• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How the oil industry made us doubt climate change

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,840
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hard evidence supporting the years-long accusation that climate change denial is industry generated.


...this was just the start of a decades-long campaign to shape public opinion and to spread doubt about climate change.

In June 2020, the General Attorney of Minnesota Keith Ellison sued ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Koch Industries for misleading the public over climate change. The lawsuit claims that "previously unknown internal documents confirm that the defendant well understood the devastating effects that their products would cause to the climate".

It says that despite this knowledge, the industry "engaged in a public-relations campaign that was not only false, but also highly effective," which served to "deliberately [undermine] the science" of climate change.

The accusations against Exxon and others - which the company has called "baseless and without merit" - build on years of painstaking research by people like Kert Davies and Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science at Harvard University and co-author of Merchants of Doubt.

"Merchants of Doubt," it seems we have a lot of people who bought into the doubt.
 
Hard evidence supporting the years-long accusation that climate change denial is industry generated.




"Merchants of Doubt," it seems we have a lot of people who bought into the doubt.
Nope. Exxon published all their research and actively worked with the IPCC.

The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared
Exxon position paper on the Greenhouse Effect ... This is a 1980 letter to the Exxon Board of ... Exxon Climate modeling, 1982 ... The Exxon model was an exercise to check
 
The claim of Exxon secrecy has been disproven repeatedly. These cases are only filed to advance the political careers of Dem AG's.
That is another straw man. Look up the term if you are confused.
 
You're the one who posted the link highlighting yet another soon-to-be-dismissed lawsuit against Exxon.
My post and the article in the link say nothing about " Exxon secrecy ." That was a straw man you created for reasons only you know.
 
Then you missed the whole point of your own link.
No, you didn't comprehend what was written in the link. It most certainly did not say Exxon kept results secret.
 
No, you didn't comprehend what was written in the link. It most certainly did not say Exxon kept results secret.
"In June, Minnesota's Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, among others, for launching a "campaign of deception" which deliberately tried to undermine the science supporting global warming."
 
"In June, Minnesota's Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, among others, for launching a "campaign of deception" which deliberately tried to undermine the science supporting global warming."

How does a ‘historian of science’ not know what secret means?
 
Hard evidence supporting the years-long accusation that climate change denial is industry generated.




"Merchants of Doubt," it seems we have a lot of people who bought into the doubt.
It's not new. In the early 2000s Exxon funded all kindsa academic research against punitive damages to give them cites when opposing Valdez-related damages. This is just what companies do.
 
LOL. I guess you didn’t take much English, either.

Yes Exxon knew that they could influence a lot more people through their PR and marketing that cast doubt about manmade global warming compared to their scientific reports that acknowledged it.

 
Yes Exxon knew that they could influence a lot more people through their PR and marketing that cast doubt about manmade global warming compared to their scientific reports that acknowledged it.

Acknowledging man made global warming is possible, is NOT, the same thing as saying it is of concern.
Exxon, back in 1978, had findings that increases in CO2 could force some warming,
roughly the same 1.1C of forcing assigned to doubling the CO2 level today.
Even back then, there was someone in Exxon, who said the feedbacks could amplify the warming,
but like today 42 years later, there is no validation that the amplified feedbacks actually exists.
Like with validating any system or process, you start with the fundamentals, (is it plugged in and the power on?).
For AGW, does added CO2 cause an actual energy imbalance, and is that imbalance amplified to a greater energy imbalance?
Doubling the CO2 level, should force an imbalance of 5.35 X ln(2), or 3.71 W/m2,
to correct this imbalance, the surface troposphere system, would have to warm up by 1.1C.
The concept is that the 1.1C of warming, would cause changes that would force and even greater energy imbalance,
but what has been observed, is that the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance is decreasing.
"All three datasets also show a slight decline (0.2–0.3 Wm−2 per decade) in the daytime minus nighttime OLR
difference that is statistically significant at the 95% significance level. "

We can discuss the accuracy of the readings, but the sign is not really in question.
Why would the energy imbalance be declining?
If new CO2 emissions stopped, that is exactly what we would expect to see.
The added CO2 forced the imbalance, and Earth warms up, until the imbalance is corrected. (I.E. The imbalance declines).
But new CO2 emissions have not stopped, and the imbalance is still declining.
 
Acknowledging man made global warming is possible, is NOT, the same thing as saying it is of concern.
Exxon, back in 1978, had findings that increases in CO2 could force some warming,
roughly the same 1.1C of forcing assigned to doubling the CO2 level today.
Even back then, there was someone in Exxon, who said the feedbacks could amplify the warming,
but like today 42 years later, there is no validation that the amplified feedbacks actually exists.
Like with validating any system or process, you start with the fundamentals, (is it plugged in and the power on?).
For AGW, does added CO2 cause an actual energy imbalance, and is that imbalance amplified to a greater energy imbalance?
Doubling the CO2 level, should force an imbalance of 5.35 X ln(2), or 3.71 W/m2,
to correct this imbalance, the surface troposphere system, would have to warm up by 1.1C.
The concept is that the 1.1C of warming, would cause changes that would force and even greater energy imbalance,
but what has been observed, is that the top of the atmosphere energy imbalance is decreasing.
"All three datasets also show a slight decline (0.2–0.3 Wm−2 per decade) in the daytime minus nighttime OLR
difference that is statistically significant at the 95% significance level. "

We can discuss the accuracy of the readings, but the sign is not really in question.
Why would the energy imbalance be declining?
If new CO2 emissions stopped, that is exactly what we would expect to see.
The added CO2 forced the imbalance, and Earth warms up, until the imbalance is corrected. (I.E. The imbalance declines).
But new CO2 emissions have not stopped, and the imbalance is still declining.

The study was conducted in 2015 so federal agencies have during almost four years with a climate denier as president have access to the data. There the result is that the continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidences are so overwhelming.

There you also have studies that shows that energy imbalance are increasing,

 
The study was conducted in 2015 so federal agencies have during almost four years with a climate denier as president have access to the data. There the result is that the continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidences are so overwhelming.

There you also have studies that shows that energy imbalance are increasing,

Measuring the heat inventory, is not the same as actually measuring the energy in vs energy out,
because the heat inventory contains an unknown latency period, that could be centuries long.
Those same long delays that AGW proponents claim exists in warming equalization...also exist in cooling equalization!!
 
Measuring the heat inventory, is not the same as actually measuring the energy in vs energy out,
because the heat inventory contains an unknown latency period, that could be centuries long.
Those same long delays that AGW proponents claim exists in warming equalization...also exist in cooling equalization!!

As I said if it had been any evidence against the urgent need for action Trump and Republican lawmakers could have simply ordered federal agencies to look at the evidence. There instead the evidences are so overwhelming that federal agencies continue to acknolwedge the urgent need for aciton with a climta denier as presiden.

 
As I said if it had been any evidence against the urgent need for action Trump and Republican lawmakers could have simply ordered federal agencies to look at the evidence. There instead the evidences are so overwhelming that federal agencies continue to acknolwedge the urgent need for aciton with a climta denier as presiden.

Please describe the testable hypothesis of AGW?
 
Back
Top Bottom