Exxon's global warming letter

[Sundancefisher]

This is the smoking gun AVB has used to vilify the oil industry. Might as well read it.

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/gl...eb-22-1989.pdf

[slickwilly]

I think this is the one that has caused the more recent uproar:
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf (from 1982)

Part of this story: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15...global-warming
which quotes someone claimed to have given a presentation on the topic in 1977.

The most controversial thing is that Exxon carried out private studies on CO2 levels through the 80's until they stopped that and started funding what is now the basis of the "denier" movement.

[avb3]

Nope.

Exxon knew much before your 1989 paper. Twelve years before even:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-40-years-ago/

Here is one from their research department in 1982. It was suppose to be for internal consumption only. Gee, I wonder why?

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf

From these briefing notes attached to minutes of a 1980 American Petroleum Institute on how to address AGW, yes, AGW, comes this (page 10):



Then we have the start of the denier/disinformation stage.

From this article, we have this excerpt of Exxon's 1988 recommendation:




In fact, carbon based industries actively sowed a disinformation campaign that is still effective today. Your one of those participating in it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...n-Dossiers.pdf

How will carbon based suppliers know they are winning?

Gee, why don't we ask them (from the above paper):



The full briefing is here.

So, don't tell us about 'unsettled' science. There has been a documented disinformation campaign by both individual oil companies and oil industry groups, one that in fact currently is being criminally investigated by New York regulators.

Criminally investigated.

Sundance, thanks for opening this topic up. Your smoking gun is only the tip, the very tip of an iceberg that is fast collapsing. And there is nothing you can refute about any of this.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nope.

Exxon knew much before your 1989 paper. Twelve years before even:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-40-years-ago/

Here is one from their research department in 1982. It was suppose to be for internal consumption only. Gee, I wonder why?

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/d...e%20Effect.pdf

From these briefing notes attached to minutes of a 1980 American Petroleum Institute on how to address AGW, yes, AGW, comes this (page 10):



Then we have the start of the denier/disinformation stage.

From this article, we have this excerpt of Exxon's 1988 recommendation:




In fact, carbon based industries actively sowed a disinformation campaign that is still effective today. Your one of those participating in it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...n-Dossiers.pdf

How will carbon based suppliers know they are winning?

Gee, why don't we ask them (from the above paper):



The full briefing is here.

So, don't tell us about 'unsettled' science. There has been a documented disinformation campaign by both individual oil companies and oil industry groups, one that in fact currently is being criminally investigated by New York regulators.

Criminally investigated.

Sundance, thanks for opening this topic up. Your smoking gun is only the tip, the very tip of an iceberg that is fast collapsing. And there is nothing you can refute about any of this.

Love your religious spin. If you are honest about reading the facts then feel free to read this.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.co...imate-science/

You just love the blogs and the media who dun it media hysteria to sell papers to the gullible that don't read nor hope to understand any science...so they just look to blogs and media to tell them how to think.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/2...the-documents/

I love how I can show you studies on Antarctica doing well. Volcanism melting ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Historical data going back far longer than your 30 or 100 years that shows many past natural climate changes...yet you revert back to models and media.

The anti oil industry is working over time to destroy the oil industry and redirect funds to studies and uneconomic alternative energy plans including a $1 trillion dollar a year carbon credit tax system.

Part of the big global warming spin is to try and link the oil industry to the tobacco industry. Their spin doctors work hard and you are their online missionary....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/2...now-it-part-1/

[Sundancefisher]

here is the climate change data from your Exxon comments.



Note all the models...that change all the time.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Love your religious spin. If you are honest about reading the facts then feel free to read this.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.co...imate-science/

Neither you, nor Exxon, address the documents I have not only linked to, but took screen shots of so you could not avoid them.

Why don't you address the documentation that shows the concerted effort made of a disinformation campaign. I showed the minutes and the backgrounders.

Your Exxon link doesn't address this. Can you?

You see, I did not just copy and past InsideClimateNews. I actually went to the original documents AND to other industry minutes and documents that clearly show a pattern of disinformation.

You just love the blogs and the media who dun it media hysteria to sell papers to the gullible that don't read nor hope to understand any science...so they just look to blogs and media to tell them how to think.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/2...the-documents/

Yes, Andrew Watts, paid by the Heartland Foundation, is just a virtuous distributor of the truth. Right up there with a Jim Bakker. Or a Benny Hinn.

The rest of your post is not connected to the disinformation campaign issue, and no reason for us to get sidetracked.

[Newview01]

I'm curious, has a study been done on pumping CO2 into a forest? With some sort of distribution system? Because trees grow using CO2, and why would this not make them grow faster?

just a thought..