While everyone was chanting #ExxonKnew, another “they knew” story was unfolding in plain sight. For more than a decade, we've been inundated with a carefully crafted public relations campaign built around a simple slogan: #ExxonKnew. The accusation is familiar. Exxon supposedly understood the risks of anthropogenic climate change decades ago, concealed what it knew, and therefore bears responsibility for today's climate damages. That slogan has become the centerpiece of lawsuits, congressional h...
This post is currently for paid subscribers only, all membership types.
If you are a paid subscriber and can't view it, make sure to log in.
After 30 days it will be available to all users.
You can bookmark it and read in 30 days or
The bullet point: “That wasn’t coming from skeptics. It was coming from respected climate scientists.”, implies that skeptics aren’t respected. Replace the word “respected” with “main stream”. Problem solved.
They’re not scientists, either.
It is time to start filing #ClimateScienceKnew lawsuits against universities and university researchers, climate activist NGOs, philanthropies who funded the Climate, public schools and teachers unions who knowingly distorted curriculum and caused immeasurable harm to children, the renewable energy industry that is a leech on the climate scare, #ExxonKnew plaintiffs, politicians speaking outside of their official capacity, and various arms of the mainstream news media, especially those who organized Climate communications departments. The list could go on.
The US alone has needlessly wasted well over $1 trillion since 2010 on EV mandates, forced construction of wind and solar generation along with transmission and battery backup systems, and biofuels. Billions in federal research dollars went to climate change effects researchers who blindly used the 8.5 scenario. The fossil fuel electric power industries were forced to allocate billions of dollars on fruitless alternate energy schemes and carbon capture nonsense. None of it was necessary, nor is it of any practical or redeeming value.
Who will take the lead? Among other things, I envision class action lawsuits for damages, and new media blitzes against the perpetrators of this colossal climate emergency hoax.
To your point, only Exxon is responsible for the climate?
I would submit that whether or not any individual company knew or not, the outcome is the same, which makes the point moot. The world needs and uses hydrocarbons for fuel and other products.
There is a problem. Was RCP8.5 implausible (maybe even impossible) from the day it was developed, or is it only now determined to be implausible because of the great advances made in fighting Climate Change, as many CC proponents have stated? The Keeling curve says that there have been no advances.
I read the Exxon research report and it is not what the alarmists are saying
how many of you guys really believe this is the most visited place on the internet?
What does the report say?
Are you trying to lie or do you just have problems with reading comprehension?
Zero is my guess
Typical climate alarmist, can’t win on the facts, so uses a lie to change the subject.
Nobody ever said this site was the most visited place on the internet.
I’d ask you if felt shame or regret, but we both know you don’t.
You are here, aren’t you…. and regularly making mockery of yourself.
Perhaps you can look at this, read and comprehend.
https://energi.media/news/exxon-models-predicting-climate-change-were-spot-on-40-years-ago/
Note it say many models not all models. Obviously no consensus.
Post a brief summary of the report and a link to the report.
What I Learned about What Exxon Knew
2023 Addendum to What Did Exxon Know?
Links in the citations.
It can’t be, there is still a lot of uncertainty in current models and the models from back then were flat out wrong.
I am not trying to bash current or past scientists, they are essential to drive the science forward, but it is a simple truth that we are not there yet and certainly the older models are not capable to predict weather, extreme weather, global warming or climate changes with the required precision. Any expert knows that independent of their climate believe!
As a recent example consider
https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104990
“””Warm Clouds Biases in CMIP6 Models Linked to Indirect Effects of Falling Ice-Radiation Interactions Over the Tropical and Subtropical Pacific”””
If this bias is not properly addressed in recent cmip6 models, Exxon researcher 4 decades ago did not address it either.
Their results were biased, they did not know (and this is just one of thousands of improvements to the models physics, there are many more flaws including artifacts from insufficient model resolution)
That whole Exxon knew story is completely baffling only, because it shows a basic lack of knowledge of the accusers! (Or they actually know and test the public.. )
From 2019: Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Climate models right up through CMIP6 have no predictive value.
The main thing that the models used in “Exxon Knew” shared in common were positive slopes. However, there was considerable variation in the shapes and general slopes (some virtually absurd). When experiments are duplicated to see if one gets the same result as the author, it it generally assumed that the claims are verified if a graph of the outcome is indistinguishable from the published article, or at least falls within the uncertainty bounds. That would not be the case with the examples from “Exxon Knew.”
I’ve read them, too. Exxon and its scientists behaved ethically throughout.
And they were candid about the unreliability of climate models, and thus the unreliability of the projections.
The whole of #ExxonKnew is manufactured from whole-cloth villainy.
What did Al Gore know?
Not much, but he’s full of misconceptions and other stuff.
Everything he thought he knew was basically WRONG. !
And he still is.
But what does he know now – has he corrected his understanding of Climate based on his predictions failing?
He just announced that every single one of the issues he raised were totally authenticated, completely correct.
This is the face of 100% failure of predictions!
Up until the end, Ehrlich still defended his predictions. Even the ones that failed nearly 50 years ago.
Such is the voice of unrepentant BS.
Answers my question – thanks.
It’s good to expose the background of RCP8.5 and its misuse. But in so doing, let’s not give any unearned credit to modeled scenarios of more moderate emissions pathways. Do those time-step-iterated, parameter-tuned-to-hindcast simulations tell us anything of value about the future climate, as related to emissions of CO2? No.
I hold that #NASA_Knew better than to use the language of crisis or danger, as elements of a web article published January 14, 2009 provide fundamental descriptions of climate system response to absorbed solar energy. Those responses imply a strong self-regulating characteristic. Was there ever a good physical reason for alarm? No.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
One more thing. Even today does anyone “KNOW” that incremental CO2 is even capable of OPERATING as a climate “forcing” to which amplifying “feedbacks” must be expected to arise? No. This is demonstrated here using the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
ERA40 was available in the early 2000’s with this same hourly parameter for assessing the order of magnitude of the computed increase in IR absorbing power from rising concentrations of CO2. That “forcing” is vanishingly weak in the proper context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation, which operates throughout the depth of the troposphere. Spectral signatures do not suffice to confirm an exertion of a perceptible influence on the massive atmosphere which operates as the compressible fluid of its own circulation between the surface and space.
A more complete explanation about energy conversion, with references, plots, and a time-lapse video is shared here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
There. Thank you for listening.
Any “scenario” that is based on atmospheric CO2, is a junk scenario… period !
Every IPCC model contains carbon dioxide as a controller.
That means it is impossible for any one of them to get any result other that one which seems to agree with the issue they are supposed to be testing.
It is not science. Models are not science, modelling is a tool and a very blunt instrument at that. As always with IT, garbage in -> garbage out.
Heck with the Known Unknowns, we are still drowning in the Unknown Unknowns.
What we need is an executive order that requires government agencies to purge studies and reports that are based on RCP8.5, including the Fifth National Climate Assessment.
Education materials based on RCP8.5 also must be purged within a year.
Still wondering…
When will studies that used the IPCC RCP8.5 scenario be retracted?
Somewhere between never and the end of time.
The 12th of Never.
The “ExxonKnew” story has always bothered me with the incredible hypocrisy coming from the alarmist camp. I’ll preface this by saying I’m not currently a paid subscriber, (times are tough, I’ll give my support when I’m not having finance stress dreams) so I don’t know if this is brought up in the article, but shouldn’t whatever “Exxon Knew” or did not know mean absolutely nothing? I mean these are reports being generated by scientists being paid by BIG OIL. I thought we couldn’t trust anything being said or written by those making oil money? Why does “the science” only hold weight when it fits the narrative? I mean, I know, its easy, gotta sell the story somehow, but gosh it really gets me ticked (I don’t know how the site feels about swearing, best to keep it clean).
Even when I was in my full alarmist stage, full on climate panic, sleepless night, questioning my existence and why I should persist, “ExxonKnew” still didn’t sit right. I mean the alarmists they had me hook, line, and sinker, and the lack of logic behind “ExxonKnew” really annoyed me. You cannot deny science based on who signs a cheque and then turn around and say “but these specific oil money guys are cool actually.”
Even if ExxonKnew then so did everyone else that had access to ‘the science’.
Politicians also knew as they have a swathe of public servants and departments that are advising them on current knowledge and events.
That is not all they know, they know additional CO2 into the atmosphere can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming. I have no respect for liars.
A couple of quotes from private emails between “scientists” and a mere layman:
———————–
#ScientistsKnew
It is a waste of money to support “precautionary planning” for a situation that will never happen.