Big oil’s evolving efforts to avoid accountability for climate change

This is a report published by a joint staff report from the Budget committee. It details some of the “dirty tricks” employed by the fossil fuel industry to hide and deny their culpability in causing climate change and efforts to block initiatives to address the rising co2 at the core of climate change.


https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fossil_fuel_report1.pdf
The report that the fossil fuel industry, in particular Exxon, have been spreading and funding misinformation has been known for decades


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMe-BYUIPLU

 

Since CO2 from fossil fuel use comprises a tiny portion of alledged AGW CO2

 

This sad conspiracy theory dies a quick death when a reader learns that Exxon published and/or shared with the IPCC all their research results, and Exxon’s public statements tracked with the IPCC’s public positions. What really upsets alarmists in 2024 is the proper caution exercised by scientists decades ago.

 

Where is the proof that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes climate change? There is none.

What is the “enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis” which has been shown to be incorrect using the scientific method. Regardless if you believe that the hypothesis is correct or not there is no possibility that human CO2 emissions will be reduced. Global warming is occurring and ghe only rational response is to maximize economic growth by utilizing all sources of 24/7 electrical energy to ensure adaptability to any local problems.

 

Lols! Pull the other one it has bells on!

 

Linky?? Still even if they did that does not absolve them from the disinformation campaigns set out in the report OR the sheer number of people interviewed in the PBS program admitting to being part of the disinformation campaign/s

 

Lols! You are kidding yes? Try the whole report
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
knock yourself out

you tell me - I have no idea of what you are talking about since it appears to a strawman of your own construction

 

Huh?

 

Consensus is not proof. The AR’s are political documents. The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis is disproven using the scientific method.

 

Again you trot out a strawman and the links had nothing to do with “consensus”

 

The entire belief in the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis is based on consensus.

 

You have yet to show this made up rubbish is real

 

I have shown that the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis which you and many others believe to be true is disproven using the scientific method.

 

No you just keep repeating the same empty phrases and until you are specific about what you mean by this phrase I am not going to address it

 

We'll start with this. More to come.
The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared
Anthony Watts
If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T.…

"I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.

Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.

The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders. . . . "

 

The "Big Oil" lie does not survive exposure to sunlight.
The Claim ‘Exxon Knew’ Their Products Induced ‘Catastrophic Climate Impacts’ In The 1970s Is Bunk
By Kenneth Richard on 4. June 2024

In the 1970s and 1980s ExxonMobil did not know that their reports would be so wrongly misinterpreted in the 2010s.
Since 2015, when “investigative journalists” uncovered reports written in the late 1970s by ExxonMobil’s Science Advisor J.P. Black, it has been a common talking point in alarmist circles to insist that “Exxon Knew” about the looming climate catastrophe imposed by continuing to use their petroleum products.

“ExxonMobil had known that burning fossil fuels would lead to potentially catastrophic climate impacts as early as the late 1970s.” – ExxonKnew.org

“Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.“

The accusation is that Exxon was pushing their products knowing full well – with certainty – how much damage they caused.

Exx0nMobil 1977 Report

But if one were to actually read these internally published scientific reviews, it would be difficult to find even a hint of this definitive certainty pertaining to the science of climate change in the 1970s.

In the most notorious 1977 review (the written report was published in 197, J.P. Black emphasized there is considerable uncertainty whether the increase in CO2 was all or even mostly due to fossil fuels. The fundamental claim that fossil fuels drive CO2 level changes was still considered a never-validated assumption, as nature may contribute more to CO2 increases than human fossil fuel emissions do.

“The CO2 increase measured to date is not capable of producing an effect large enough to be distinguished from normal climate variations.”

“A number of assumptions and uncertainties are involved in the predictions of the Greenhouse Effect. At present, meteorologists have no direct evidence that the incremental CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil carbon.”

“There is considerable uncertainty regarding what controls the exchange of atmospheric CO2 with the oceans and with carbonated materials on the continents.”

“The conclusion that fossil fuel combustion represents the sole source of incremental carbon dioxide involves assuming not only that the contributions from the biosphere and from the oceans are not changing but also that these two sources are continuing to absorb exactly the same amount as they are emitting. The World Meteorological Organization recognized the need to validate these assumptions…”

“…biologists claim that part or all of the CO2 increase arises from the destruction of forests and other land biota.”

“…a number of other authors from academic and oceanographic centers published a paper claiming that the terrestrial biomass appears to be a net source of carbon dioxide for the atmosphere which is possibly greater than that due to fossil fuel combustion.”



Image Source: Black, 1977 (ExxonMobil Science Advisor)
The report also says that if the globe warms as predicted by models of doubling the CO2 concentration:


“…there will probably be no effect on the polar ice sheets.”

The Greenland ice sheet will experience “increased precipitation and actually result in the growth of this ice sheet.”

For East Antarctica’s ice sheet, doubled CO2 “would not affect this very large glacier and…it too might increase in size.”

Climate models are “primitive” and incapable of handling important aspects of climate.

“Modeling climatic effects is currently handicapped by an inability to handle all the complicated interactions which are important to predicting the climate. In existing models, important interactions are neglected.”

And there are benefits of a warmer climate around the world.

In a warmer world, “precipitation would increase. On a global scale, this should result in the lengthening of the growing season. Growing seasons are expected to increase about ten days for every 1°C increase in temperature.“

Exx0nMobil 1982 Report

The 1982 ExxonMobil report continued to express uncertainty about the origins of the CO2 increase, saying nature may be a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.

There was also no consensus on the detection of a CO2-induced temperature warming, as a majority of climatologists at the time thought CO2’s impacts would not be detectable until 2000.

“A number of climatologists claim that they are currently measuring a temperature signal (above climate noise) due to a CO2 induced greenhouse effect, while the majority do not expect such a signal to be detectable before the year 2000.”

And most importantly, Exxon still did not know climate catastrophe was the inevitable consequence of using petroleum products in the 1980s. They suggested otherwise, saying we can adapt to the changes. The consequences of fossil fuel burning are uncertain and in need of further study. No “specific actions” need be taken until we learn more.

“…society can adapt to the increase in CO2 and this problem is not as significant to mankind as nuclear holocaust or world famine.”

“Given the long term nature of the potential problem and the uncertainties involved, it would appear that there is time for further study and monitoring before specific actions need be taken.”



Image Source: Glazer, 1982 (ExxonMobil Manager, Environmental Affairs)

 

I and others have done so. You have ignored these explanations and have offered no explanation of what you believe is the cause of the current global warming period (the tenth warming period of the Holocene) we are currently experiencing.

 

This link is notable for the testimony of an Exxon-Mobil retiree.
‘ExxonKnew’: More Correction
By Robert Bradley Jr.
It’s a collection of people and just like any other organization with many people, there are many views and understandings on almost every topic imaginable. I worked with Republicans, Democrats, Socialists,…

". . . A far better take than that of the anti-fossil-fuel lobby was provided to the present author by longtime Exxon/Exxon Mobil employee Glen Lyons. He stated (in its entirety).

Here’s my two cents on the general concept of “What Exxon Knew” as a retired employee with more than 36 years of experience there.

First, Exxon doesn’t “know” anything. It’s a collection of people and just like any other organization with many people, there are many views and understandings on almost every topic imaginable. I worked with Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and Libertarians.

I worked with people who believed 25 years ago that climate change was a concern and I worked with people who still don’t believe that climate change is a concern. One of the great features about working at ExxonMobil is that it gives employees a fair amount of latitude to think “outside the box” by studying and proposing ideas that their management may not agree with.

I did plenty of that during my career, and sometimes it was well received by my management and sometimes not. Just because I made a presentation on a particular topic of my choosing doesn’t mean that my management was fully aligned on the front end or after the fact.

One thing is very true about ExxonMobil – the company has a long history of hiring brilliant people who are original and creative thinkers. Sometimes the output of these people finds broad support among management and sometimes it doesn’t. No one who knows ExxonMobil is surprised to learn that some employees were studying the link between CO2 emissions and global temperatures. However, that does NOT mean that his/her management agreed with the findings.

ExxonMobil senior management, while brilliant in their own right, are still people and subject to changing their views on issues as they collect more data. The fact that ExxonMobil’s corporate position has evolved over time shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s a testament to the openness and thoughtfulness of the ExxonMobil culture.

As a career employee, I’m very proud that ExxonMobil has had employees studying CO2 emissions and climate change for years and that they made the papers publicly available to help advance the science. We should not try to tear down ExxonMobil. We should instead praise it."

 

The first bullet point is explicitly demolished by the link in #15.

 

This is lengthy and technical, but it is a thorough takedown of "Exxon Knew" nonsense.
What I Learned about What Exxon Knew
Pat Frank
This essay is the nuclear fallout emergent from that small spark.

The conclusions:

VII. In which a summary finding of Exxon-Knewism is rendered.

• Exxon’s climate models did not foretell future temperature.
• Exxon’s scientists knew Exxon’s climate models did not foretell future temperature.
• Exxon’s managers knew Exxon’s scientists knew Exxon’s climate models did not foretell future temperature.
• Exxon corporately made a good-faith effort to understand CO2-climate connections.
• Exxon management funded independent research into CO2-climate connections.
• Exxon didn’t know.
• Exxon managers and scientists knew that Exxon didn’t know.
• Geoffrey Supran, Stefan Rahmstorf and Naomi Oreskes view all climate models as truth-machines.
• No matter the plain evidence, Geoffrey Supran, Stefan Rahmstorf and Naomi Oreskes do not know that Exxon did not know. At best.
• Supran, Rahmstorf, Oreskes (2023) is wrong in every important particular.

VIII. In which judgments are made and conclusions are drawn.

1. Supran, Rahmstorf, Oreskes (2023) Figure 1b is minimally a soaring monument to careless tendency.
2. The S-R-O (2023) Exxon Knew indictment dismally failed its evidentiary hearing.
3. Supran, Rahmstorf, Oreskes (2023) passed the conscious muster with editors and reviewers of Science Magazine.
4. S-R-O (2023) is akin to a journalistic show-trial.
5. Science Magazine, in prosecuting the indictment, is administratively akin to Andrey Vyshinsky.
6. Such is the culture now in possession of establishment journals.

 

More correctly: This has been alleged for decades. The allegation has been shown to be false.

 

And btw, natural gas is a clean fuel.

 

Language and semantics have always been a weakness of the Climate Nazis.

 

The report confirms that trade associations acted as . . . trade associations.

 

Go figure.