«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