Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

[Lord of Planar]

Clearly you suffer from a one track mind.....

Trumpity Trump Trump Trump.

Next time, if they don't want someone like Trump, they should nominate a better candidate.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Next time, if they don't want someone like Trump, they should nominate a better candidate.

Trump is going to end up having nearly nothing to do with humanities approach to climate change, the problem is not Trump here, the problem is with people who are so shallow that they have become obsessed with Trump just like he had it planned.

Better people dont conform to Trumps will like that.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Trump is going to end up having nearly nothing to do with humanities approach to climate change, the problem is not Trump here, the problem is with people who are so shallow that they have become obsessed with Trump just like he had it planned.

Better people dont conform to Trumps will like that.

USA is the second biggest C02 polluter and Trump is the president so of course will his presidency have a large negative effect. That Trump also for example have appointed Scott Pruitt, that is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change as the head of the EPA.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epa-chief-pruitt-refuses-to-link-co2-and-global-warming/

While thankfully it will not be as bad as it could have been. That many American cities, states and companies plans to stick to the Paris Accord.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/climate/cities-states-businesses-emissions-climate-pact.html

You also have the under2 Coalition, which represents more than 1.3 billion people in 205 jurisdictions representing 43 countries, including several American states and cities.

Under2 Coalition | Under2 Coalition

 

[Bergslagstroll]

It is not action by the oil companies which hamper AGW, but the data itself.
The alarmist have not been able to show that the amplified feedbacks necessary for a catastrophic results exists.

How can you say that the data is wrong? That you for example have 31 of USA’s leading science societies urging Congress to take decisive action against manmade global warming.

Thirty-one of the largest U.S. science societies—collectively representing millions of scientists—sent a letter to Congress this week urging lawmakers to recognize anthropogenic climate change and take decisive action to combat it and its effects. “The letter continues the decades-long efforts of the scientific community to persuade Congress to act on the climate crisis,” says Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological University who studies climate change and who is affiliated with of several of the societies that signed the letter.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

That you can also for example read about manmade global warming and the need for acton on Royal Society’s website. There the Royal Society consist of the of many of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

While those who question the scientific consensus are after several decades still all over the place. That you have those like you that accept manmade global warming but claim that the negative effect is a lot less. While other claim that we are facing several years, perhaps decades, of cooling because of the sun.

 

[longview]

How can you say that the data is wrong? That you for example have 31 of USA’s leading science societies urging Congress to take decisive action against manmade global warming.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

That you can also for example read about manmade global warming and the need for acton on Royal Society’s website. There the Royal Society consist of the of many of the world's most eminent scientists and is the oldest scientific academy in continuous existence.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

While those who question the scientific consensus are after several decades still all over the place. That you have those like you that accept manmade global warming but claim that the negative effect is a lot less. While other claim that we are facing several years, perhaps decades, of cooling because of the sun.

Who said the data was wrong?
I said the data itself hampers action on AGW.
The problem is that for catastrophic AGW to be true, requires two elements.
The first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one is saying it is not.
The second requirement is that the warming from the CO2 forcing is amplified to produce much greater warming.
Within the observed data, there are insufficient unknowns to allow for much if any amplified feedbacks.

 

[Lord of Planar]

USA is the second biggest C02 polluter

Do you expect any respect for you when you call a greenhouse gas a pollutant?

 

[Lord of Planar]

How can you say that the data is wrong? That you for example have 31 of USA’s leading science societies urging Congress to take decisive action against manmade global warming.

And a little over 500 years ago, most people thought Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth.

The knowledge of science is ever changing. The climate sciences are far from settled.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

Back in the 70's I used to subscribe to Scientific American. So many things never happened. Have you a clue how clueless that publication is about the sciences?

While those who question the scientific consensus are after several decades still all over the place. That you have those like you that accept manmade global warming but claim that the negative effect is a lot less. While other claim that we are facing several years, perhaps decades, of cooling because of the sun.

Consensus is not science. It's politics.

Please stop looking at the political science aspect of the pundits.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Who said the data was wrong?
I said the data itself hampers action on AGW.
The problem is that for catastrophic AGW to be true, requires two elements.
The first is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one is saying it is not.
The second requirement is that the warming from the CO2 forcing is amplified to produce much greater warming.
Within the observed data, there are insufficient unknowns to allow for much if any amplified feedbacks.

The leading scientific institutes in the world agrees on that the data show that action is needed to combat manmade global warming. Like for example the British Royal Society.

"Both theory and direct observations have confirmed that global warming is associated with greater warming over land than oceans, moistening of the atmosphere, shifts in regional precipitation patterns and increases in extreme weather events, ocean acidification, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels (which increases the risk of coastal inundation and storm surge). Already, record high temperatures are on average significantly outpacing record low temperatures, wet areas are becoming wetter as dry areas are becoming drier, heavy rainstorms have become heavier, and snowpacks (an important source of freshwater for many regions) are decreasing.

These impacts are expected to increase with greater warming and will threaten food production, freshwater supplies, coastal infrastructure, and especially the welfare of the huge population currently living in low-lying areas. Even though certain regions may realise some local benefit from the warming, the long-term consequences overall will be disruptive."


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-17/

 

[Bergslagstroll]

And a little over 500 years ago, most people thought Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth.

The knowledge of science is ever changing. The climate sciences are far from settled.


Back in the 70's I used to subscribe to Scientific American. So many things never happened. Have you a clue how clueless that publication is about the sciences?


Consensus is not science. It's politics.

Please stop looking at the political science aspect of the pundits.

The climate science is so settled that even fossil fuel companies acknowledge the need for action against manmade global warming. Like for example BP, Statoil and Total.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/a-low-carbon-future.html

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

https://www.total.com/en/commitment/environmental-issues-challenges/climate-change

The fossil fuel companies have also known about the need for action on climate change for a very long time. That the American petrol companies was presented a report from the Stanford Research Institute in 1968 that showed that burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

You also have the 1988 Shell report that showed the gravity of climate change and Shell’s large contribution to manmade global warming.

1988 Internal Shell Report "The Greenhouse Effect"

 

[iguanaman]

You could say the same thing about tobacco and asbestos.

But then it would sound stupid.

Fun fact. Putin's Russia is the Worlds #1 producer of asbestos and they deny any health claims from its use as unfounded. This is the example the deniers are using for CO2 pollution.

https://www.asbestos.com/blog/2011/12/06/6-countries-to-watch-for-asbestos-use-and-abuse/

 

[iguanaman]

Next time, if they don't want someone like Trump, they should nominate a better candidate.

LOL Don't blame us for YOUR candidate. If the GOP was a viable party they would not have nominated the head of a criminal enterprise. The Republican party will richly deserve to fade into oblivion after this debacle.

 

[Jack Hays]

Fun fact. Putin's Russia is the Worlds #1 producer of asbestos and they deny any health claims from its use as unfounded. This is the example the deniers are using for CO2 pollution.

https://www.asbestos.com/blog/2011/12/06/6-countries-to-watch-for-asbestos-use-and-abuse/

Now that ECS and TCR make AGW mathematically untenable. I expect more and more of this desperate nonsense.

 

[Threegoofs]

The leading scientific institutes in the world agrees on that the data show that action is needed to combat manmade global warming. Like for example the British Royal Society.

"Both theory and direct observations have confirmed that global warming is associated with greater warming over land than oceans, moistening of the atmosphere, shifts in regional precipitation patterns and increases in extreme weather events, ocean acidification, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels (which increases the risk of coastal inundation and storm surge). Already, record high temperatures are on average significantly outpacing record low temperatures, wet areas are becoming wetter as dry areas are becoming drier, heavy rainstorms have become heavier, and snowpacks (an important source of freshwater for many regions) are decreasing.

These impacts are expected to increase with greater warming and will threaten food production, freshwater supplies, coastal infrastructure, and especially the welfare of the huge population currently living in low-lying areas. Even though certain regions may realise some local benefit from the warming, the long-term consequences overall will be disruptive."


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-17/

What’s the Royal Society know?

I mean... Longview has been posting on anonymous internet message boards for a long time.

He has proven he knows more about sea level rise, paleoclimatolgy, climate sensitivity and oceanography than all the experts.

 

[longview]

The leading scientific institutes in the world agrees on that the data show that action is needed to combat manmade global warming. Like for example the British Royal Society.

"Both theory and direct observations have confirmed that global warming is associated with greater warming over land than oceans, moistening of the atmosphere, shifts in regional precipitation patterns and increases in extreme weather events, ocean acidification, melting glaciers, and rising sea levels (which increases the risk of coastal inundation and storm surge). Already, record high temperatures are on average significantly outpacing record low temperatures, wet areas are becoming wetter as dry areas are becoming drier, heavy rainstorms have become heavier, and snowpacks (an important source of freshwater for many regions) are decreasing.

These impacts are expected to increase with greater warming and will threaten food production, freshwater supplies, coastal infrastructure, and especially the welfare of the huge population currently living in low-lying areas. Even though certain regions may realise some local benefit from the warming, the long-term consequences overall will be disruptive."


https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-17/

Actually it does not matter what the scientific organizations say, as they may not represent a poll of their membership.
The most that can be extracted consistently from the actual scientist is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL Don't blame us for YOUR candidate. If the GOP was a viable party they would not have nominated the head of a criminal enterprise. The Republican party will richly deserve to fade into oblivion after this debacle.

He wasn't my candidate, and we would be worse off with Hillary.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Actually it does not matter what the scientific organizations say, as they may not represent a poll of their membership.
The most that can be extracted consistently from the actual scientist is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Fossil fuel companies are amongst the biggest and most profitable companies in the world, so they could easily have funded scientific studies, if It was real evidenced that contradicted the scientific consensus on manmade global warming.

Instead for example 80 percent of the Exxon’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans, between 1977 to 2014. While 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which a lot bigger reach expressed doubt about climate change during the same period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

That the fossil fuel companies’ deceptive tactics have lead to today situation their people that deny the need for action against climate change still have a lot of influence. Think for example of Trump and also Scott Pruitt, the new head of EPA. While at the same time those people can’t even agree on if the climate is getting hotter or colder.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Actually it does not matter what the scientific organizations say, as they may not represent a poll of their membership.
The most that can be extracted consistently from the actual scientist is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Of course, the conclusions of the world’s leading scientific organizations matter. Also, as any other organization they need to represent their members else their members will leave them, and/or the leadership will be replaced. Something you haven’t showed is happening.

 

[longview]

Fossil fuel companies are amongst the biggest and most profitable companies in the world, so they could easily have funded scientific studies, if It was real evidenced that contradicted the scientific consensus on manmade global warming.

Instead for example 80 percent of the Exxon’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans, between 1977 to 2014. While 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which a lot bigger reach expressed doubt about climate change during the same period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

That the fossil fuel companies’ deceptive tactics have lead to today situation their people that deny the need for action against climate change still have a lot of influence. Think for example of Trump and also Scott Pruitt, the new head of EPA. While at the same time those people can’t even agree on if the climate is getting hotter or colder.

First off the scientific consensus on man made global warming, is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
If we increase it's level the temperature of the surface troposphere system will increase.
Almost everyone has known this for a half a century, or more.
The issue is the delta between what actual science can show, and the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC.
Let's start with the fact that the IPCC only produces a range for ECS 1.5 to 4.5 C, for 2XCO2.
The predictions based on how the climate has responded in the past, show ECS to likely be in the low end of that range.
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
The predictions based on modeled assumptions of non validated amplified feedbacks come in at the mid to high end of the range.
The IPCC says because the two disagree, they cannot show a best estimate of ECS.
To me, the empirical data is what Science should follow, absent evidence of strong feedbacks.

 

[longview]

Of course, the conclusions of the world’s leading scientific organizations matter. Also, as any other organization they need to represent their members else their members will leave them, and/or the leadership will be replaced. Something you haven’t showed is happening.

The membership of these organizations have complained and resigned.
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows | Daily Mail Online
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fossil fuel companies are amongst the biggest and most profitable companies in the world, so they could easily have funded scientific studies, if It was real evidenced that contradicted the scientific consensus on manmade global warming.

Instead for example 80 percent of the Exxon’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans, between 1977 to 2014. While 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which a lot bigger reach expressed doubt about climate change during the same period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html

That the fossil fuel companies’ deceptive tactics have lead to today situation their people that deny the need for action against climate change still have a lot of influence. Think for example of Trump and also Scott Pruitt, the new head of EPA. While at the same time those people can’t even agree on if the climate is getting hotter or colder.

What's your problem? They were honest. They explained it as knowing that we will have an impact that will be seen in the far future if we continue. That is wasn't a problem in the near future.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The membership of these organizations have complained and resigned.
Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation by one of its Fellows | Daily Mail Online
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | Fox News

For example, the 31 largest science societies that send a letter to congress urging action on climate change represent millions of scientists.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ammer-congress-on-climate-change-mdash-again/

So, from your links it seems like it’s very few members that disagrees with the societies conclusions.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

What's your problem? They were honest. They explained it as knowing that we will have an impact that will be seen in the far future if we continue. That is wasn't a problem in the near future.

Here is a link to the study so you can read about the huge discrepancy between Exxon’s internal communications and studies and their external communications.

"Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil's scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil's advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58]. Likewise, the company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil's AGW communications were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws."

Quote from part 5 conclusions.

Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977?2014) - IOPscience

 

[Jack Hays]

Here is a link to the study so you can read about the huge discrepancy between Exxon’s internal communications and studies and their external communications.

"Available documents show a discrepancy between what ExxonMobil's scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public. The company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal communications consistently tracked evolving climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In contrast, ExxonMobil's advertorials in the NYT overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties, promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil's own. This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method (SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public understanding of scientific knowledge [57, 58]. Likewise, the company's peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil's AGW communications were misleading; we are not in a position to judge whether they violated any laws."

Quote from part 5 conclusions.

Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977?2014) - IOPscience

That's just BS propaganda.


[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

 

[bubbabgone]

That's just BS propaganda.


[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

But ... But ... Eric Schneiderman said so. He's got impeccable creds.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

That's just BS propaganda.


The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared

If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

Interesting that even your denier blog writes that;

“The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.”

What the blog author forgot to mention was the deceptive campaigns Exxon and other fossil fuel companies implemented to hinder action on climate change. That for example is documented in The Climate Deception Dossier.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.Wvhf_6SFOUk

That Exxon realized that they couldn't disprove the scientific evidences for manmade gloabal warming, but they could affect public opinion and politcal decisions through misinformation.