Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s - and Denied It

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is what I've been reading in Private Empire, but here's a shorter piece on it.

Here's a quote from the article that I hope signals the future course of this debate:

A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/21/ex...limate-change-by-the-mid-1980s-and-denied-it/

 

[unIowa]

This is what I've been reading in Private Empire, but here's a shorter piece on it.

Here's a quote from the article that I hope signals the future course of this debate:

A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/21/ex...limate-change-by-the-mid-1980s-and-denied-it/

Really too late at this point to do much outside of looking for vengeance.

We are addicted to fossil fuels at this point in our history, the best thing we can do now is use the revenues from these polluters to come up with new innovated ways to enhance green technology.

 

[markfromj]

Oil companies are not "polluters". Those that use their products (i.e. us) are the polluters.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Oil companies are not "polluters". Those that use their products (i.e. us) are the polluters.

The Gulf oil spill? Exxon Valdez? The thousands and thousands of reports of fracking chemicals and methane release problems? The disaster that is Canadian shale oil extraction? Endless....

 

[naturalmwa]

Oil companies are not "polluters". Those that use their products (i.e. us) are the polluters.

What are the ramifications of accepting this logic?

 

[Madman_1]

This is what I've been reading in Private Empire, but here's a shorter piece on it.

Here's a quote from the article that I hope signals the future course of this debate:

A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/21/ex...limate-change-by-the-mid-1980s-and-denied-it/

Wow! So per the thread title, Exxon new more about climate change back in the 1980's than all the world's scientists collectively know today?

We need to hire Exxon to get us to Mars. They probably have nanotechnology completely figured out by now, also.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Wow! So per the thread title, Exxon new more about climate change back in the 1980's than all the world's scientists collectively know today?

No.

 

[naturalmwa]

Wow! So per the thread title, Exxon new more about climate change back in the 1980's than all the world's scientists collectively know today?

We need to hire Exxon to get us to Mars. They probably have nanotechnology completely figured out by now, also.

That sounds like a perfect solution. Exile Exxon to Mars. That planet could use some global warming and they would be perfect at exploring and drilling for resources.

 

[Joes Place]

Wow! So per the thread title, Exxon new more about climate change back in the 1980's than all the world's scientists collectively know today?

No, their calculations were that the releases of CO2 would possibly produce MUCH WORSE warming; more recent analysis and models have ruled out those 'worst cases', but we still do have a reasonable probability (~10%) that feedbacks COULD make warming on the order of +4 to +6°C (around +10°F).

The current 'best estimate' is around +2 to +3°C. For comparison, a global change in about 4°C is the difference between an Ice Age and now....

But, at the time, Exxon scientists knew as much as their academic counterparts.

Their original reports are linkable online, if you'd like to read them.

 

[BelemNole]

Not only did they know this, they then spent the last 2 decades spending millions on a disinformation campaign.

 

[Joes Place]

Not only did they know this, they then spent the last 2 decades spending millions on a disinformation campaign.

Correct. "They were for it, before they were against it."

And their internal ethics processes indicated that they recognized an ethical and moral responsibility to publish their research openly - they were even working on the finances of how it would likely impact their business.

Unfortunately, most of the oil companies recognized that they could obtain short-term profits by spending the resources to discredit the science, and delay action for a decade or so.

And this is something the politicians DO NOT want you to realize: moving away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source will decimate the economies of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and several others. So, if you want to eliminate all that $$ going to support terrorism, start pushing for renewables because it will ultimately destroy the value of the oil they all have. Denying the science (and supporting these regimes) is ultimately supplying them with the money for their terrorist-group support. That said, it's still going to take 2-3 decades for us to start making a serious dent in fossil fuel reliance.

 

[Madman_1]

No, their calculations were that the releases of CO2 would possibly produce MUCH WORSE warming; more recent analysis and models have ruled out those 'worst cases', but we still do have a reasonable probability (~10%) that feedbacks COULD make warming on the order of +4 to +6°C (around +10°F).

The current 'best estimate' is around +2 to +3°C. For comparison, a global change in about 4°C is the difference between an Ice Age and now....

But, at the time, Exxon scientists knew as much as their academic counterparts.

Their original reports are linkable online, if you'd like to read them.

Please note: The thread title read "Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s - and Denied It".

Since humans do not possess knowledge of "everything" there is to know about virtually any subject, the thread title says that, in the 1980's, Exxon possessed more knowledge on this subject than the current collective knowledge of all of the world's scientists.

I thought that was humorous, so I was pointing it out.

 

[strummingram]

Not only did they know this, they then spent the last 2 decades spending millions on a disinformation campaign.

I'm sure it was worth every penny for them.

 

[Joes Place]

Please note: The thread title read "Exxon Knew Everything There Was to Know About Climate Change by the Mid-1980s - and Denied It".

Since humans do not possess knowledge of "everything" there is to know about virtually any subject, the thread title says that, in the 1980's, Exxon possessed more knowledge on this subject than the current collective knowledge of all of the world's scientists.

I thought that was humorous, so I was pointing it out.

LOL. Understood.

 

[rocketclone]

Whole milk?

 

[YellowSnow51]

Didn't Obama do the exact same thing and get a pass from everyone? Yes. He did, BTW. Remember when he doctored scientific reports after the BP spill to make it look like his moratorium on drilling should pass? The scientific community was up in arms.

I remember it well because not one MSNBC show reported it, but they all mentioned Sarah Palin being mad about cafeteria cookies being banned.

So, it is quite apparent that it's not the fudging of scientific data that upsets the left, but fudging it to say something they don't like.

 

[TexMichFan]

Really too late at this point to do much outside of looking for vengeance.

We are addicted to fossil fuels at this point in our history, the best thing we can do now is use the revenues from these polluters to come up with new innovated ways to enhance green technology.

Are we really addicted to fossil fuels? I think we are addicted to energy and if we can find energy that is cleaner at or close to the same price people would use it.

 

[TexMichFan]

For knowing everything there was to know about climate change in the 1980.s we sure are slow to fix things. Since we knew then what we know now not only should Exxon leaders but all our political leaders should be put in jail until the temperatures get back down to whatever level we think they should be.

 

[markfromj]

The Gulf oil spill? Exxon Valdez? The thousands and thousands of reports of fracking chemicals and methane release problems? The disaster that is Canadian shale oil extraction? Endless....

Okay, those are fair points. I guess by a strict definition, a "polluter" is anyone who has even once "polluted". So, yes, I guess by this definition, oil companies are "polluters".

But we who use their products are thousands of times worse polluters. Natural asks the right question, which I will respond to next.

 

[markfromj]

What are the ramifications of accepting this logic?

That we each as individuals have to accept the responsibility of our demand for the oil companies' product, and accept that we are the problem, not them.

 

[unIowa]

Are we really addicted to fossil fuels? I think we are addicted to energy and if we can find energy that is cleaner at or close to the same price people would use it.

Yes we are. The fact that we are unwilling to move away from it for monetary reasons, at least from what you are suggesting in your post, would suggest we are addicted to it.

 

[Joes Place]

Yes we are. The fact that we are unwilling to move away from it for monetary reasons, at least from what you are suggesting in your post, would suggest we are addicted to it.

We are addicted to energy, and fossil fuels as a consequence due to their availability and 'low' cost. The problem is, we have, for over a century, ignored an unseen cost of their use: CO2 pollution.

Factor that cost into their use, and other sources will be more able to compete. However, right now there are few alternatives as cheap, especially when we continue to ignore the long-term costs of burning oil, coal and natural gas.

 

[Titanhawk2]

This is what I've been reading in Private Empire, but here's a shorter piece on it.

Here's a quote from the article that I hope signals the future course of this debate:

A fossil fuel company intentionally and knowingly obfuscating research into climate change constitutes criminal negligence and malicious intent at best, and a crime against humanity at worst. The Department of Justice has a moral obligation to prosecute Exxon and its co-conspirators accordingly.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/21/ex...limate-change-by-the-mid-1980s-and-denied-it/

We know everything there is to know?

 

[markfromj]

I think we are addicted to energy...

I am addicted to oxygen. It keeps me alive, and improves my life, as does energy.

I think "addicted" has a negative implication here, and should not.

 

[naturalmwa]

I am addicted to oxygen. It keeps me alive, and improves my life, as does energy.

I think "addicted" has a negative implication here, and should not.

I thought you just said we were the problem. If you believe what you previously wrote, then by implication either our energy use is negative or more frighteningly our existence is negative. Is there a better way to interpret this?

 

[markfromj]

I thought you just said we were the problem. If you believe what you previously wrote, then by implication either our energy use is negative or more frighteningly our existence is negative. Is there a better way to interpret this?

Well, I was just picking on the "addicted" term. I think "addiction" implies "addicted to something that is bad for us". Energy is not bad for us. In fact, it is great for us. Keeps us warm and cool, allows us to move around, cook our food, and much else.

My early "we are the problem" was my usual attempt to gets folks to realize that whatever damage is done to the earth by fossil fuels, it is (largely) done by us the masses, and not the fossil fuel companies, and if we want to reduce this damage, we need to reduce our demand for fossil fuel products. It is our fault, not "the oil companies".

 

[naturalmwa]

Well, I was just picking on the "addicted" term. I think "addiction" implies "addicted to something that is bad for us". Energy is not bad for us. In fact, it is great for us. Keeps us warm and cool, allows us to move around, cook our food, and much else.

My early "we are the problem" was my usual attempt to gets folks to realize that whatever damage is done to the earth by fossil fuels, it is (largely) done by us the masses, and not the fossil fuel companies, and if we want to reduce this damage, we need to reduce our demand for fossil fuel products. It is our fault, not "the oil companies".

These statements seem at odds. First you praise the fuels, then condemn us for using them.

 

[markfromj]

These statements seem at odds. First you praise the fuels, then condemn us for using them.

No, I praise "energy", in response to an earlier "I am not addicted to fossil fuels, I am addicted to energy" post.

I also do not condemn anyone for using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been a net benefit to people. What I do condemn is the view that, if someone sees fossil fuels as being net bad or evil or to be eliminated, that somehow it is "the oil companies" that are to blame for fossil fuel usage, when in fact they are only delivering to us the products we demand.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, I praise "energy", in response to an earlier "I am not addicted to fossil fuels, I am addicted to energy" post.

I also do not condemn anyone for using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been a net benefit to people. What I do condemn is the view that, if someone sees fossil fuels as being net bad or evil or to be eliminated, that somehow it is "the oil companies" that are to blame for fossil fuel usage, when in fact they are only delivering to us the products we demand.

I don't think you're properly connecting the dots. The people don't have a switch to turn their electricity from coal to nuclear. To do that you have to change policy. That means you have to make policy that turns off fossil fuels and turns on alternatives.

 

[markfromj]

I don't think you're properly connecting the dots. The people don't have a switch to turn their electricity from coal to nuclear. To do that you have to change policy. That means you have to make policy that turns off fossil fuels and turns on alternatives.

People can't take the bus? Walk? Bike?
People can't not sit in their cars on a 73 degree April day without air conditioning (true case)?
People can't recycle, instead of throwing away the 40 aluminum cans I find each week just by glancing in garbage cans as I walk by?
People can't car pool?
People can't keep the thermostat at 68 instead of 72 in the winter?
People can't turn the warm water off/on while showering?
People can't turn off lights when leaving rooms?

Sure, our public policy needs to shift from fossil fuels, but the big gains can only come if "people" stop wasting.

 

[naturalmwa]

People can't take the bus? Walk? Bike?
People can't not sit in their cars on a 73 degree April day without air conditioning (true case)?
People can't recycle, instead of throwing away the 40 aluminum cans I find each week just by glancing in garbage cans as I walk by?
People can't car pool?
People can't keep the thermostat at 68 instead of 72 in the winter?
People can't turn the warm water off/on while showering?
People can't turn off lights when leaving rooms?

Sure, our public policy needs to shift from fossil fuels, but the big gains can only come if "people" stop wasting.

I think we have a different opinion on what constitutes a big gain. To me, reducing fossil fuel use by some percent likely under 30% as you suggest is not as big of a gain as simply replacing fossil fuel production with alternatives. So if you feel that fossil fuels are bad, it is logical and effective to attack them at the source.

 

[IACub]

Didn't Obama do the exact same thing and get a pass from everyone? Yes. He did, BTW. Remember when he doctored scientific reports after the BP spill to make it look like his moratorium on drilling should pass? The scientific community was up in arms.

I remember it well because not one MSNBC show reported it, but they all mentioned Sarah Palin being mad about cafeteria cookies being banned.

So, it is quite apparent that it's not the fudging of scientific data that upsets the left, but fudging it to say something they don't like.

"But but but - OBAMA!" Don't you ever get tired of trying to spin every single thing? We're talking about something that happened in the 80's, when I'm sure you think Obama was growing up in Kenya.

 

[Joes Place]

What I do condemn is the view that, if someone sees fossil fuels as being net bad or evil or to be eliminated, that somehow it is "the oil companies" that are to blame for fossil fuel usage, when in fact they are only delivering to us the products we demand.

They are not 'bad or evil' in the sense that they are delivering a product to us there is a market demand for; however, when they have shifted the discussion away from sound science (which they were one of the early publishers/developers of) to actively discrediting the core science to protect their markets, that is a problem.

Exxon even admitted in their early internal disclosures, that they had a moral and ethical responsibility to society in publishing their predictions on CO2 'pollution' as a result of the use of their products and the long-term impacts/risks.

The fact that they subsequently violated (or ignored) those ethical responsibilities and pushed LOADS of money into attacking the science (and making this a political issue, ignoring the best science) does earn them blame, responsibility and accountability.

If they want a 'seat at the table' regarding solutions which account for the impacts to their (potentially) stranded resources, they need to be honest and responsible in conveying the science regarding the long-term climate impacts; if they want to continue to discredit/attack the science in unscientific ways (politically), then we should really not care as a society about how the solutions (e.g. carbon taxes) impact them financially.

 

[cigaretteman]

"But but but - OBAMA!" Don't you ever get tired of trying to spin every single thing? We're talking about something that happened in the 80's, when I'm sure you think Obama was growing up in Kenya.

Don't try and confuse Yellowsnow with the facts. He's been the poster child for Obama Derangement Syndrome for quite some time now.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No, I praise "energy", in response to an earlier "I am not addicted to fossil fuels, I am addicted to energy" post.

I also do not condemn anyone for using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have been a net benefit to people. What I do condemn is the view that, if someone sees fossil fuels as being net bad or evil or to be eliminated, that somehow it is "the oil companies" that are to blame for fossil fuel usage, when in fact they are only delivering to us the products we demand.

They are doing MUCH more than merely delivering the products we demand.

They are lying about the dangers.

They have worked to undermine alternatives.

They have funded and supported criminality, corruption and even genocide around the world to facilitate fossil fuel extraction.

They have severely damaged the environment.

They have delayed or derailed solutions to the acceleration and problems of climate change.

They are buying Congressional action that is clearly harmful to Americans and the world.

As YOU pointed out, it's ENERGY we demand - not dirty energy. So they could be meeting our demand in better ways, and they could refrain from the other ills I listed - but they don't.

 

[Rudolph]

Iowa, with all the parading around presidential hopefuls are (and will be) making leading up to the 2016 election, could motivate/spark real change in energy policy. It's just a matter of demonstrating to candidates that big oil is no longer the boss -- it's the people who vote them into office.

I have long thought that moving away from oil presents incredible opportunity for a nation such as the US. Becoming the world leader in engineering and technological development for renewable, sustainable energy production (not to mention the energy production itself) is something that one would think the US is well-positioned to accomplish. I remember thinking, when Detroit went bust, that if they can make cars, they can surely make solar tech, wind tech, geothermal, hydro, etc.

For those interested in this topic I suggest reading This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein.