Exxon Mobile and climate change

[oxmixmudd]

It turns out it seems that in the late 70's and early 80's, Exxon was spending a good bit of money researching climate change, and even chose not to develop a large Natural Gas reserve because it would release so much CO2 into the atmosphere, but then later had a change of heart and spent even more funding anti-climate change research for some 30 years or so. And in at least one article I read on this, it appears one benefit of helping to delay a response to climate change was that some of the large oil deposits (probably not the right term from an oil industry perspective) found in the arctic would likely become affordable to develop if the Earth warmed. Although it is also clear the potential negative impact on their bottom line of limiting CO2 output was also a key factor in their change in direction.

As I had said on another thread, the whole Climate Science thing is just littered with biased players. And it is very hard to figure out who are the ones that are telling the truth in an unslanted form (if any). But one element does show up clearly in the emails and documents from Exxon. Their scientists were making the same predictions as what is now know as the 'scientific conscensus' on Climate Change. And for a time Exxon was prepared to deal with those results in a way that would have helped to world take action to reduce carbon emissions.

Since it was Exxon's goal to get the best scientists on its staff at this time, and since their conclusion was at odds in many ways with the ultimate bottom line of their employer, and since for a time Exxon acted on the results, that would tend to be a major balancing factor in who we should be listening too.

original story

This story has been picked up by many outlets, but I think this is the source.


Jim

[Kbertsche]

It turns out it seems that in the late 70's and early 80's, Exxon was spending a good bit of money researching climate change, and even chose not to develop a large Natural Gas reserve because it would release so much CO2 into the atmosphere, but then later had a change of heart and spent even more funding anti-climate change research for some 30 years or so. And in at least one article I read on this, it appears one benefit of helping to delay a response to climate change was that some of the large oil deposits (probably not the right term from an oil industry perspective) found in the arctic would likely become affordable to develop if the Earth warmed. Although it is also clear the potential negative impact on their bottom line of limiting CO2 output was also a key factor in their change in direction.

As I had said on another thread, the whole Climate Science thing is just littered with biased players. And it is very hard to figure out who are the ones that are telling the truth in an unslanted form (if any). But one element does show up clearly in the emails and documents from Exxon. Their scientists were making the same predictions as what is now know as the 'scientific conscensus' on Climate Change. And for a time Exxon was prepared to deal with those results in a way that would have helped to world take action to reduce carbon emissions.

Since it was Exxon's goal to get the best scientists on its staff at this time, and since their conclusion was at odds in many ways with the ultimate bottom line of their employer, and since for a time Exxon acted on the results, that would tend to be a major balancing factor in who we should be listening too.

original story

This story has been picked up by many outlets, but I think this is the source.


Jim

As a scientist myself, I think the answer is simple:
image.jpg


More seriously, in spite of his irrational anti-Christian rants, Jichard has done a very nice, objective job on TWeb of summarizing the underlying climate science. While there is some debate over the magnitude of the effects, I don't think there should be any serious doubt that humans are a very large contributor to global warming.

But this does NOT mean that we must implement all of the policies suggested by Al Gore and company. This is a completely separate discussion. And I think these policy suggestions are the main thing that the AGW deniers are responding to.

[Jichard]

More seriously, in spite of his irrational anti-Christian rants, Jichard has done a very nice, objective job on TWeb of summarizing the underlying climate science.

I don't know why you feel the need to fabricate false claims about me. Just because I present facts that you don't like and that you're unable to address, does not mean I'm anti-Christian. So please drop your persecution complex.

And I think these policy suggestions are the main thing that the AGW deniers are responding to.

No, the AGW denialists are denying well-evidenced scientific facts. And the vast majority of those denialists are conservatives.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't know why you feel the need to fabricate false claims about me. Just because I present facts that you don't like and that you're unable to address, does not mean I'm anti-Christian. So please drop your persecution complex.



No, the AGW denialists are denying well-evidenced scientific facts. And the vast majority of those denialists are conservatives.

I would prefer that the thread content be a discussion of the topic and any related data. I welcome contrary opinions, but please try to keep your disdain for those whose opinion or beliefs differ from your own out of the conversation.

Jim

[Jichard]

I would prefer that the thread content be a discussion of the topic and any related data.

Is that why you stayed silent when this was written?:

More seriously, in spite of his irrational anti-Christian rants, Jichard has done a very nice, objective job on TWeb of summarizing the underlying climate science.

I welcome contrary opinions, but please try to keep your disdain for those whose opinion or beliefs differ from your own out of the conversation.

We've been over this: calling people "denialists" just calls those people what they are. It's no more a term of "disdain" than is the term "AIDS denialist". And I'm not going to stop using the term just because it bothers you.

In any event, I already discussed the evidence. Let me know when the AGW denialists are able to discuss it.

[oxmixmudd]

Is that why you stayed silent when this was written?:

Because I regard the what I am asking you to avoid and what Kirk did as belonging two completely different categories. Your abrasive attitude, especially towards Christians, is simply a fact, it is evidenced over months of posts. To mention it as he has is not name calling. First, there is no appellation used. And second, he frames his comment as essentially a compliment - you have done a good job presenting the information on AGW in spiteof the fact you have embellished your writings in a great deal of caustic dressing. Given that you have rarely if ever said anything complementary about someone you disagree with, Kirk has immediately set the bar higher than you have ever raised yourself to. And so why would I call him out?

We've been over this: calling people "denialists" just calls those people what they are. It's no more a term of "disdain" than is the term "AIDS denialist". And I'm not going to stop using the term just because it bothers you.

In any event, I already discussed the evidence. Let me know when the AGW denialists are able to discuss it.

Yes, you have indeed attempted to justify you abrasive style in the past. But calling someone a 'denialist' because they disagree with you over AGW is NOT just calling them what they are. First, 'denialist' is a over-arching derogatory classification. It's purpose is to degrade an entire group of people. It's dismisses an individual without giving them a hearing, without considering their specific position. In that sense it is very little different from bigotry, and grows from the same root attitude. And that is what I just don't want.

I want you, or others, to deal with the individual comments on their own merits, I don't want them dismissed in that kind of over-arching derogatory generalization. I know many people that have studied the data and disagree with some of the conclusions of AGW primarily because as they see it important facts are being ignored or glossed over. I don't agree with them, but I don't need to call them names, nor do I need to ignore the issues they raise simply because we disagree. That attitude - elitist dismissal of those with differing opinions or conclusions, again, is not much different than racism and bigotry. There are elements of degree of course, but we are not talking about the flat earth society or 'scientific' geocentrism here. At least not yet - though as time passes it is becoming harder and harder to find data that really can lead to a conclusion contrary to the basic AGW conclusion.

But even in that there are elements that can be debated - how much, what is the right response, how do we avoid and extremest over response, what are the political motivations in the debate, is research being fairly funded and so on and so on. And the attitude that is comfortable with using the term 'denialist' is often also comfortable with trying silence any legitimate debate contrary to their particular point of view using that same kind of language. And there is very little different from that and censorship or the denial of free speech.

And again, it is unnecessary and not wanted in this thread.


Jim

[Jichard]

Because I regard the what I am asking you to avoid and what Kirk did as belonging two completely different categories. Your abrasive attitude, especially towards Christians, is simply a fact, it is evidenced over months of posts.

Not abrasive to Christians at all. No need to imagine persecution where there isn't any. It's getting really tedious seeing people complaining about imaginary anti-Christian prejudice.

To mention it as he has is not name calling. First, there is no appellation used. And second, he frames his comment as essentially a compliment - you have done a good job presenting the information on AGW in spiteof the fact you have embellished your writings in a great deal of caustic dressing.

Congratulations on trying to defend someone's fabricated insults.

Given that you have rarely if ever said anything complementary about someone you disagree with, Kirk has immediately set the bar higher than you have ever raised yourself to. And so why would I call him out?

And now you've turned to making up false claims about me? How would you know if I "have rarely if ever said anything complementary about someone you disagree with"? The answer is: you wouldn't, and you just made that up.

Yes, you have indeed attempted to justify you abrasive style in the past.

I couldn't care less whether people find my style abrasive or not, especially given the vitriol displayed by some (supposed) Christians on this forum. You've remained relatively silent while your fellow Christians have hurled worse nonsense at me, ranging from silly insults to obsenities. I think I know why. That seems pretty common amongst many of the (supposedly) Christian posters on here. The fact that you remain silent on that is your issue, not mine.

But calling someone a 'denialist' because they disagree with you over AGW is NOT just calling them what they are.

I call someone a denialist when they deny the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW, just like I call someone an AIDS denialist when they deny the evidence-based scientific consensus on HIV causing AIDS.

First, 'denialist' is a over-arching derogatory classification. It's purpose is to degrade an entire group of people. It's dismisses an individual without giving them a hearing, without considering their specific position. In that sense it is very little different from bigotry, and grows from the same root attitude. And that is what I just don't want.

All false. "Denialist" is a term used in science, history, etc. for people who reject positions supported by overwhelming evidence, in favor of positions supported by little-to-no evidence. So you're wrong when you claim that the term "dismisses an individual without giving them a hearing, without considering their specific position". In fact, the term does quite the opposite: the term is applied after looking at the person position, seeing that their position does not square with the scientific evidence, and then labeling their position as "denialist" to reflect that.

I really suggest you get some background on what the term "denialist" means, before making further false claims about it. Because it's fairy clear that you don't know what the term means, nor what the term is used for. Here's an introduction for you on this, from The British Medical Journal:

"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract

I want you, or others, to deal with the individual comments on their own merits, I don't want them dismissed in that kind of over-arching derogatory generalization. I know many people that have studied the data and disagree with some of the conclusions of AGW primarily because as they see it important facts are being ignored or glossed over.

Not really. There are very few scientists (with expertise in the topic) who've studied the data and honestly disagree with the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW, just as there are very few scientists (with expertise in the topic) who've studied the data and honestly disagree with the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.

I don't agree with them, but I don't need to call them names, nor do I need to ignore the issues they raise simply because we disagree.

Again, the term "denialist" isn't name-calling, as explained above.

And I dismiss the issues they bring up because those issues are worth dismissing. Those issues are usually just conspiracy theories, misrepresentations of scientific evidence that denialists haven't bothered to read, etc.

That attitude - elitist dismissal of those with differing opinions or conclusions, again, is not much different than racism and bigotry.

It's not "elitism" to dismiss ill-informed opinions that supported by no evidence and that are in conflict with the scientific evidence.

There are elements of degree of course, but we are not talking about the flat earth society or 'scientific' geocentrism here. At least not yet - though as time passes it is becoming harder and harder to find data that really can lead to a conclusion contrary to the basic AGW conclusion.

No, in fact we are talking about that. AGW denialists is at the level of AIDS denialism, Young Earth creationism, flat-earthers, and so on. The position is that out-of-line with the scientific evidence.

But even in that there are elements that can be debated - how much, what is the right response, how do we avoid and extremest over response, what are the political motivations in the debate, is research being fairly funded and so on and so on.

All of which is completely irrelevant to what the scientific evidence actually shows. That's what denialist deny: they deny the claims supported by overwhelming scientific evidence. Discussing political motivations, research funding, etc. is no excuse for denying evidence-based scientific conclusions.

And the attitude that is comfortable with using the term 'denialist' is often also comfortable with trying silence any legitimate debate contrary to their particular point of view using that same kind of language. And there is very little different from that and censorship or the denial of free speech.

And again, it is unnecessary and not wanted in this thread.

Again, by your logic, you have a problem with all of the following groups:

• virologists
• doctors
• immunologists
• historians
• psychologists
• climatologists

and so on. After all, they use the term "denialist" in just the way I use it: to discuss positions that are supported by little-to-no evidence and which conflict with the overwhelming scientific evidence. This includes terms like AIDS denialist.

There is no attempt to "silence any legitimate debate contrary". I don't know where you got that from. There simply is no legitimate debate on whether AGW is happening, on whether humans are the primary cause of the recent global warming, and the other core portions of the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW; just as there simply is no legitimate debate on whether HIV exists, on whether HIV causes AIDS, and the other core portions of the evidence-based scientific consensus on AIDS. Any legitimate, evidence-based debate on those issues ended when overwhelming scientific evidence was presented, supporting the relevant conclusions.

Finally, I don't know where you that the idea that this is "the denial of free speech". Denialists are still allowed to say whatever nonsense they want in any number of places, including conservative blogs, opinion pieces, in the press, etc. They are just no longer able to say that in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, since they have no scientific evidence for their claims. That's not a "denial of free speech" since free speech does not mean that one can write whatever nonsense one wants in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Nor does free speech mean that one can say whatever one wants, without one labeling one beliefs as being what those beliefs are (ex: denialist).

[TheLurch]

Could we please stop arguing over what it's appropriate to label people?

The OP provides information that is interesting, and uses it to make a coherent argument. It's an argument that a lot of people here would seemingly find running against their intuitions. I'd like to see how they respond to it (if at all).

Please don't turn this into some bicker-fest about past posting histories.

[oxmixmudd]

Could we please stop arguing over what it's appropriate to label people?

The OP provides information that is interesting, and uses it to make a coherent argument. It's an argument that a lot of people here would seemingly find running against their intuitions. I'd like to see how they respond to it (if at all).

Please don't turn this into some bicker-fest about past posting histories.

Thanks - The Lurch!


So yes, back to the OP. Exxon's own scientists had early on come to the same conclusions as what we now call "The scientific concensus" on global warming. They had even apparently chosen not to develop a large natural gas reserve because it would have release such a large amount of CO2 as a result. They then changed course and for almost 30 years funded anti-global warming research and/or media outlets. How does this impact those that believe the science of AGW is biased or flawed? What does this say about Exxon and its efforts to fund anti-global warming research? What does it say about the potential legitimacy of the arguments raised by sites like

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

And so on. I am not an "advocate" for either side of the debate per se and as such, I have found the following to be true: those that are willing to listen and discuss both sides of an issue are almost always viewed by those with highly polarized opinions as belonging to the 'other' side of the debate. Not a pleasant place to be sometimes. But I must be honest and say that I have been persuaded by listening to both sides of the debate and looking intently at the data from both sides that AGW is the primary direction the data supports. Nevertheless, I would like to hear from both sides on this issue, the one in the OP - the fact Exxon's own scientists presented and advocated credible evidence supporting AGW as far back as the '70s

Thanks,

Jim

[Cow Poke]

But this does NOT mean that we must implement all of the policies suggested by Al Gore and company. This is a completely separate discussion. And I think these policy suggestions are the main thing that the AGW deniers are responding to.

I'm a skeptic, not a denier, but yeah - I have to admit that Al Gore and company (and associated "solutions") have contributed a lot to my attitude toward this.

[TheLurch]

I'm a skeptic, not a denier, but yeah - I have to admit that Al Gore and company (and associated "solutions") have contributed a lot to my attitude toward this.

You mind if i ask which solutions you specifically objected to?

[Cow Poke]

You mind if i ask which solutions you specifically objected to?

Not at all. And good question, because I immediately think of Al Gore's "Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association" as one of those "solutions" I consider bad, but really can't think of others, except for variations of Cap and Trade.

I guess my biggest frustration is - and I started a thread on this but it quickly devolved into "you're an idiot - no, you are".... that I'm not aware of many "solutions" that actually do anything measurable.

I'm all for (as a Christian) being good stewards of those things entrusted to us, including the planet. But that's not because of alarmism about global warming. (And, note, when I mention "alarmism", I'm specifically referring to the Al Gore style of fear evangelism, akin to a preacher screaming "repent or you're going to hell". )

I freely admit that a lot of my skepticism is not relative to the science involved, but how the government attempts to "fix" things like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the wars in the middle east....

I guess I just don't trust the government to bring about a reasonable solution.

[TheLurch]

Not at all. And good question, because I immediately think of Al Gore's "Carbon Neutral Mortgage Association" as one of those "solutions" I consider bad, but really can't think of others, except for variations of Cap and Trade.

I guess my biggest frustration is - and I started a thread on this but it quickly devolved into "you're an idiot - no, you are".... that I'm not aware of many "solutions" that actually do anything measurable.

Thanks. I think that's a pretty common experience. Lots of people don't know what the solutions are, but mistrust the people who are advocating that solutions need to be put into effect, so they assume the solutions must be bad. Layered on top of that is the fact that we've been spectacularly bad at solving societal-level problems without government involvement. It gets pretty easy for someone who sees things from that perspective to assume all solutions must be bad.

I think the reality is that a lot of different solutions have been suggested and/or undergone trials, and there are probably some on the list that most people would find appealing (though not the same ones for everybody, naturally). But it's a long list, most of the entries on it require some explaining and details, and no single entry on it will solve the entire problem on its own - we need to choose multiple solutions at once.

So it's a bit of work to wade through and (justifiably) most people think they have better things to do with their time.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks. I think that's a pretty common experience. Lots of people don't know what the solutions are, but mistrust the people who are advocating that solutions need to be put into effect, so they assume the solutions must be bad. Layered on top of that is the fact that we've been spectacularly bad at solving societal-level problems without government involvement. It gets pretty easy for someone who sees things from that perspective to assume all solutions must be bad.

I think the reality is that a lot of different solutions have been suggested and/or undergone trials, and there are probably some on the list that most people would find appealing (though not the same ones for everybody, naturally). But it's a long list, most of the entries on it require some explaining and details, and no single entry on it will solve the entire problem on its own - we need to choose multiple solutions at once.

So it's a bit of work to wade through and (justifiably) most people think they have better things to do with their time.

Agreed - and most of us respond a whole lot better to "here's what you can do and here's how it will help" than being threatened with dire consequences when previous threats of dire consequences have not materialized.

[klaus54]

Agreed - and most of us respond a whole lot better to "here's what you can do and here's how it will help" than being threatened with dire consequences when previous threats of dire consequences have not materialized.

Binga Dinga!

I've taught environmental studies courses with the tact of addressing the climate change issue with positive suggestions that could (possibly) mitigate CC (to what degree -- as it were -- I have no idea).

It's SO easy to teach students ideas that are necessary in the long run anyway. But they and I bristle at the gloom 'n doom approach, what Cowboy calls the "repent or burn in hell" rhetoric.

And the ALARMIST approach, like most of the Left's nonsense, is clearly incendiary spew to effect political divisiveness. Democrats smart, Republicans dumb.

The epistemology is so much like the Fundy Atheists referring to themselves as "Brights" and using the strawman of Fundy Christianity and Islam to push a false dichotomy.

I used to cringe when a loudmouth agnostic and VERY politically liberal professor bellowing in the lecture hall about "two minute warnings."

Ugh. All the most leftist students tuned him out, and I had to spend most of the discussion sessions presenting a balance of facts which to an uninformed biased observer made me sound like the most dreaded of all heretics, the DENIALIST!