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

The enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis has no truth in it. However faith based narratives will continue but without the corrupt aid from enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis believing bureaucrats.

 

Once again - ho hum - the social media poster knows best.

https://www.wri.org/insights/2023-ipcc-ar6-synthesis-report-climate-change-findings
10 Big Findings from the 2023 IPCC Report on Climate Change

8. Carbon removal is now essential to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C.

Deep decarbonization across all systems while building resilience won’t be enough to achieve global climate goals, though. The IPCC finds that all pathways that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) — with no or limited overshoot — depend on some quantity of carbon removal….

 

We have passed the 1.5 degrees C barrier. Nothing bad has happened. The benefits of global warming continue.

 

You don’t know your bible.

 

You picked the metaphor.

 

So much for the "Exxon knew" conspiracy theory.
Did The Guardian Just Blow Up the Exxon Knew Narrative?
Eric Worrall
So much for the big secret big oil conspiracy. Marathon Oil published an article in 1977 in a company periodical suggesting CO2 might cause mass starvation. . . .

 

Seems you’ll continue to make your Social Media posts, despite the facts. Another false statement- we’re at 1.1 deg F, not 1.5 deg F. Also, From the link you obviously ignored.

“since 2008, extreme floods and storms have forced over 20 million people from their homes every year.
…
Coastal communities in the tropics, for example, have seen entire coral reef systems that once supported their livelihoods and food security experience widespread mortality, while rising sea levels have forced other low-lying neighborhoods to move to higher ground and abandon cultural sites. “

 

Alarmism unsupported by data.

 

The Social Media poster refutes the IPCC

 

Well, no. But they still need to get out of the way of the tsunami.
The Media Are Sheep
Willis Eschenbach
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach The Seattle Times, in its usual alarmist fashion, has an article about how the dreaded “rising seas” are forcing the Quinault Nation to move its…

 

Not of interest -- mere personal attack.

 

Copernicus (EU) and Berkeley Earth show data indicating that the global average temperature is over 1.5 degrees CENTIGRADE greater than it was at the start of the current warming period.

And there has been no difference in the occurence of floods and storms despite the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to 420 ppm.

And the coral reef systems despite regular die offs and recovery have seen not correlation with CO2 increases. Sea level is increasing but at the same rate for the last few centuries. Wind patterns and land sinking (especially land created by human land fills) are sinking. All of this is unrelated to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

The information in your post was ignored because it has been repeatedly discredited.

 

I links, no facts, just dribble.

 

Completely accurate as anyone with an interest in the truth knows.

 

Mankind’s influence on the climate is clear and unequivocal. Natural influences on the climate are only in the order of +/- 0.1 degrees C.

The following, from IPCC AR-6 cuts through the nonsense.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-3#faq-3-1/

Human Influence on the Atmosphere and Surface

• The likely range of human-induced warming in global-mean surface air temperature (GSAT) in 2010–2019 relative to1850–1900 is 0.8°C–1.3°C, encompassing the observed warming of 0.9°C–1.2°C, while the change attributable to natural forcings is only −0.1°C to +0.1°C. The best estimate of human-induced warming is 1.07 deg C.

 

The time frame of ~ 1930 - ~ 1960 is left out. Why? As an engineer you should realize that when selected time periods are culled from a continuum it is a dead give away of “how to lie with statistics”. Also what is the meaning of “likely “? And the AR’s are political documents.

 

The climate lawfare crowd have not been successful in court.
Climate Warriors’ Legal Woes a Win for the Country
Economic costs February 7, 2025

Climate lawfare is an urgent threat to our high quality of life, but recent court decisions offer an encouraging sign for consumers and energy providers.

In recent months, three judges in Maryland and New York have dismissed outlandish lawsuits that demand billions of dollars from energy companies over climate change. If successful, these lawsuits would empower far-left cities like San Francisco or Boulder, Colorado, to set energy policy for the entire country.

Unable to garner support for their ideas among the American public, leftwing climate activists have turned to the courts to achieve their ideological goals. Using state “public nuisance” and fraud laws, they are demanding exorbitant sums in damages and forcing providers to pay for their unpopular and expensive climate agenda and infrastructure programs. The activists are deliberately filing lawsuits in areas sympathetic to their cause, circumventing Congress to impose big-spending projects and hoping to make national climate policy.

What kinds of projects are we talking about? Imagine your city buys a new fleet of electric snowplows. Imagine your neighborhood is repurposed into a walk-only “15-minute city.” All that social engineering will be bankrolled by climate lawfare.

If it sounds undemocratic, that’s because it is.

In addition to trampling upon our federal structure and the will of the American people, these efforts could very well prevent these companies, including major players, from doing business at all, raising the price of energy for consumers and potentially ending the fossil fuel industry as we know it.

That means Americans will no longer be concerned with whether their appliance works effectively, but whether they can turn their appliance on at all. At a time when America seeks energy independence to protect its interests from bad actors all over the world, these moves by the climate-obsessed Left threaten to endanger our national security.

The good news is that thus far the courts are trending against the bloodthirsty climate activists. They have suffered a string of high-profile losses of late in New York City, Baltimore, and Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. At the heart of their lawsuits are claims alleging that companies like ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Citgo, and Chevron misled the public about how their products contribute to climate change.

In each of these cases, the lawsuits were dismissed. The judges cited both the preposterous nature of the accusations alleging deception by the companies and noted that federal law, not state law, governs climate and global pollution regulation. Federal statutes and the Constitution are clear. Congress and its designated agencies set energy policy for our nation, not leftwing lawyers working for Honolulu. . . .

 

Big Oil isn't causing climate change. The climate naturally changes.

'Kamala Harris - These rare extreme weather occurrences are extreme, and they're increasingly less rare, which is extreme.'

 

The limitations of her vocabulary are extreme.

 

It's not just her vocabulary.