Absolem
Active member
Al Gore received 600 likes in that video. Dudes a Baller.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
It's the Climate, stupid
- Thread starter Chi13
- Start date
Al Gore received 600 likes in that video. Dudes a Baller.
Three Berries
Active member
He's certainly no hero of mine.
If you consider yourself Liberal or Progressive he is very instrumental in setting your narratives and agenda.
Brother Nature
Well-known member
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13439561/SouthParkPress.jpg)
Three Berries
Active member
If you don't think the Climate Hoax isn't being done for money look no further than this. Blackrock who controls vast trillions and steers them towards the EvironmentaSocialGovernace investments is starting to panic. If they stop supporting the Climate Change Agenda it will collapse as there is no profit in it.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/blackrocks-larry-fink-struggles-esg-narrative-control-mood-sours
Recall Tesla CEO Elon Musk called ESG a "scam" last year after the electric-vehicle maker was excluded from an S&P Global ESG index.
Perhaps what Fink's terrified about is a run on BlackRock funds because state officials and many others are realizing ESG investing is just another globalist 'scam.'
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/blackrocks-larry-fink-struggles-esg-narrative-control-mood-sours
Recall Tesla CEO Elon Musk called ESG a "scam" last year after the electric-vehicle maker was excluded from an S&P Global ESG index.
Musk followed up with a tweet earlier this week that said, "The S in ESG stands for Satanic."
However, in the interview, Fink said BlackRock took in $230 billion in 2022 from US clients, and the outflows were small, though he takes the issue "very seriously" and was trying to address the negative mood around ESG:
While Fink tries to save the ESG narrative, a former BlackRock senior executive, Terrence R. Keeley, recently opined in a WSJ article that after "trillions of dollars have poured into environmental, social and governance funds in recent years ... there is astonishingly little evidence of its tangible benefit."
Perhaps what Fink's terrified about is a run on BlackRock funds because state officials and many others are realizing ESG investing is just another globalist 'scam.'
ManBearPig ! OMG!
Here's the real hoax.
Oil refinery, owned by Exxon Mobil, the second largest in the US in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Exxon predicted rising temperatures and emissions that nearly matched what took place, the study found. Photograph: Barry Lewis/In Pictures/Getty Images
Oliver Milman in New York
Fri 13 Jan 2023
The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.
A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.
A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.
Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Read more
Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.
“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”
The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in independent publications between 1977 and 2014.
Photograph: Supran, et al., 2023, “Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections”
The analysis found that Exxon correctly rejected the idea the world was headed for an imminent ice age, which was a possibility mooted in the 1970s, instead predicting that the planet was facing a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”. Company scientists also found that global heating was human-influenced and would be detected around the year 2000, and they predicted the “carbon budget” for holding the warming below 2C above pre-industrial times.
Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that “there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.
“What they did was essentially remain silent while doing this work and only when it became strategically necessary to manage the existential threat to their business did they stand up and speak out against the science,” said Supran.
“They could have endorsed their science rather than deny it. It would have been a much harder case to deny it if the king of big oil was actually backing the science rather than attacking it.”
Climate scientists said the new study highlighted an important chapter in the struggle to address the climate crisis. “It is very unfortunate that the company not only did not heed the implied risks from this information, but rather chose to endorse non-scientific ideas instead to delay action, likely in an effort to make more money,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University.
Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters. “If we include impacts from air pollution and climate change, their actions likely impacted thousands to millions of people adversely,” she added.
Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, said the new study was a “detailed, robust analysis” and that Exxon’s misleading public comments about the climate crisis were “especially brazen” given their scientists’ involvement in work with outside researchers in assessing global heating. Shindell said it was hard to conclude that Exxon’s scientists were any better at this than outside scientists, however.
The new work provided “further amplification” of Exxon’s misinformation, said Robert Brulle, an environment policy expert at Brown University who has researched climate disinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry.
“I’m sure that the ongoing efforts to hold Exxon accountable will take note of this study,” Brulle said, a reference to the various lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.
A spokesperson for Exxon said: “This issue has come up several times in recent years and, in each case, our answer is the same: those who talk about how “Exxon Knew” are wrong in their conclusions. In 2019, Judge Barry Ostrager of the NY State Supreme Court listened to all the facts in a related case before him and wrote: “What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible….The testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that ExxonMobil has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting.”
www.theguardian.com
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
Oil refinery, owned by Exxon Mobil, the second largest in the US in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Exxon predicted rising temperatures and emissions that nearly matched what took place, the study found. Photograph: Barry Lewis/In Pictures/Getty Images
Oliver Milman in New York
Fri 13 Jan 2023
The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.
A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.
A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.
Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Read more
Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.
“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”
The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in independent publications between 1977 and 2014.
Photograph: Supran, et al., 2023, “Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections”
The analysis found that Exxon correctly rejected the idea the world was headed for an imminent ice age, which was a possibility mooted in the 1970s, instead predicting that the planet was facing a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”. Company scientists also found that global heating was human-influenced and would be detected around the year 2000, and they predicted the “carbon budget” for holding the warming below 2C above pre-industrial times.
Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that “there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.
“What they did was essentially remain silent while doing this work and only when it became strategically necessary to manage the existential threat to their business did they stand up and speak out against the science,” said Supran.
“They could have endorsed their science rather than deny it. It would have been a much harder case to deny it if the king of big oil was actually backing the science rather than attacking it.”
Climate scientists said the new study highlighted an important chapter in the struggle to address the climate crisis. “It is very unfortunate that the company not only did not heed the implied risks from this information, but rather chose to endorse non-scientific ideas instead to delay action, likely in an effort to make more money,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University.
Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters. “If we include impacts from air pollution and climate change, their actions likely impacted thousands to millions of people adversely,” she added.
Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, said the new study was a “detailed, robust analysis” and that Exxon’s misleading public comments about the climate crisis were “especially brazen” given their scientists’ involvement in work with outside researchers in assessing global heating. Shindell said it was hard to conclude that Exxon’s scientists were any better at this than outside scientists, however.
The new work provided “further amplification” of Exxon’s misinformation, said Robert Brulle, an environment policy expert at Brown University who has researched climate disinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry.
“I’m sure that the ongoing efforts to hold Exxon accountable will take note of this study,” Brulle said, a reference to the various lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.
A spokesperson for Exxon said: “This issue has come up several times in recent years and, in each case, our answer is the same: those who talk about how “Exxon Knew” are wrong in their conclusions. In 2019, Judge Barry Ostrager of the NY State Supreme Court listened to all the facts in a related case before him and wrote: “What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible….The testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that ExxonMobil has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting.”
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
www.theguardian.com
Three Berries
Active member
You are just a cog in the wheel of the WEF. Good show. Do a search for this phrase oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully and tell me the time frame of the articles. All within the last week for something that is 45 years old.....Here's the real hoax.
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
Oil refinery, owned by Exxon Mobil, the second largest in the US in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Exxon predicted rising temperatures and emissions that nearly matched what took place, the study found. Photograph: Barry Lewis/In Pictures/Getty Images
Oliver Milman in New York
Fri 13 Jan 2023
The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.
A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.
A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.
Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Read more
Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.
“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”
The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in independent publications between 1977 and 2014.
Photograph: Supran, et al., 2023, “Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections”
The analysis found that Exxon correctly rejected the idea the world was headed for an imminent ice age, which was a possibility mooted in the 1970s, instead predicting that the planet was facing a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”. Company scientists also found that global heating was human-influenced and would be detected around the year 2000, and they predicted the “carbon budget” for holding the warming below 2C above pre-industrial times.
Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that “there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.
“What they did was essentially remain silent while doing this work and only when it became strategically necessary to manage the existential threat to their business did they stand up and speak out against the science,” said Supran.
“They could have endorsed their science rather than deny it. It would have been a much harder case to deny it if the king of big oil was actually backing the science rather than attacking it.”
Climate scientists said the new study highlighted an important chapter in the struggle to address the climate crisis. “It is very unfortunate that the company not only did not heed the implied risks from this information, but rather chose to endorse non-scientific ideas instead to delay action, likely in an effort to make more money,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University.
Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters. “If we include impacts from air pollution and climate change, their actions likely impacted thousands to millions of people adversely,” she added.
Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, said the new study was a “detailed, robust analysis” and that Exxon’s misleading public comments about the climate crisis were “especially brazen” given their scientists’ involvement in work with outside researchers in assessing global heating. Shindell said it was hard to conclude that Exxon’s scientists were any better at this than outside scientists, however.
The new work provided “further amplification” of Exxon’s misinformation, said Robert Brulle, an environment policy expert at Brown University who has researched climate disinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry.
“I’m sure that the ongoing efforts to hold Exxon accountable will take note of this study,” Brulle said, a reference to the various lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.
A spokesperson for Exxon said: “This issue has come up several times in recent years and, in each case, our answer is the same: those who talk about how “Exxon Knew” are wrong in their conclusions. In 2019, Judge Barry Ostrager of the NY State Supreme Court listened to all the facts in a related case before him and wrote: “What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible….The testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that ExxonMobil has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting.”
Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 1970s and 80s
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to publicly dismiss global heating
NPC
If you bothered to read any of these articles you'd understand the time frame. I first read about this several years ago, but I saw a recent article which is why I posted. You have very little credibility, and what you had took a distinct nosedive (if possible) when you mentioned the plot to kill off 8 billion people.
Honestly your "cog in the wheel of the WEF" or "deep state" bullshit is just your stock answer for everything.
Three Berries
Active member
The WEF, Bill Gates et al come right out and say they want to reduce the worlds population to 500k. What's not credible about them?
Here's the actual research. It is a long article but I have included an exert.
Box 2. How ExxonMobil Corp exaggerated the uncertainties of climate science and modeling
• In 2000, ExxonMobil Corp CEO Lee Raymond wrote that “[W]e do not now have a sufficient scientific understanding of climate change to make reasonable predictions and/or justify drastic measures...the science of climate change is uncertain….” (76). The report speculated about a “natural period of warming,” “solar activity,” and “[v]olcanic eruptions, El Nino.” “With all this natural climate ‘noise’ and the complexities of measurement,” it said, “science is not now able to confirm that fossil fuel use has led to any significant global warming.”
• In 2001, an ExxonMobil Corp press release said of the “Hockey Stick” graph showing anthropogenic global warming: “The error bars are huge, yet some prefer to ignore them” (77).
• In 2005, Lee Raymond said in a television interview: “There is a natural variability that has nothing to do with man...It has to do with sun spots...with the wobble of the Earth...[T]he science is not there to make that determination [as to whether global warming is human-caused]...[T]here are a lot of other scientists that do not agree with [the National Academy and IPCC]...[T]he data is [sic] not compelling” (78).
• In 2007, ExxonMobil Corp’s website stated that “[G]aps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions” (79).
• In 2013, ExxonMobil Corp CEO Rex Tillerson said: “[T]he facts remain there are uncertainties around the climate…what the principal drivers of climate change are…[T]here are other elements of the climate system that may obviate this one single variable [of burning fossil fuels]…And so that’s that uncertainty issue…” (80).
Box 3. How Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp cultivated the myth of a 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
• In 1997, Mobil CEO Lee Raymond questioned whether “the Earth [is] really warming” by claiming that “In the 1970s, some of today’s prophets of doom from global warming were predicting the coming of a new ice age” (81).
• In 2001, an ExxonMobil Corp press release said: “[T]here is no consensus about long-term climate trends and what causes them...during the 1970’s [sic], people were concerned about global cooling” (82).
• In 2003, US Senator James Inhofe, who has to date received $2.3 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, argued that the issue of human-caused global warming “is far from settled” by pointing to “those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling” (56, 83–85).
• In 2004, a report published by the ExxonMobil Corp-funded Cato Institute stated that “Thirty years ago there was much scientific discussion among those who believed that humans influenced the…reflectivity [which would] cool the earth, more than…increasing carbon dioxide, causing warming. Back then, the ‘coolers’ had the upper hand…But nature quickly shifted gears…Needless to say, the abrupt shift in the climate caused almost as abrupt a shift in the balance of scientists who predictably followed the temperature” (56, 86).
What ExxonMobil knew versus what they said
Our findings about the company’s early understanding of climate science contradict many of the claims that the company and its allies have made in public.Emphasizing uncertainties
It has been established that, for many years, Exxon’s public affairs strategy was—as a 1988 internal memo put it—to “emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect” (10, 44, 50). However, our analysis shows that in their reports and briefings to management, ExxonMobil’s own scientists did not particularly emphasize uncertainty; on the contrary, the level of uncertainty indicated by their global warming projections (bootstrapped 2σ standard error of the mean = ±21%) was commensurate with that reported by independent academics (±16%). Crucially, it excluded the possibility of no anthropogenic global warming; at no point did company scientists suggest that human-caused global warming would not occur. Nor did they conclude that the uncertainties were too great to permit differentiation of human and natural drivers. Yet publicly, ExxonMobil Corp made these claims until at least the early 2010s (see Box 2).Box 2. How ExxonMobil Corp exaggerated the uncertainties of climate science and modeling
• In 2000, ExxonMobil Corp CEO Lee Raymond wrote that “[W]e do not now have a sufficient scientific understanding of climate change to make reasonable predictions and/or justify drastic measures...the science of climate change is uncertain….” (76). The report speculated about a “natural period of warming,” “solar activity,” and “[v]olcanic eruptions, El Nino.” “With all this natural climate ‘noise’ and the complexities of measurement,” it said, “science is not now able to confirm that fossil fuel use has led to any significant global warming.”
• In 2001, an ExxonMobil Corp press release said of the “Hockey Stick” graph showing anthropogenic global warming: “The error bars are huge, yet some prefer to ignore them” (77).
• In 2005, Lee Raymond said in a television interview: “There is a natural variability that has nothing to do with man...It has to do with sun spots...with the wobble of the Earth...[T]he science is not there to make that determination [as to whether global warming is human-caused]...[T]here are a lot of other scientists that do not agree with [the National Academy and IPCC]...[T]he data is [sic] not compelling” (78).
• In 2007, ExxonMobil Corp’s website stated that “[G]aps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions” (79).
• In 2013, ExxonMobil Corp CEO Rex Tillerson said: “[T]he facts remain there are uncertainties around the climate…what the principal drivers of climate change are…[T]here are other elements of the climate system that may obviate this one single variable [of burning fossil fuels]…And so that’s that uncertainty issue…” (80).
Denigrating climate models
ExxonMobil has often specifically claimed or suggested in public that climate models are “unreliable” (51). In 1999, for example, ExxonMobil Corp’s chief executive officer (CEO) Lee Raymond said future climate “projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, sheer speculation.” (2) In 2013, his successor, Rex Tillerson, called climate models “not competent” (52). In 2015, he stated: “We do not really know what the climate effects of 600 ppm versus 450 ppm will be because the models simply are not that good” (53). The company’s own modeling contradicts such statements. Exxon’s 1982 projection shown in Fig. 1 (panel 3), for example, suggests that 600 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would lead to 1.3°C more global warming than 450 ppm.Quantifying ExxonMobil’s broader climate knowledge
We gain additional insights into how ExxonMobil misled the public and other stakeholders by further evaluating the company’s climate projections and comparing them to its public communications.Mythologizing global cooling
Panel 1b of Fig. 1 is a graph of the global warming “effect of CO2 on an interglacial scale” originally published by climate scientist J. Murray Mitchell Jr. in March 1977 and reproduced by Exxon scientist James Black in a private briefing to the Exxon Corporation Management Committee 4 months later (54, 55). This dataset was not included in our preceding analysis because its long time scale does not permit accurate digitization of its projected post-industrial anthropogenic global warming. Nonetheless, overlaying the original graph with the temperatures simulated by a modern Earth system model (in red) shows that Exxon scientists were accurate in warning their superiors of the prospect of a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial,’” as Mitchell Jr. termed it, that would render Earth hotter than at any time in at least 150,000 years (56). This shows that Exxon scientists correctly sided with the majority of the peer-reviewed literature in the 1970s that foresaw human-caused global warming overwhelming any possibility of global cooling and a (natural) ice age. [According to Peterson et al. (2008), only ~14% of the peer-reviewed literature between 1965 and 1977 anticipated global cooling (56).] It also shows that “the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus” cultivated in public by Mobil in the 1990s and ExxonMobil Corp in the 2000s (see Box 3) was false and contradicted the conclusion of their own scientists that global cooling was unlikely (56).Box 3. How Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp cultivated the myth of a 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
• In 1997, Mobil CEO Lee Raymond questioned whether “the Earth [is] really warming” by claiming that “In the 1970s, some of today’s prophets of doom from global warming were predicting the coming of a new ice age” (81).
• In 2001, an ExxonMobil Corp press release said: “[T]here is no consensus about long-term climate trends and what causes them...during the 1970’s [sic], people were concerned about global cooling” (82).
• In 2003, US Senator James Inhofe, who has to date received $2.3 million in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, argued that the issue of human-caused global warming “is far from settled” by pointing to “those who warned us in the 1970s that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling” (56, 83–85).
• In 2004, a report published by the ExxonMobil Corp-funded Cato Institute stated that “Thirty years ago there was much scientific discussion among those who believed that humans influenced the…reflectivity [which would] cool the earth, more than…increasing carbon dioxide, causing warming. Back then, the ‘coolers’ had the upper hand…But nature quickly shifted gears…Needless to say, the abrupt shift in the climate caused almost as abrupt a shift in the balance of scientists who predictably followed the temperature” (56, 86).
Claiming ignorance about discernibility
A second insight involves ExxonMobil’s predictions as to when anthropogenic global warming would be discernible against the backdrop of natural climate fluctuations. Ten internal reports and one peer-reviewed publication spanning 1979–1985 offered quantitative estimates, with a median year of 2000 ± 5. (For each document, we infer the predicted year from its corresponding supporting quotations, summarized in table S4; see SM section S1.2.6 for method details.) This is consistent with what in fact occurred. In 1995, the IPCC declared that a human effect on global temperatures had been detected, a conclusion they reiterated with higher confidence in 2000 and in all subsequent IPCC assessment reports (57, 58). In other words, ExxonMobil’s understanding of climate science was sufficient not only to project long-term warming accurately but also to predict when it would be discernible. Yet, ExxonMobil publicly asserted that the science was too uncertain to know when—or if—human-caused global warming might be measurable. In 2004, for example, they stated that “scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change,” a claim that was contrary to the analysis of their own scientists (59).Staying silent on stranded assets
A third insight concerns the “carbon budget”—the amount of CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere—while holding anthropogenic global warming below 2°C. Five ExxonMobil studies published between 1982 and 2005 address the question. They conclude that to stabilize CO2 concentrations below 550 ppm and/or limit warming to 2°C would impose a carbon budget of 251 to 716 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) between 2015 and 2100 (10). For comparison, recent calculations have narrowed the uncertainty and place the figure at 442 to 651 GtC (60). Thus, ExxonMobil’s calculations of the carbon budget were consistent with today’s best estimates. Yet, to our knowledge, ExxonMobil did not alert investors, consumers, or the general public to this constraint.Quantifying climate knowledge
The substantial body of literature documenting the history of climate lobbying and propaganda by fossil fuel interests has been described as a “vast blind spot” of major climate assessments—ignored, in particular, in all but the most recent IPCC assessment report (61–63). Yet bringing quantitative techniques from the physical sciences to bear on a discipline traditionally dominated by qualitative journalistic and historical approaches offers one path to remedying this blind spot. Here, it has enabled us to conclude with precision that, decades ago, ExxonMobil understood as much about climate change as did academic and government scientists. Our 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.
You have zero research skill. You can't even use google it seems.
Fact Check-Depopulation quote has been misattributed to Klaus Schwab
By Reuters Fact Check3 MIN READ
A quote about depopulation has been misattributed to the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Klaus Schwab.
Social media posts (here , here) have shared an excerpt said to be taken from a book written by Schwab called ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ (here).
The excerpt reads: “At least 4 billion ‘useless eaters’ shall be eliminated by the year 2050 by means of limited wars, organized epidemics of fatal rapid-acting diseases and starvation […]
“The population of Canada, Western Europe and the United States will be decimated more rapidly than on other continents, until the world’s population reaches a manageable level of 1 billion, of which 500 million will consist of Chinese and Japanese races, selected because they are people who have been regimented for centuries and who are accustomed to obeying authority without question.”
A search shows that the extract cannot be found in Schwab’s book (reparti.free.fr/schwab2020.pdf).
It does, however, feature in a book by John Coleman (here) called 'Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300.’
The book claims to detail an organisation called ‘the committee of 300’, a supposedly “all powerful group” that controls every aspect of the world.
Specifically, Coleman claims to summarise the work of a late member of the committee, who was outlining a proposal for a world revolution (see page 105). The claims made by Coleman in the book are outside the scope of this check.
Quotes wrongly attributed to Schwab have previously been covered by Reuters in these fact checks (here , here).
VERDICT
False. The excerpt was not written by Schwab. It was taken from a book called ‘Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300.’This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here.
Brother Nature
Well-known member
Now I know the reason I want Honey Nut Cheerios everytime I hear the words "Climate Change".
Brother Nature
Well-known member
I also always thought Al Gore should have been a porn star nick named "the bull". Every time he was about to get laid he could say "Get ready to be Gored by the Bull!"
"Fair enough", said Tipper.
Three Berries
Active member
Schwab is the spokesman fot the WEF but the 500k is their policy. Some are getting a little tired of his 30 years running the show. Bill Gates says 500K too. And that's what's on the Georgia Guidestones.
Do you support the WEF?
Three Berries
Active member
Bill Gates and population reduction
Three Berries
Active member
Hey no need to bring them into it....
"Game-Changer:" High-Powered Laser Steers Lightning Bolts For First Time | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
You mention nothing about being wrong about your previous statement? Where is this policy you speak of? Did you actually watch the Bill Gates video, or did you watch it without understanding anything?
