http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...years-ago/

Quote:Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.

But ExxonMobil disagrees that any of its early statements were so stark, let alone conclusive at all. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”

Quote:But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

The article briefly mentions Greenpeace and James Hansen. I'm assuming you guys will entirely dismiss it because of that.

Simple question. Even if global warming is real do you want the earth warmer or colder? (Hint... Colder means people starve.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Exxon's data shows no warming, liberals say Exxon can't be trusted. When Exxon's data shows warming, liberals trust Exxon.

Well liberals, which one is it?

(10-27-2015 12:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  When Exxon's data shows no warming, liberals say Exxon can't be trusted. When Exxon's data shows warming, liberals trust Exxon.

Well liberals, which one is it?

Did you even read the article?

What you've posted isn't even slightly related to the article.

(10-27-2015 12:56 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Simple question. Even if global warming is real do you want the earth warmer or colder? (Hint... Colder means people starve.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

either way, people congregate....

edit: must have been too simple in reply....

People have known the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

(10-27-2015 06:21 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  People have know the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

I don't care what you call it, the climate Is changing differently than it has in any other time in history. That's what scientists are worried about, not the fact that the climate is changing.

(10-27-2015 08:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:21 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  People have know the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

I don't care what you call it, the climate Is changing differently than it has in any other time in history. That's what scientists are worried about, not the fact that the climate is changing.

At one point in time the earth was so cold that New York was buried beneath one mile of ice..

At one point in time the earth was so warm the the North Pole had tropical temperatures.

Saying the climate is changing differently than it has at any time in history is just plain stupid. You couldn't mentally handle the climate change of the past.

(10-27-2015 08:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:21 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  People have know the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

I don't care what you call it, the climate Is changing differently than it has in any other time in history. That's what scientists are worried about, not the fact that the climate is changing.

Of course you care what people call it.

You go out of your way to call it "climate change" time and time again when you now there is no debate at all if the Earths climate changes.

If you didn't care what people called it, you never would have changed form "global warming" to "climate change".

If you want people to take your issue seriously, the best place to start is not being purposely dishonest in the terminology in a blatant attempt to deceive or confuse people.

(10-27-2015 08:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:21 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  People have know the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

I don't care what you call it, the climate Is changing differently than it has in any other time in history. That's what scientists are worried about, not the fact that the climate is changing.

now you're playing in my sandbox....

they know it is....but in no way can they define the 'how'....

if one doesn't grasp the concept, they're just plain fkn stupid....

on the other hand, the scientists only have enough data to theorize we are the problem....

and I'm not beyond that when it comes to overall population.....I'm pretty solid on that....there are folks on this board that think I WANT people to die.....

there's some truth to both as to my 'why/how'....

the bottom line is nobody has a goddammm clue about how....they only know it is and think they know why....

(10-27-2015 09:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 08:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:21 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  People have know the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

I don't care what you call it, the climate Is changing differently than it has in any other time in history. That's what scientists are worried about, not the fact that the climate is changing.

Of course you care what people call it.

You go out of your way to call it "climate change" time and time again when you now there is no debate at all if the Earths climate changes.

If you didn't care what people called it, you never would have changed form "global warming" to "climate change".

If you want people to take your issue seriously, the best place to start is not being purposely dishonest in the terminology in a blatant attempt to deceive or confuse people.

This is a red herring. It literally has nothing to do with the validity of the science.

Also, you might want to look at the history of the two terms.

(10-27-2015 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 09:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 08:48 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 06:21 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  People have know the climate changes for thousands of years.

The left loves to play word games.

I don't care what you call it, the climate Is changing differently than it has in any other time in history. That's what scientists are worried about, not the fact that the climate is changing.

Of course you care what people call it.

You go out of your way to call it "climate change" time and time again when you now there is no debate at all if the Earths climate changes.

If you didn't care what people called it, you never would have changed form "global warming" to "climate change".

If you want people to take your issue seriously, the best place to start is not being purposely dishonest in the terminology in a blatant attempt to deceive or confuse people.

This is a red herring. It literally has nothing to do with the validity of the science.

Also, you might want to look at the history of the two terms.

I can play in that one too....

what source would be revered as worthy of the 'almighty'...

disclaimer: sorry eric, i couldn't resist that one....you know it's only humor in reference...see, I can make it work both ways pal......

(10-27-2015 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  This is a red herring. It literally has nothing to do with the validity of the science.

Also, you might want to look at the history of the two terms.

Its has everything to do with it when your purposely trying to deceive and confuse people. You are talking about the "validity of the science" and yet at the same time purposely choosing to use terms that confuse or deceive people.

That was the reason you guys changed from "Global warming" to Climate Change". Classic liberal word games and deception.

You wanted uniformed people to fall into the trap of arguing "only a moron would think the climate doesn't change". Meanwhile, everyone already agrees the climate changes.

(10-27-2015 10:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  disclaimer: sorry eric, i couldn't resist that one....you know it's only humor in reference...see, I can make it work both ways pal......

Why was I supposed to be offended?

You might want to consider spending less time obsessing over my personal beliefs and just focus on your own instead.

I'm certainly not worried about your cosmic views every time I see you post something.

(10-27-2015 11:33 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 10:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  disclaimer: sorry eric, i couldn't resist that one....you know it's only humor in reference...see, I can make it work both ways pal......

Why was I supposed to be offended?

You might want to consider spending less time obsessing over my personal beliefs and just focus on your own instead.

I'm certainly not worried about your cosmic views every time I see you post something.

....it was only b/c you were part of what I responded to.....

I won't make that mistake of explaining humor again.....figure it out on your own....you seem to have that down pat....

(10-27-2015 11:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  ....it was only b/c you were part of what I responded to.....

I won't make that mistake of explaining humor again.....figure it out on your own....you seem to have that down pat....

I have no problem with humor, I'm just pointing out that you are a bit fixated on my personal cosmic beliefs.

As you just illustrated by referencing my religion in the last 2 posts. We were discussing the use of the word "climate change" vs "global warming". The context had absolutely nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. But that's all you could think of, its the only thought in your head when you see me post. We could be having a conversation about rebuilding a carburetor or installing a new water heater, and you would just keep referencing my religious beliefs.

I'm just saying, you are fixating.

Who does not believe in climate change?

(10-27-2015 11:31 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 10:10 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  This is a red herring. It literally has nothing to do with the validity of the science.

Also, you might want to look at the history of the two terms.

Its has everything to do with it when your purposely trying to deceive and confuse people. You are talking about the "validity of the science" and yet at the same time purposely choosing to use terms that confuse or deceive people.

That was the reason you guys changed from "Global warming" to Climate Change". Classic liberal word games and deception.

You wanted uniformed people to fall into the trap of arguing "only a moron would think the climate doesn't change". Meanwhile, everyone already agrees the climate changes.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate...arming.htm

If you want to continue believing that "they" are trying to deceive you, be my guest. It's still a red herring issue and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.