any science experts wish to try? griff?
– Remember the ‘global cooling’ panic of the 1970s?
– In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience: “The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
– In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
– Images for ‘global cooling’ 1970s
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=global+cooling+1970s&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
and:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.CCTxBXz6xfCYtYV4dGzZoAHaE8%26pid%3DApi%26h%3D160&f=1
In 1970 there was nothing about global warming but only about pollution concerns and that it would destroy our world. This was a theme going back to the sixties. The problem with many young journalists is that they are ignorant both of science and history and do not do their homework properly.
Song? That’s a song? I’ve heard borborygma that was more melodious. I pity the foo’s standing near the speakers, probably deaf for life.
The ancient Greeks wrote a lot. A few ancient Greeks postulated the existence of atoms. The ancient Greeks knew!
The auto companies have huge internal communications. If you dredge through those communications, you can find anything. Anything some people at the auto companies said about the future climate in the 1970s has about the same credibility as some ancient Greeks predicting the existence of atoms, ie. just guessing. I bet as you dredge through the corporate communications you’ll find several different theories about what the climate might, or might not, do.
Same argument used against Google for using Java “without a licence” (which they had the right to do) by Oracle with the back up of the Trump administration, and the whole phony “conservative” media who defends (non existent, idiotic) “intellectual property” (which is no property at all: you can’t own ideas).
niceguy
Can I assume that you don’t approve of patents? If so, can you explain what incentive might induce someone to go to the trouble of developing an invention and committing to the expensive and arduous process of committing the details to a patent application? If it isn’t committed to paper, then someone has to reverse engineer the device and possibly repeat the expense of research supporting the invention, like testing thousands of different materials to find a usable filament for incandescent light bulbs or thermionic vacuum tubes. I don’t think that you have really thought this through,
Patents are property of ideas now? They are a very special system unrelated to property rights that is used for lack of an ideal alternative. It’s a dirty compromise like almost all state intervention.
Calling it property is evil.
(Java interfaces were not even patented.)
Are we confusing patents and copyright here, gents?
Google is arguably even more unscrupulous (it can’t be evil, because Sergei said it isn’t) than Oracle, but Oracle should have been on very shaky grounds with the claim that Google had breached copyright by using the published standard definitions of calls to Sun Microsystems’ Java language. Sun published the definition to popularise the language, and even made source to the reference implementation of the JVM freely available to encourage the many third party implementations.
Sun’s main restriction was that an implementation couldn’t be called Java unless it had passed a rather rigorous set of automated tests.
Of course, Sun Microsystems ran into financial difficulties and was bought by Oracle.
Conversely, Red Hat was rather successful, and was bought by IBM. Make of that what you will.
And, of course, this rather interesting digression has no discernable relationship to whether or not any fossil fuel or automotive companies in the late 1970s “knew” the magnitude of temperature impacts of changing the proportion of atmospheric CO2
“discernable relationship to whether or not any fossil fuel or automotive companies in the late 1970s “knew””
Actually there is:
Google “knew” that its use of Java needed a licence from the copyright owner, as proven by (I think two) internal emails
LIKE
Exxon “knew” CO2 was turning the Earth into a furnace as proven by an internal study
The anti Google people made heavy use of that argument in Internet discussions.
Birds of a feather…
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/23/us/metoo-replacements.html
…flock together.
Jeez Louise, Exxon, Ford, and GM knew that their product was going to turn our planet into an burning end of all life, and they went ahead and promoted and sold their product anyway? This terminal behavior would be due to (choose one): they think whoever dies with the most is the winner; they think you can take it with you; they hate children; they believe an elon musk will come along and whisk them off to mars; this is a secreat satanic ritual for them, written large? What? What would so inspire these companies to rush recklessly into oblivion? Personally, I’m not buying any of this, but I was paid a lot of money by big oil (thank you, CONOCO).
Even if the motor companies knew they are simply supplying equipment. Even with smoking no-action was taken against cigarette lighters which is the equivalent and that equipment has one explicit goal stated in the name.
Who cares about climate change, I want to know what Ford and GM knew about the 100 mpg carburetor, how they suppressed it and used it to blackmail the oil companies into keeping gas prices down so they could sell gas guzzling behemoths. Enquiring minds want to know. /s/
How about the water engine – why did they suppress that information?
“..According to IPCC AR4, all of the warming since about 1975 can only be explained by anthropogenic forcing. Natural forcing alone (as the IPCC understands it) would have led to the climate being cooler now, than when “the Ice Age Cometh”…”
David:
I’m not a scientist, but I’m wondering about urban heat island with regards to the quote above. Is the IPCC telling me that UHI should not have played any role in the warming of the surface temperature record over the past 40- 45 years? Are they saying that the surface temp record should have cooled in spite of UHI? Has the IPCC even acknowledged the existence of UHI?
In addition, if we do not yet fully understand all the natural drivers of climate, I (again, as a non-scientist) find it hard to understand how the IPCC can even make that claim in the quote above. If I am missing something here, feel free to enlighten me. Thanks.
CD…all you need to know is that the UN/IPCC was formed…to lower CO2 emissions …in 1988
and then look at this graph >
I am a scientist… And those are the same questions I would ask, and no one can answer without appearing to be stoned and/or brainwashed… 😎
Having been in college almost 50 years ago the environmental issues I recall were the population bomb, NOx, low level ozone and CO from transportation, Water pollution, acid rain, PCB’s and later in the decade Freon. Let’s not forget the next ice age scare and peak oil. CO2 concerns didn’t exist.
Me too. BS 50 years ago. Agree that those were the environmental issues of the day. My goal in those days was how am I going to get a big block corvette and a blonde in the passenger seat. Got the blonde but took me almost 50 years to get the corvette
Got the blonde but took me almost 50 years to get the corvette because the blonde?
Also nuclear winter (and Saddam’s not a winter).
In normal science:
Generally – Cold things emit less, and Warm things emit more.
In climate science:
Emitting Less means something is getting Warmer.
The sad part is the amount of mental gymnastics skeptics perform to believe in the GH effect.
They think they are being rational centrists, but they are actually half-way falling for a hoax.
Don’t be a coward.
If the same amount of energy is going in, and less energy is going out, then something will get warmer, basic freshmen physics.
Perhaps you should learn some.
A lot of energy is used within Earth’s systems.
eg wave, wind, erosion. etc
Adds heat
eg, suppose a million tonnes of sand is moved by wave action from A to B, then next week moved back from B to A. Where does that energy come from and go to.?
It becomes heat, really.
Never warmer than input energy allows. Entropy. Learn some science.
Again, only one of these is true:
Cold things emit less, and Warm things emit more.
or
Emitting Less means something is getting Warmer.
They both can’t be true. The first is real, the second is your imagination via self-serving rhetoric. You are in fantasy land.
Ron Long: Immediate gratification usually beats delayed gratification. Immediate profits are more important to a company than the risk that the company will sink into oblivion sometime in the future. Anyone in business knows that companies don’t last forever, so they need to focus on the short and middle term (remember that booming 19th century business of providing horses and fodder for the transport industry?) Assuming all directors and senior management agreed in the 1970s that the oil industry was contributing to an increase in climate warming, how likely would they be to commit suicide and close down? I don’t think the extreme memes of the earth coming to a burning end were around then.
The irony is that all this fuss about CO2 is a humungous mistake.
The only greenhouse gas that has a significant effect on climate is water vapor. Global WV trend has been increasing 1.5% per decade which is faster than possible from temperature increase (feedback). https://tinyurl.com/yxehr2pj is a comparison of measured WV increase and a calculation of what it would be if from temperature increase alone.
In the last 30 years, more than 7 WV molecules have been added to the atmosphere for each CO2 molecule. The WV increase is nearly all (about 96%) from increasing irrigation. WV increase accounts for all of the temperature increase attributable to humanity. Carbon dioxide, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant net effect on climate.
WV at the poles is very low because of the low temperature so the GHE there is dominated by CO2. The CO2 increase is significant there and explains the small temperature increase there.
This article from Manabe and Möller may be of interest :
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278665889_On_the_radiative_equilibrium_and_heat_balance_of_the_atmosphere
Particularly of interest, the Heat budget chapter p. 525 and the figure 22 which shows the mean vertical distribution of various heat balance components (among which the CO2).
And we know this since 1961 …
AGW is just a conjecture based on only partial science. Regarding the AGW conjecture, there never has been and there is not now a consensus regarding its validity. All this talk of consensus is just speculation. Scientists never registered and then voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. But even if they had, the results would have been meaningless because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated via a voting process. This talk of consensus is politics and not science.
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is effectively zero.
AGW is a conjecture based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of so called greenhouse gases or because IR radiation is trapped inside the greenhouse. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass, gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount of warming derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected. If CO2 really affected climate one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is hence science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.
But for those who still believe in the radiant greenhouse effect, initial calculations of the climate sensitivity came up with a nominal figure of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 not including feedbacks. Christopher Monckton and associates came up with the conclusion, based on measurements, that if all the warming since 1850 were caused by CO2 then the climate sensitivity of CO2 could not possible be more than 1.2 degrees C including feedbacks. A researcher from Japan pointed out that the original radiametric calculations forgot to include that fact that a doubling of CO2 will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect that lowers the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20, from 1.2 degrees C to less than .06 degrees C which is too small to measure. So no wonder that no one has been able to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2 because there is nothing to measure.
Then there is the issue of H2O feedback. The AGW conjecture assumption is that CO2 based warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming that causes even more H2O to enter the atmosphere and so forth. Not only is H2O a greenhouse gas but molecule per molecule H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 and on average there is roughly 50 times more H2O in the atmosphere. Compared to H2O the contribution of CO2 to the overall radiant greenhouse effect must be trivial. What the AGW conjecture ignores is that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The overall cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate which is a cooling effect. So instead of a potentially unstable positive feedback, H2O provides a negative climate stabilizing feedback. So instead of multiplying the climate sensitivity of CO2 by a nominal 3 we should divide the climate sensitivity of CO2 by 3 yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 os less than .02 degrees C which is too small to measure and is effectively zero. So all of this effort to reduce CO2 emissions because doing so might provide a better climate is a total waste of money. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing as it has been doing for eons, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are both part of the current climate. If the future is anything like that past, the current interglacial period may gradually end but it may take many thousands of years to do so and the next ice age will be upon us for roughly 100,000 years so we should all learn to enjoy the warmth of the current interglacial period while it is still here.
Hey there Mr. “Rounding Error.”
…
How’s Texas doing?
…
Your state now leads the country in the number of confirmed COVID19 cases.
While your comment is nothing but SPAM in this thread and I’m trying to stop feeding trolls…
About 3% of the population of Texas has tested positive, very close to the national average.
62.6 deaths per 100,000 people = 0.06%
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut have case fatality rates more than 3 times that of Texas.
With a 1.99% case fatality rate and the fact that about 80% of ChiCom-19 infections go undiagnosed because they are asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, the actual fatality rate is probably closer to 0.4%.
Regarding Dallas County…
Dallas County Population 2,635,516
94,358 confirmed cases represent 3.6% of the population… 96.4% of the population have not tested positive.
1,101 confirmed deaths represent 0.04% of the population, which rounds to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V3CfD8TPac
However…
Please don’t comment on normal science because you don’t even understand the basics.
In normal science for radiative transfer:
Emissions simply change frequency based on temperature. Heat is not a fundemental statistic it is a stupid man made statistic and plays no part in what is happening. If you go from the photon perspective some setups will emit more photons when hot others less there is no actual correlation it depends on the system.
Not sure why that didn’t end as a reply to Zoe the mysteries of wordpress can a MOD move it
So Tyndall weighed in first on CO2 possible warming in 1865 (before science was aware that we were in an Ice Age) and workers 100yrs later estimated that it would have to be be modest at most because of easy nullification by tiny increases in clouds. Exxon’s effort showed a substantial natural variation in temperature was evident prior to any concerns taking effect from CO2 and indeed, virtually all the warming in the 20th Century had occurred prior to the early 1940s. Following the torrid 1930s-40s we plunged into over 35yrs of cooling reported on by Science News 1975 article of “The Ice Age Cometh”, Newsweek’s
https://www.scribd.com/doc/225798861/Newsweek-s-Global-Cooling-Article-From-April-28-1975
which the author apologized for in the new left’s “re-education camp” atmosphere of today.
Quick to realize the huge threat that the 35 yr cooling despite mounting additions of CO2 had on the theory of Devastating Anthropo Global warming, the Climate Wroughters set about to ‘debunk’ this ‘alleged’ propaganda. They even went so far as to manufacture a phoney glossy issue of Time Magazine from the 70s with all the ‘hype’, and a frigid scene in a cover photo that they then debunked, attributing the deceipt to climate D*nyers! How diabolical (and telling) is that! They were careful to choose a date in the 70s a few years removed from the real news magazines to deflect away from them.
This frigid cold period descended from 30s- 40s to to 1979-80, erasing the warming highstand of the 20th Century. A good deal of the warming of the last 20yrs of the century was really the recovery from “The Ice Age Cometh” period. This has all been adjusted out of existence gradually, starting with GISS fiddling in 1999 when James Hansen was disappointed that the super El Niño of 1998 did not result in a new world record (let’s set aside that the ENSO warming had nothing to do with CO2).
What is impossible to debunk is the Leonard Nimoy documentary on the coming of the ice age a must watch with interviews with scientists. And of course not a few of us lived through it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6fDa9JrzQ
This is simply ambulance chasers being ambulance chasers and looking for lottery payday.
Day 1 of Tort Law 101: You don’t sue the guy who has no money.
And you won’t get any traction because they are simply equipment suppliers .. it’s not illegal to make cars. If something illegal happens by using the car then that is between the user and the government.
So, Ford new all about climate change. No, not Harrison but Ford motor company. And that 50 years ago! Wow, Ford new more than the few climate scientists at the time, who were still discovering the climate-change gravy train. Ergo, Ford must have had the better boffins. What, then, were those in academia doing, fildling their thumbs?
Mr. Middleton,
FYI—
“IRVING, Texas – The Board of Directors of Exxon Mobil Corporation today declared a cash dividend of $0.87 cents per share on the Common Stock, payable on December 10, 2020 to shareholders of record of Common Stock at the close of business on November 12, 2020.”
Best regards,
J. Garrett
Taking it one step further in the lynch mob then the unions knew and so did the crafters of pensions designed to fail in Detroit with Party approvals all along the way.
In the old days there were gold and silver prospectors and miners followed by uranium prospectors. Today we have tobacco settlement scammers prospecting the land. Instead of picks, shovels, and Levi jeans, you need lawyers, advocacy teams, and paid media groups to set up camp. The latter group is more carbon intensive.
In any large corporation there are many many predictions and memos about the effects of the products. Finding One memo that predicts something that favors the green agenda does not prove that anyone “knew” anything.
My go-to video re “There’s nothing to see here, move along” is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404