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.