From the latest copy of SCIENCE.

Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully.

Using established statistical techniques, we find that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming.

ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007.

Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

Well…so what.

What is the significance of this claim?

WTF?

diver dan says "Well…so what. What is the significance of this claim?"

Well I can only conclude that you have no interest in the topic so then why bother to comment?

Or you have not bothered to follow any of the many threads on the topic in this forum or you have not bothered to follow what is arguably one of societies hottest discussed topics.

I'll join just a couple of the dots for you.

It is also stated in the article that " findings demonstrate that ExxonMobil didn’t just know “something” about global warming decades ago—they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew.

But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world."

The misinformation about anthological climate change has been pushed by the major players for 40 -50 years and this false narrative is accepted by many people.

This false narrative is pushed by some very regular commentators on this forum.

They seem to get upset when factual information is presented to them or just deny the information even exists.

WTF?

It should read "This misinformation about anthropological climate ...

Far more important than broadcasting something from a magazine is the ignorance of the founders of a new airline trying to show how 'Australian' they are by misspelling 'bonzer', and calling their firm Bonza.

You need to consider the prediction in context. One prediction made fifty years ago is selected out of how many predictions made? At the time it was made it was a stab in the dark. Nearly all five year predictions are rubbish, so why would a fifty year prediction carry any weight?

It is hard to make forecasts. For example, who would have thought that Mike and Andy's Sun Cable would flop? I thought it a rubbish idea, but that doesn't make me Nostradamus.

"Nearly all five year predictions are rubbish".

All climate predictions have been rubbish, from those of our new King, down to our own Tim Flannery and all the hysterics and rent-seekers in between.

Actually, it is ALL predictions made by the ideological Left that come to nothing, but wreck the economy before the truth comes out. Not just their climate idiocy. It's unfortunate that the ideological Left has its dead hand on everything these days - thanks in part to the gutlessness of faux conservatives and the Left fifth-column that has wormed its way into their ranks .

WTF?

Fester states: "At the time it was made it was a stab in the dark."

This statement is totally false.

It was not a "stab in the dark" it was a scientific projection made from Big Oil's own scientists using their own data.

For a "stab in the dark" it turned out to be surprising accurate.

As stated before, " ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully."

Big Oil has played a three card trick on the public and the ignorant and those who cannot understand science have been dupped.

The ignorant still refuse to accept factual information and bleat on about those who do and refer to them as being the sheeple.

WTF?

ttbn states: "Actually, it is ALL predictions made by the ideological Left"

Yet again more nonsensical deflection - my post was about scientific projections and have nothing to do with ttbn's radical left.

Either start your own thread about the radical left or show how the radical left played a part in ExxonMobil working to overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world."

Look how Covid turned out to be a minor inconvenience despite the dire predictions of the Left. Governments are quietly compensating people they demonised - using our money.

Thanks for the worst three years of our lives, Leftist predictors. Loss of jobs; loss of businesses; loss of money; loss of rights and freedoms. And now, no remorse, no apologies. And all cheered on and lied about by the Leftist media that is still rooting out obscure nut cases to tell us 'it's not over yet' and, 'there's another new strain on the way'.

It was all about control - the sort of control that the old communists would have given their eye teeth for.

WTF

In the early 70s I remember a book in the school library saying that by 2000 the world would be out of oil and running on nuclear. I guess the irony of the prediction is that had it been acted on it would have meant very cheap and reliable low carbon energy and no destruction of the electricity grid with wind and solar.

Exxon Mobil treated the prediction appropriately.

WTF?

Fester states: "In the early 70s I remember a book in the school library saying that by 2000 the world would be out of oil and running on nuclear."

Well Fester your unnamed book written by an unnamed author from the school library was wrong we clearly have not run out of oil.

Fester also states "Exxon Mobil treated the prediction appropriately."

If we extend Fester's logic forward then Fester is suggesting that it was appropriate for Exxonmobile to play down the fact that their predictions accurately predicted human-caused global warming.

WTF?

ttbe states: "Look how Covid turned out to be a minor inconvenience despite the dire predictions of the Left."

This thread is not about either Covid or your left's predictions about Covid.

Stay on topic or start your own thread.

WTF

Predictions are much easier when you go backwards. Clearly you have little experience in reading forecasts, like prospectuses for projects like Sun Cable and other projects, especially green projects. Always sound wonderful, but very often in VA a few years later.

Hi WTF,

Science is exciting because it's not absolute.
New discoveries are consistently being made.
New challenges keep cropping up - ways of thinking
changes. A large percentage of scientists seem to agree
on global warming, its causes, and what actions need to
be taken for the planet to survive.

Who knows what our future holds? Many people predict
nuclear as the answer - others - renewables, and so it goes.

We live and hopefully we learn - both from our mistakes,
and our science, and from predictions. Does money make the
world go round? Well you certainly need it to continue
innovating. Right?

Here we go again !
The current warming period is the eighth known cycle.
This cycle started around 1800 +- a 100 years or so and is known as
the "Little Ice Age" or the Maunder Minimum.
It is believed to be close to peak about now or in the next 100 years or so.
The cycle is variable in length because it is composed of about five
natural cycles.
You may have heard of how the Vikings settled in Greenland around 1000ad
and then had to leave because agriculture became to hard as the cycle
started down towards the Little Ice Age.
Before all that there was the Roman Warming around 00 ad and the
minimum around 450ad.
It has all happened before but it is just a co-incidence that the
Industrial Revolution started during the Little Ice Age.
Maybe they started burning coal because it was so cold, hmmm.

WTF?

Fester says:" ...reading forecasts, like prospectuses for projects like Sun Cable and other projects, especially green projects."

The directors of Sun Cable are the ones who need to discuss this with their investors.

I'm not one of them so it has nothing to do with me.

This is just another deflection.

Foxy

I agree the future of energy supply and its consequences will be topical for the foreseeable future.

We can only hope that the huge amounts of money at stack don't cause critical scientific information to be hidden from the public by vested interests.

WTF?

Bazz states: "Maybe they started burning coal because it was so cold, hmmm."

Yes probably.

Current findings show: "ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming."

"This is just another deflection."

No, but it is another indication of your inability to grasp the concept of a prediction being about the future, not the past. Say you were alive when the prediction was made. How would you know the prediction might be accurate in fifty years time? Given the accuracy of fifty year predictions, the odds of a fifty year prediction being accurate are very slim. Maybe you could take a trip in a time machine?

My take on the Exxon Mobil attack is that it reflects the desperation of the renewable energy industry. Several years ago the predictions were all about how renewables would become incredibly cheap and displace fossil fuels on merit. Oh yes, and "Ha Ha! Sucked in!" to all the fossils fools and "You deserve to lose your money for investing in that rubbish!".

Well, the truth is that heavily subsidised renewables ($7 billion a year in Australia) are delivering expensive non-dispatchable energy and threatening the viability of the electrical grid, and the failure to invest in fossil fuel production is giving fossil fuel producers a windfall while many green ventures go broke.

Consequently the fight is getting dirty and a campaign is underway to vilify fossil fuels so as to justify super taxes, with the likes of UN chief Tony Goat's Balls regularly calling fossil fuel profits obscene.

My respect goes to viable technologies, not inferior rubbish propped up with subsidies, lies, and cherry picked hack jobs on the competition.

The Elliot Wave Theory.
http://elliottwave-forecast.com/elliott-wave-theory

Accordingly the stock market follows an infallible definite pattern, regardless of any human or natural events, including even the invention of the wheel, world-wars, earthquakes and tsunamis. Accordingly the stock market followed this pattern even in prehistory before there was any formal stock-market, only bartering.

There are waves within waves within waves: A-B-C-D-E within A-B-C-D-E, 1-2-3-4-5 within 1-2-3-4-5 within 1-2-3-4-5 - just find where exactly on this pattern we are now, then buy and sell stocks at the right time - and be rich!

And retrospectively one can always exclaim: "Ah, this is what happened, now I get it, how could I be so blind - we had an E within a C within a bigger D within a bigger A, that is exactly why the stock-market fell on that particular date".

And yes, a few used this theory and won a fortune on the stock-market - while many others lost and blamed their own mis-reading of the patterns.

So, given it was a relatively hot topic, some lucky Exxon scientists predicted weather patterns correctly - but how many other scientists tried the same and got it wrong?

An Exxon spokesman has tried to re-assure the public
and save its reputation that the company is indeed -
"actively engaged in efforts to reduce emissions,"

And here's the kicker - "while providing affordable
energy to the communities that need it."

There you go. Can't be any clearer.

Exxon made a record $50 billion in profits in 2022,
according to preliminary data.

I dare say it will continue in its current mode of
operation for some time yet.

I am going to give a link to an article by Prof Ian Plimer.
Now please relax you co2 sensitive activists, I know that you all get
up in arms when you hear his name, so just take a Bex and have a nice lie down.
The fact that there is such an uproar when he is mentioned probably
means that you should take notice.
This article he has written puts it all into the geological timescale.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/what-climate-crisis-a-primer-on-earths-turbulent-climatic-past/

or

https://tinyurl.com/yr4aveks

There is something there for even the most rabid global warming fanatic.

WTF?

Bazz,
Many of us on threads here have commented on Ian Pilmer in the past.

In summary, Plimer's views are not supported by the United States Energy Information Administration, the United States Geological Survey, the United States Environmental Protection Agency nor the American Geophysical Union would suggest that his opinions are very much outside of current scientific research.

Plimer is ,however, an outspoken critic of creationism which is a good thing and that would indicate that there is room for his scientific understanding to shift in the future.

WTF?

Yuyutsu states:some lucky Exxon scientists predicted weather patterns correctly - but how many other scientists tried the same and got it wrong.

It was not some Exxon scientists it was THE Exxon scientists.

Many others have in fact got it correct as well.

As scientific measurements became more accurate and as much more sophisticated reaseach took place the analysis agreed with that of the Exxon scientists.

As stated earlier: whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world."

In 2019, hearings were held in the House and Senate of the United States (US) Congress regarding “oilindustry efforts to suppress the truth about climate change” and “dark money and barriers to climatechange."

Fester said;
My take on the Exxon Mobil attack is that it reflects the desperation
of the renewable energy industry.

It is not just the renewables that are in a bind.

The oil industry is in a bind, they have increasing demand and
an increasing cost of search and development of new oilfields.
Which is why they have given notice that in the long term they will
exit the oil industry for transport fuels.
It does not matter what the various COPnns decide the motor industry
has got the message.
The difference for those that do many 10kms a year it is an easy decision.

Oil has become too expensive to burn for transport usages and will
only get more expensive.
The difference in cost of fueling a car or truck with oil and the
cost of electricity is so great, even at our inflated kw/hr charges, that there is no competition.
If the EVs get cheaper that will be the end of petrol & diesel.

Hi Foxy,

Commodities are cyclical, and more tends to be published about profits than losses. Who is to say that the fossil fuel industry wont develop better low carbon alternatives than the welfare dependent renewable energy industry? The failure of Sun Cable probably had more to do with it being technically and economically unfeasible than a personality clash (but it was still a nice earner for some).

The civilisation we enjoy today is predicated upon cheap energy from fossil fuels. Attempting to move away from them is no small contributor to the current economic problems in the world. My guess is that low cost/low carbon will more likely come from profitable companies than welfare dependent ones, mainly as profitable companies are concerned with making things work whereas welfare dependent companies tend to focus on great sounding stories to keep the handouts coming.

As I said, if someone jumps up and down when Plimer is mentioned it
means a closer look is needed in this cancel climate.
Read what he has written then find articles that deny what he says
in that article. I would like to read it also.
Many elevated organisations, such as the BOM, are reluctant to oppose
government policy even indirectly.

WTF?

Fester indicates that Fester's ojections to scientific analysis stems from something that he read as a school boy and some predictions made in a company prospectus.

Now Yuyutsu talks about The Elliot Wave Theory.

The Exxon scientists and those that study climate change do not use Elloit Wave Theory in their analysis.

The fact remains that Exxon scientist as well as many others world wide were remarkably accurate in their analysis and predictions.

«The Exxon scientists and those that study climate change do not use Elloit Wave Theory in their analysis.»

Well of course not - that was only an analogy: a good analogy, but still only an analogy!

«The fact remains that Exxon scientist as well as many others world wide were remarkably accurate in their analysis and predictions.»

The significance of any evidence the Exxon scientist(s) may have discovered is in its early date, because any post-Thatcher research or measurements on this topic are inadmissible.

It is therefore important to know exactly how many PRE-THATCHER Exxon and/or other scientist(s) believed in global warming, out of how many who did not, also what evidence have they used.

It would still be difficult in today's world to establish the authenticity and age of this old data and find how to ensure that it has not since been re-engineered, nevertheless it could be a worthy endeavour.

WTF?
Yuyutsu states:"It would still be difficult in today's world to establish the authenticity and age of this old data and find how to ensure that it has not since been re-engineered."

Not hard to establish authenticity at all :

"In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered internal company documents showing that Exxon scientists have been warning their executives about “potentially catastrophic” anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming since at least 1977.

Researchers and journalists have subsequently unearthed additional documents showing that the US oil and gas industry writ large—by way of its trade association, the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming since at least the 1950s;

the coal industry since at least the 1960s;

electric utilities, Total oil company, and General Motors and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s;

and Shell oil company since at least the 1980s."

In seven years there has been no rebuttal of this hard data.

Of course their forecasts came true !
It was going to happen anyway ! Either they knew about the cycle and
pretended they forecast it, or they just presumed they knew why the
temperature rose, and struck it lucky.

This will be histories greatest Tulip market in CO2 offset certificates.
They will all be customers of the Gnomes of Zurich, just watch.

WTF?

Yuyutsu states:'... that was only an analogy: a good analogy, but still only an analogy!"

You are wrong there. This a very poor analogy.

I took time to learn about Elliot waves over 20 years ago when I was looking for tools for investing using technical analysis.

It was specifically designed to make predictions about the direction of the stock market and I viewed it as a poor and virtually worthless indicator.

So comparing a worthless stock market indicator (you yourself say "while many others lost and blamed their own mis-reading of the patterns.") with the peer reviewed scientific analysis of many scientists worldword is just trite.

Then you make the outragous claim; " because any post-Thatcher research or measurements on this topic are inadmissible."

A more rediculous statement about scientific endevour I have yet to see.

It is not up to you to decide when scientific reseach ends.

The whole point of scientific reseach is that it is ongoing.

Nowhere in any of your posts are there any references to back up anything you have said.

WFT?

Bazz states: "Of course their forecasts came true !
It was going to happen anyway ! Either they knew about the cycle and
pretended they forecast it, or they just presumed they knew why the
temperature rose, and struck it lucky."

Let's apply just a little bit of logic here.

If they knew about it because it was going to happen anyway why would they claim that the very powerful, extremely wealthy and well resourced companies they worked for were to blame?

If it was going to happen anyway why bite the hand that feeds you for no reason.

The best advice they could give is full steam ahead.

Add some sources to your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

"Fester indicates that Fester's ojections to scientific analysis stems from something that he read as a school boy and some predictions made in a company prospectus."

That is a misrepresentation wtf. My point is that you don't know whether a fifty year prediction is true when you make it. Just because Exxon Mobil funded a forecast fifty years ago is no reason to assume that it was given any more credence than any other forecast it might have funded.

WTF?

Fester states: " My point is that you don't know whether a fifty year prediction is true when you make it. Just because Exxon Mobil funded a forecast fifty years ago is no reason to assume that it was given any more credence than any other forecast it might have funded."

In fact there is a very good reason and it has been mentioned before but here we go again.

ExxonMobil gave it so much credence that "ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world."

If you can show me other predictions that ExxonMobile scientists made that fell short of the mark and were given at least the same level of credence then I'll spend my time looking over it.

"In 2015, investigative journalists uncovered internal company documents showing that Exxon scientists have been warning their executives"

OK, that's a possibility, but how can we ascertain that these journalists were neutral or that these documents were not forged and recently planted there for them to find?

«the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming...»

Possibly also, but were these the only documents they were aware of?
Yes, potential is also there, they were also speaking of a potential renewed ice-age. Why believe this and not the other?

«...with the peer reviewed scientific analysis of many scientists worldword is just trite.»

I am no stranger to the academic world. Scientists are busy like anyone else, wanting to devote their time to what they currently do rather than turn away to unrelated projects of strangers, ambitious like others, have families to feed and mortgage to pay like others, dishonest like others...

«It is not up to you to decide when scientific reseach ends.»

Science ends when politics enter, when coercion and fraud begin.

By "inadmissible" I'm not even speaking of empirical correctness: there comes a point when scientific findings must be discarded, correct or otherwise, and not acted upon, like court evidence comprising of confessions obtained under torture, like medical knowledge obtained by Nazi doctors studying the operation of the human digestive system by filming the intestines of Jews with X-rays.

When politicians incentivise scientists to obtain particular results, financially rewarding those who find what they wanted, de-funding or even firing those who find otherwise, and making the signatures of renowned scientists appear on papers they never wrote, without their knowledge, despite their protests or both, there science ends.

Margaret Thatcher (by no means a "Lefty") needed scientists to "discover" global-warming so she could break the coal-miners unions (and introduce nuclear-power instead). That ball kept rolling ever since, even if it was since taken by different interests. By now it has turned into a full-scale hysterical witch-hunt. Even if the "science" was correct, even if disobeying it would make the planet boil, we still must never act on it.

WTF?
Yuyutsu states: "OK, that's a possibility, but how can we ascertain that these journalists were neutral or that these documents were not forged and recently planted there for them to find."

ExxonMobile, a powerful worldwide energy provider does not despute the claims. Show us your eveidence that the documents were forged.

When politicians incentivise scientists to obtain particular results, financially rewarding those who find what they wanted, de-funding or even firing those who find otherwise, and making the signatures of renowned scientists appear on papers they never wrote, without their knowledge, despite their protests or both, there science end.

Show us the evidence to support your claim.

Margaret Thatcher (by no means a "Lefty") needed scientists to "discover" global-warming so she could break the coal-miners unions (and introduce nuclear-power instead).

Show us the evidence to support your claims.

I am always prepared to allow people a degree of latitude when making claims.

I have sourced the statements that I have made here.

If anyone wants to go and check this they can.

Not one person on this thread has challenged the science to be found in the source provided.

They have, however, made all sorts of claims most of which have little or nothing to do with the topic.

Show me the evidence and I'll take a look at it.

I've shown you my evidence now you show me yours.

When all this 'ExxonKnew' rubbish was first touted, various US states saw some easy money to be made by suing Exxon for knowingly causing environmental damage even though they were aware their product would cause AGW.

Suffice to saw all those law suits failed dramatically. Why? Well when you get past the hype upon which this thread's article is based, you find that Exxon didn't know. All the quotes that the hype is based on weren't Exxon saying these things would happen, just that these things (ie warming) were one of several possibilities.

They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions. They covered all angles as any good analysis should. But the alarmists have no understanding of covering all possibilities, since the 'settled science' permits only one viewpoint.

Dear WTF,

Wow. Thanks for that. They were impressively close weren't they.

Dear Fester,

CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. The Exxon scientists knew the physical properties of CO2 would mean an increase in its concentration would lead to an increase in temperatures. That is basic climate modelling. The only way this would not come about was some major extenuating factor. None have arisen so Ocham's Razor has CO2 the prime cause of temperature increases.
http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

Nothing controversial about pretty simple science.

WTF?
mhaze states: "They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions. "

This of course is a nonsense :

analysis shows that, in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil scientists

(i) accurately projected and skillfully modeled global warming due to fossil fuel burning;

(ii) correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age;

(iii) accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected; and

(iv) reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming. Yet, whereas academic and government scientists worked to communicate what they knew to the public, ExxonMobil worked to deny it.

Exxon scientists did make the predictions and that information is now out in the public for all to see.

It is up to you now mhaze (as you have made the claim) to indicate which Exxon evaluated documentation shows otherwise.

«Show us your eveidence that the documents were forged.»

I did not claim that they were necessarily forged, only asked how can we ascertain today that they were authentic, given that the issue is so charged and so divisive, that in this human climate people are even happy to kill each other about it.

It is quite possible that Exxon scientist(s) warned their executives as early as the 1970's - but does that make their prediction any more than a fluke? The issue is not Exxon anyway, because there were that many other atmospheric scientists even then who did not work for Exxon.

Naturally, if Exxon "knew" about (this means believed in) global warming yet acted otherwise in the interest of profit, then they have done the wrong thing, there I fully agree.

«Show us the evidence to support your claim.»

Years ago I watched a full-length documentary about this topic, but it was long ago and I could not find it today, only a short clip out of it - perhaps others here can help locate the full original? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfwwzGKDU00

«Not one person on this thread has challenged the science to be found in the source provided.»

I don't know what "source" are you talking about, but it doesn't matter anyway because the question at hand is political, not scientific.

WTF?

Yuyutsu states: "only asked how can we ascertain today that they were authentic"

You are the only one asking this question. The investigating scientists and the Exxon scientists are not disputing this evidence.

Yuyutsu states: "The issue is not Exxon anyway, because there were that many other atmospheric scientists even then who did not work for Exxon."

This has been addressed before but here we go yet again: "... findings demonstrate that ExxonMobil didn’t just know “something” about global warming decades ago—they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew."

And also: "But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it.

Yuyutsu states:"... but does that make their prediction any more than a fluke?"

Scientist working all over the world working for various state and private instructions over multiple time frames were coming to the same conclusion.

To say this is a fluke is just a nonsense.

Yuyutsu states: "Years ago I watched a full-length documentary about this topic."

I will trust current scientific analysis over your memory of an unknown documentary from years ago.

And then if that was not ridiculous enough:

Yuyutsu states: "I don't know what "source" are you talking about."

I started this thread and provided the source in my initial comment.

It does, however, require some effort on your part.

You have to find the article on line yourself.

You have to read it yourself.

So once again OLO posters are happily commenting from a place of ignorance and unashamedly trying to tie in unsourced nonsense about forged documents, fluked results and Margaret Thatcher.

Your comments sound like ignorant nonsense because they are ignorant nonsense.

Make an effort not to comment from a place of self-identified ignorance and I might think about responding.

«You are the only one asking this question.»

Yes I am asking, because I think that information pre-dating Margaret Thatcher can be important, that if we were able to obtain untainted, unbiased research-data from that time, then it would be valid to use it.

«The investigating scientists and the Exxon scientists are not disputing this evidence.»

Or so you say or so you have read. Maybe these scientists have been paid like the rest not to dispute? How can we tell?
Too many interests are involved here to assume blindly that anyone tells the truth on this topic.

«And also: "But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it.»

If that has indeed been the case, that Exxon scientists communicated what they sincerely believed and ExxonMobil worked to deny it, then ExxonMobil has been in the wrong, regardless whether or not the findings of these scientists were correct.

«Scientist working all over the world working for various state and private instructions over multiple time frames were coming to the same conclusion.»

Before Thatcher? Where is the evidence? Where are the numbers of how many scientists arrived at the same conclusion and how many did not? How many even believed then that a new ice-age is coming? What raw data have they been using? Where is that data now and how can we tell that it was not modified since?

«I will trust current scientific analysis over your memory of an unknown documentary from years ago.»

Here I found it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

You may trust current scientific analysis, but can you find any? How could you possibly tell that it is indeed scientific? What contemporary scientist would ever find courage to speak against "climate change" (except when drunk)?

«I started this thread and provided the source in my initial comment.»

So this is the source you referred to and I was supposed to guess it? a contemporary copy of "SCIENCE"?
It could be true, it could be false, again, interests run so high here that it is difficult to tell.

WTF?

Yuyutsu you continue to post from a position of ignorance.
Your obsession with pre-Thatcher data is an absurdity.

But just to show how nonsensical your posts are I will repeat this for you again:

" Researchers and journalists have subsequently unearthed additional documents showing that the US oil and gas industry writ large—by way of its trade association, the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming since at least the 1950s;

the coal industry since at least the 1960s;

electric utilities, Total oil company, and General Motors and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s;

Yuyutsu you have not engaged in the material that this whole thread is centred around.

Your contributions shine a light on your ignorance and inability to analysis.

It is quite clear that you a typical climate-change denier who cannot or is not willing to actually understand what your illogical comments are referring to.

WTF?

Yuyutsu: I will highlight just one piece of junk science from your youtube clip to illustrate the difference between unsubstantiated comments and comments that can be backed up by scientific data.

Your show states "Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year than.... all the sources of man made CO2 together."

There is no data provided with this and a gullible person might take that at face value.

The Science tells us a different story.

U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.

So not only is the information from your youtube clip incorrect it is incorrect to the tune of 100 times.

This is the problem with using unsupported misinformation. It just cannot hold up to the data supplied by rigorous science.

Unsupported statements that can be easily disproved have no value.

You cannot make ridiculous statements such as "It could be true, it could be false" as a way of avoiding scientific analysis no matter how much it conflicts with what you want to believe.

I also hope that you are not implying that those who are using this youtube platform to put forward their ideas are "drunk". That certainly would make their ideas useless.

Oh, WTF?, who doesn't provide links, demands that I provide links.

As I said, this 'claim' by the anti-oil movement has been around since 2012. It comes up every now and then to provide the anxiously gullible with something to whine about.

Previously, when the claim was made that Exxon et al knew they were destroying the planet, various US states saw big bucks for the taking and sued. Those cases fell apart because, and stop me if I've said this before, there is no there there.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-fossil-fools-20191211-bfprvusecrbfjpilj6gihkgdp4-story.html

This of course has been a coordinated campaign from the outset...

" On the very day in March when more than a dozen state attorneys general accused Exxon-Mobil of "fraud" and "deceiving the American people" on climate change, New York's attorney general, who led that news conference, met secretly with environmental activist organizations to discuss how they could attack oil companies."

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/green-bullies-distortions-are-putting-businesses-in-the-red-a-call-for-accountability/

Laughingly, one of the main drivers of this drivel is Naomi Oreskes, who is to climate science what Elmer Fudd is to the hunting fraternity.

Years ago, on these very pages I provided information from Exxon about how they saw the issue...

"how large it[the warming] is is what is very hard for anyone to predict." and "we believe those consequences are manageable. They do require us to begin to exert -- or spend more policy effort on adaptation."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419#327004

So what, exactly, is the claim here?

Exxon employed climate scientists who reached conclusions about near-term future warming that other climate scientists also reached? Well so what?

According to the latest claims Exxon scientists determined that warming might be 0.2c ± 0.04°C per decade. Well that was wildly incorrect. Wildly incorrect.

So to salvage the campaign, what is claimed? That even though the predictions were off with the fairies, they were within 63% of what other climate scientists incorrectly predicted? Huh? So what?

Large numbers of climate scientists at the time, and even now, predicted an increase in temperatures. So did the Exxon employed scientists. Hardly surprising.

But nowhere is it claimed that those same Exxon scientists raised alarm bells.

Its all a storm in a tea-cup stirred up by the well-funded anti-oil crowd. It failed in 2012. It failed in 2019. I'll leave you to draw the likely outcome on 2023.

WTF?

Mhaze asks: “So what, exactly, is the claim here?”

Well this thread is 9 pages long now and the claim has not changed.

As I pointed out to diver dan who also missed the point:
 
"...whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew, ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world."

The misinformation about anthological climate change has been pushed by the major players for 40 -50 years and this false narrative is accepted by many people.

This false narrative is pushed by some very regular commentators on this forum.

They seem to get upset when factual information is presented to them or just deny the information even exists.

It, mhaze, you do not have a problem with this then for you there is no point.

WTF?

Mhaze in one of your posts you say “They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions.”

So here you are saying that the ExxonMobile scientists did not even make the predictions that are the basis for this whole thread.

In another post you say “Large numbers of climate scientists at the time, and even now, predicted an increase in temperatures. So did the Exxon employed scientists. “

So when you think it supports your argument there were no Exxon predictions and when you think it supports your arguments there were Exxon predictions.

WTF?

I made the same mistake with my cut and paste job of my previous post.

It should read "This misinformation about anthropological climate ..

I couldn't find it earlier but here's the findings of the court around this ExxonKnew bs.

http://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/452044-2018-Op-12.10.19.pdf

After being presented with "reams of proprietary information" and "scores of proprietary internal models" from Exxon, the court found that Exxon had done nothing wrong in regards to its past, present or future climate risks disclosures.

The we're-all-gunna-die crowd would prefer that wasn't true, therefore this will be ignored.

People like WTF? just assume that Exxon et al are behind so-called (incorrectly called) denialism via clandestine funding. The evidence for that is woefully thin and much of it flows back to the afore-mentioned Oreskes, but they believe it nonetheless. So when it is shown that Exxon knew as much or as little as everyone else, they cry foul.

Its a just more gumph to keep the dangerous warming train moving forward. Those who fell for previous rubbish will fall for this rubbish - t'was always this.

But its all smoke and mirrors.

In the same vein, we see a story about SR's secret crush, Greta Thunberg being arrested in most dramatic terms during a protest over some of the stuff Germans are using to stay warm. The cameras and the press and the we're-all-gunna-die crowd loved it. But then we see the behind the scenes story and find it is all done for the publicity. But the anxiously gullible will remain anxiously gullible.

http://twitter.com/i/status/1615471704423424000

WTF?

mhaze you contradict yourself in consecutive posts.

Then there is deflection.

Who is “The we're-all-gunna-die crowd” that you are talking about – maybe direct comments to them because this is not what this thread is about. Maybe start your own thread?

You mention something about Greta Thunberg. She is not mentioned in any of the Exxon material so including her in this is yet another deflection.

Even more intentional distraction from mhaze: the link he provides to a litigation site and produces this gem:

“Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve ExxonMobile for responsibility for contributing to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases in the production of its fossil fuel products.

ExxonMobile does not dispute either that its operations produce green gases or that greenhouse gases produce climate change.”

This relates to a fraud case bought by investors.

The science and ExxonMobile’s knowledge of it are not in question.

mhaze you condradict yourself in consecutive posts.

You try to deflect from the topic by providing unsupported nonsense.

When you do provide a link rather than support your point of view (difficult because you hold two contradictory points of view to be true at the same time) it in fact backs up exactly what this post is all about: Exxon accurately predicted global warming from 1970s.

WTF?

You miss the crux of the issue here.

Exxon aren't disputing that CO2 leads to some warming. Nor am I. Nor do the vast majority of those involved in the debate. But people such as yourself go seamlessly from "some warming" to "dangerous warming" (we're all gunna die) without ever understanding that one doesn't necessarily follow t'other.

The court case wasn't about finding whether CO2 plays a part in warming or whether Exxon's products contribute to CO2. As stated, Exxon and few others dispute that. But it isn't the point.

Again the point is whether that warming leads inexorably to dangerous warming.

Global warming - natural.
Anthropological GW - not in dispute although the quantum is.
Dangerous AGW - very much in dispute and not in the least proven.

Exxon and its scientist don't dispute warming, don't dispute their product plays some unknown part in the warming. But that doesn't mean they accept the warming is dangerous although many others fail to see the difference.

The original article you relied on doesn't offer any evidence that the Exxon scientists rang the alarm bells. All the data I've seen from Exxon equally doesn't talk of them believing the warming will necessarily be dangerous. The furthest they go is to say things will be clearer by 2000 and there they were very wrong. Things are no clearer now than they were then.

Your failing to understand the central point here is why you think there are contradictions in my posts. For example when I say that “They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions” I was referring to the predictions of imminent doom, not the findings of mild temperature rises.

As to St Greta I was merely offering that as another example of media-hype around the issue, of which this ExxonKnew hype is also an example. They are the same story really. That you started the thread doesn't mean you own it or can dictate where it goes.

WTF?

mhaze states: “But people such as yourself go seamlessly from "some warming" to "dangerous warming"

This is a straight up fabrication I did not say this – just another deflection.

mhaze states: “when I say that “They didn't make these supposedly suppressed predictions” I was referring to the predictions of imminent doom “

This is a straight up fabrication. At no time in this thread did I mention imminent doom so it cannot be referencing anything I said or referenced.

It you want to try and distance yourself from statements you made do not fabricate things I have not said in order to do it.

mhaze the fact remains that you have tried to support your ideas by fabrication, deflection and holding contradictory options to both be true.

mhaze states: “But then we see the behind the scenes story and find it is all done for the publicity.”

Well yes of course it was.

If you want to get caught up in media stunts that’s up to you.

I’ll steer the discussions back to the science.

WTF?

"This is a straight up fabrication I did not say this – just another deflection."

In your very first post you referred to "dangerous warming". So somehow I'm deflecting when referring to things you said?

"At no time in this thread did I mention imminent doom so it cannot be referencing anything I said or referenced."

"dangerous warming".

"I’ll steer the discussions back to the science."

Well WTF? you think you're talking 'the science' but in fact you're just regurgitating the talking points of the Rockefeller Fund (who funded the article you rely upon) who have been pushing this anti-Exxon trope since their mouth-piece InsideClimate News first raised it in 2012. Their efforts came to nought when it got before a court, but that doesn't stop them pushing it every so often in the hope of snaring other gullible souls.

WTF?
mhaze states: “
In your very first post you referred to "dangerous warming".
Well of course I did. I was quoting information about Exxon predictions.

You claimed “But people such as yourself go seamlessly from "some warming" to "dangerous warming" (we're all gunna die) without ever understanding that one doesn't necessarily follow t'other.

At no stage did I talk about “some warming” going seamlessly to “dangerous warming” I merely pointed out that the Exxon predictions.

These statements are not the same thing even though they contain a common phrase.

At no stage have I equated dangerous warming with imminent doom. I do not have to justify this – you do, The only one here talking about imminent doom is you.

Yes, you guessed it another deflection.

At no stage have I talked about “we’re all gunna die” or anything that would imply that.

This is just you adding one of those media-hype phrases that you are throwing into to mix and attributing it to me.

And yes, that is a deflection.

mhaze states: “Exxon and its scientist don't dispute warming, don't dispute their product plays some unknown part in the warming. But that doesn't mean they accept the warming is dangerous although many others fail to see the difference.

Wrong yet again.

Here we go again:”ExxonMobil scientists (i) accurately projected and skillfully modeled global warming due to fossil fuel burning; (ii) correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age; (iii) accurately predicted when human-caused global warming would first be detected; and (iv) reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming. “

This is not some unknown part at all. They have clearly indicated that CO2 can lead to dangerous warning.

It’s ridiculous to say otherwise.

WTF?

mhaze states: “….have been pushing this anti-Exxon trope since their mouth-piece InsideClimate News first raised it in 2012.”

I have no trouble taking on board the research of scientists on a Harvard University co-funded study even if you do not.

The important thing here, as I have indicated before from your link, is “ExxonMobile does not dispute either that its operations produce green gases or that greenhouse gases produce climate change.

ExxonMobile does not dispute that greenhouse gases produce climate change and the analysis showed their scientists could reasonably estimate how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

mhaze you cannot make statements, attribute them to someone else and then argue against your own statement and expect to be taken seriously.

Yes, doing that is a deflection.

«Your obsession with pre-Thatcher data is an absurdity.»

I am not obsessed, I could live without it quite nicely just as I did before you introduced this discussion.
Just don't bother to present me with post-Thatcher data because I am not going to bother reading it.

«"Researchers and journalists have subsequently unearthed additional documents showing that the US oil and gas industry writ large—by way of its trade association, the American Petroleum Institute—has been aware of potential human-caused global warming since at least the 1950s;

the coal industry since at least the 1960s;

electric utilities, Total oil company, and General Motors and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s;»

All coming from the same propaganda piece, the latest copy of "SCIENCE"?

«Your show states "Volcanoes...»

MY show? It's just a documentary I saw many years ago, I did not make it.

Anyway, I have no interest in what that documentary says about volcanoes: perhaps it was correct in that regard, perhaps it was not - all I care for from this "show" is the way governments treated scientists, using carrots, sticks and frauds to make them say, or seem to say, whatever they wanted them to say.

«The Science tells us a different story.»

There is no science after Margaret Thatcher - only politics, mass hysteria and manipulation of scientists.

«You cannot make ridiculous statements such as "It could be true, it could be false" as a way of avoiding scientific analysis no matter how much it conflicts with what you want to believe.»

Quite the other way around: FIRST I refuse to look at the "scientific analysis" (because it would be immoral to do so, nothing to do with its actual contents), only then I therefore respond, if/when asked about it, in "It could be true, it could be false", in other words, that it does not matter whether the analysis happens to be true or whether it happens to be false, because it is inadmissible, in the same manner that evidence obtained by torturing the accused in police cells is inadmissible in the courts.

So, after all the back-tracking and 'clarifications', what have we got here?

Well, it seems that these activist scientists from the Rockefeller Fund have found that Exxon scientists used similar data and methodology to other 'climate scientists' and came to broadly the same predicted outcomes. The predictions were wildly incorrect and overall the Exxon scientists differed with other scientists by up to 30% but this, it seems, is what passes for close agreement!

Since Exxon had long since agreed that there is warming in the system and that their product contributes to that warming, the Science article has nothing to reveal there. It seems that their biggest revelation, which so vexes WTF?, is that Exxon scientists did calculate the level of CO2 that would, theoretically yield a dangerous warming although, it seems, Exxon scientists didn't describe it as that. So what was that level? Well, again its not spelt out but appears to be around 600ppm which, at current rates, would happen around two centuries from now!!

So, in the end, the main beef that the article's authors have is that the Exxon scientists, using the same data and coming to similar conclusions about projected warming, weren't alarmed by it. That's it! They looked at the data and didn't scream..."the sky is falling" whereas the authors are convinced that Exxon's product is devasting to the planet. Same data - different conclusions. That used to be what science was all about but in the world of climate 'science' different conclusions need to be denounced.

As I said, this just a continuation of the jihad waged by those who seek to destroy the fossil fuel industries. Having failed in the courts, where truth rather than propaganda is paramount, they've returned to the propaganda. As usual, some have fallen for it.

In days gone by we had a user in OLO who went by the name of ant.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=19073

He (I'm pretty sure it was a he), made so many errors that eventually he created a new nick of Tony. Having exhausted the credibility of both nicks, ant eventually exited the group.

ant was, like WTF?, also very vexed by the ExxonKnew meme and rather distraught when the courts made a mockery of the claims.

Just saying!