Slashdot Mirror
Investigation Finds Exxon Ignored Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings
New submitter jrmcferren writes: PBS Reports the Exxon ignored their own internal climate change warnings. Newly discovered documents show that the corporation's own research scientists warned top executives that atmospheric CO2 was increasing and that the burning of fossil fuels was to blame as early as 1977. The report goes on to say: "In 1978, the Exxon researchers warned that a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and would have a major impact on the company’s core business. 'Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,' one scientist wrote in an internal document."
Bad Exxon!
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
The Third World was industrializing, oil was cheap, and people still wanted big cars. Do you blame the California almond growers, or the people who eat almonds?
cold hard cash
Why should it be surprising that a vested interest ignored the evidence at the time, when we see the same denial today when faced with overwhelming evidence?
Another similarity; both oil and tobacco industry have huge PR and lobby efforts to continue misleading and confuse the topic and as much as possible avoid that anything is done about it.
Exxon is a company run by humans who will suffer dire consequences not just in terms of bottom line return on investment, but real life, death, and perhaps even extinction although a few years down the road. Given the choice: save the world for later or keep making a few bucks now. . . They kept making a few bucks and even went on to prevent others from doing anything to mitigate the looming climate crisis. What does this say about us as a species? Is this why we look out into the night sky and see nothing but stars? Is this how it ends - intelligent yet so stupid as to fail to act in a timely fashion to keep on surviving?
should have to meet the cost of correction. After all they took the 'profits'!
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?
finger pointing.... nothing really new in centuries until now... times to tahrir squared... thanks moms
In the mid 70's the big scare was climate cooling, not climate warming. There were even proposals to dump soot on the poles to reduce the reflectivity of all the ice to prevent a runaway "icehouse" effect of having too much heat reflected back into space. So somehow, at a time when no one was concerned about global warming, not only was this scientist bucking the cooling trend scare, but he also came up with the exact same 2-3 degrees Celsius warming that the scientists started throwing around 20 years later. And he did all this without the billions of dollars that we've spent on climate models.
Either this guy was twice as smart as Einstein or else some records have been fudged. Color me skeptical.
What were they supposed to do to not be accused of "ignoring" warnings? Can you describe the decision-making process you wish they'd followed?
It's the same for the rest of us as it is for Exxon -- just less existential. We've been "warned". Yet we go on with our lives. The warnings get louder and more shrill and catastrophic and angry. And we still go on with our lives. Eventually this should stop being a big surprise.
they have a vested interest in ignoring it
that's what you need *regulations* for
you know, evil, evil job destroying regulations. because a guy having a job on an oil field is more important than his grandkid able to grow food crops
what's that? companies write their own regulations through congresscritters?
yes, that's called *regulatory capture*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
in which case you clean up your government, remove the corruption. which is unfortunately legal in the usa. so you vote for the guys who are actually going to do something about that rather than the professional prostitutes who talk about tax cuts for "job creators" (aka, their rich friends who park their money in an offshore banking accounts, rather than a tax cut for the middle class and poor, who immediately spend their cash, actually growing the economy)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yeah, bad Exxon and others (like Union Carbide, because of Bhopal) have caused so many problems that one wonders how such things didn't get a more adequate treatment by society.
In these, and in other cases (like BP's oil spill), we are forced to the conclusion that we are not able to implement proper controls on any organization activity.
There's nothing wrong with the political system, be it capitalism or anything else. The problem is akin to accident prevention: we know it's important to have safety inspections to prevent the loss of a few lives, but we fail to have businesses cooperate in adequate disaster prevention -- which too often means loss of many lives.
And yet, even after those catastrophes, schemes are prepared for cleansing of the aftermath, like:
- hiring trolls to discredit everyone trying to call for a saner view on facts;
- ideological contamination, either calling people names ("capitalists" or "socialists", used as derogatory qualifiers);
- suggesting doubt on issues that are quite obvious, creating a feeling on people that we are weak of mind and fate was inevitable;
- procrastinating until a favorable setting allows the culprits to "lose" their case without really being punished;
- or manipulating punishments in ways to render them ineffective or even change them into new business opportunities.
So, it's not really just Exxon, or Union Carbide (now Dow's) or BP.
it's us, humans. We allow that.
We allow that when we have a nuclear reactor explode because it's old, when we choose dangerous technologies like nuclear reactors in a place subject to earthquakes and tsunamis, when we accept innovations that involve a certain risk of deaths (as if progress makes these acceptable).
It's great that we have Liberty; but as everything in this life, that, too, must be used with responsibility to help mankind -- not to harm some of us so that others gain advantages.
I wonder why those who still claim global warming is not our responsibility, that we cannot do anything, that throw mud on respectable scientists (not to mention other even more heinous methods) do not gain the same treatment as all other trolls (e.g. here).
Even now as I write these words, other humans are writing about how it's always the same (citing other examples) and we cannot do anything about it; or that companies do that because the general public wants the products at any cost etc. etc.
The way things go, we going to rationalize that deaths are unavoidable and protection equipment actually hurts profits, so we'd better just have a percentage die.
I think we fail -- even at being human.
And life will continue on the same way it has for decades.
Climate change is a hoax. I demand cheap gas for my truck.
Inside the article are links to the scans of the actual reports done by Exxon.
* 1977 report, from James Black: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
* 1982 report from M. B. Glaser: http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
They did state that there is no unambiguous evidence yet (as of 1982), but the 1982 report said: "If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
A while back a story made the rounds that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had written piece for the Washington post suggesting that if fossil fuel interests were deliberately lying in their climate change denial, that they could be prosecuted under RICO. In his piece he concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to know for sure that climate change denial was actually racketeering. Perhaps this is the beginning of the information he'd need to make such a case.
Exxon didn't "Ignore Its Own Early Climate Change Warnings". It, knowing that AGW was real, defunded the research that proved it and paid professional science deniers to spread FUD claiming that AGW didn't exist.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades. Or did I miss the great, impactful Exxon global warming crash of 1988?
I'm not sure what prediction you're saying is wrong. The Exxon 1982 report) being discussed said:
"If the earth is on a warming trend, we're not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5 needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations."
Since they said the signal doesn't exceed the noise until 1995, they didn't even make a prediction for 1988.
The report did have a statement that the greenhouse effect would produce 1C warming "above present levels" by "the second to third quarter of the next century" (page 2 of the pdf.)
Here's the graph of actual measured data:
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif
Fitting a line through that data starting with "present levels" of 1980, I see a rise of about 0.8 between 1980 and 2014. So looks like their prediction was very close to the data.
If anytjhing, their prediction was slightly low, but since in the same report they list an uncertainty of over 50% on model predictions, their prediction matches the measured data to well within their quoted error bars.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Burgers make you fat, but McDonald's still sells them. What do you expect from a major corporation, close its doors?
Instead of the biased article, read what the report actually concludes:
http://insideclimatenews.org/s...
The report also points out that temperature increases would not be uniform, with strong increase at the polar caps and little increase near the equator.
The interesting thing is that little has changed about these conclusions in the last 30 years; science has produced a lot of new data, but the conclusions have changed little.
If anyone is then he/she may has been either ignorant, sleeping under a rock or simply wasn't paying attention to what fossil fuels do to climate in a short amount of time.
I, again, could be called a demon, as I studied geodesy, climate technologies and environmental change. I can tell now that we are already over the precipice. I call it the "Delaying phase", other scientist may call it differently but basically it describes the effect of nature compensating head by having chemical and physical reactions equalizing cold and warm to an equilibrium which will stay stable for one or two centuries. That's we are in now, cold water and ice compensate most of the warmth produced by this planet due to CO2 intake in atmosphere. The problem comes after, once water reaches a certain temperature and ice is melted and gone, the surface will be bare. After that, well I could write a scientific paper about it but its not getting published nor being read by the right persons thus I ll skip it (giving my regards to all who did already). Hell there is also the issue with the magnetic field but how Mark Watney says: " One problem at a time. "
How many times will they make articles about this as if it was something new?
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
I know we are leading up to COP 21 in Paris and they feel there is a need to spread the propaganda thick, but this is getting ridiculous.
Contrary to what the media is spreading, Exxon and other oil companies have been funding both sides fro decades.
i.e. http://news.stanford.edu/news/...
Rockefeller has been behind this push and drive on climate alarmism from the get go. Funding research and organisations like 350.org.
Those that believe the fallacy that big oil is all alone and behind only the "denier war machine" are keeping their heads in the sand.
Besides, the governements of the west outspend the supposed denial money by 10 to 1.
I'm a great fan of back-of-the-envelope calculations... but these aren't calculations; they are merely assertions. And worse, not merely assertions, but assertions that seem to be based on random pseudo-facts not really understood.
Europe has the longest history of solar panel installation, and has good data for energy payback time. Energy payback time for silicon panels is between 0.5 and 1.4 years. Depending on location, it can be as high as 3 years in northern Europe.
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless..
I agree with you there. I'm a technological optimist; if we can identify problems, we can solve them. However, ignoring and belittling the existence of problems isn't going to help, and dismissing possible solutions with slogans and sound-bites is counterproductive.
So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.
The point of this article was that Exxon was a major funder of the campaigns to discredit the science of global warming in the '90s and early 2000s, even though a decade earlier their own scientists were telling them that this was significant. They spent about $30 million dollars funding climate denial.
On the other hand, they did stop most of their funding to the climate-change deniers in 2007, so it does seem to me to be mostly an article about a company that isn't really the problem any more.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/17...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Go look it up.
OK.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Let's say that coffee and tea cause global warming (climate change). In other words, let's make the "evil" bit more personal. Are you ready to give up coffee and tea?
Sometimes we have a better understanding of things when we make it a bit more personal...
Now... do you need coffee and tea more than you need electricity? more than you need manufactured goods? If you believe the answer to be "no", then this just became even more personal.
Sure, we could force all countries to have military rule and force all fossil and nuclear fuels to "end" business and switch to very very expensive alternatives. We could do that I suppose. But I think it would have to be done by force. The general populace won't give up tea and coffee easily.
With that said, a lot of these "evil" companies hedge their bets and spend a lot of money researching alternative sources just in case they are forced to change.
Now... the pain of switching, if done over a very long period of time... it's quite possible we would be ok with regards to our personal lifestyles (indeed, not talking about readers here, but the truth is, there has been some change already, just maybe not enough at a fast enough pace). However, since the "evil" potential is still out there, then the truly evil (not the current oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies) could exploit those technologies and possibly cause problems.... just saying...
With that said, if we can turn an alternative into a viable cheap and reliable solution that is economically better than oil, gas, coal and nuclear, then those big companies will change very very quickly. No sense being stuck in the past doing something more expensive.
Best solution happens at the consumer/people level. If "we" stop using "evil" energy. If "we" stop using the "evil". If we stop drinking coffee and tea... they (the evil companies) are forced to change. Are you ready? Currently the answer is a very clear "no".
Stuff to ponder...
people are using energy from nuclear fission to power their cars, whether or not the reactor is attached to the car is irrelevant.
It's pretty damn relevant to the guy driving around with the nuclear reactor in his car.
So it looks like scientists have been wrong about their global warming predictions going on four decades.
Except that their criteria for a 2-3 C increase hasn't passed yet. The IPCC apparently thinks the "first doubling of atmospheric CO2" will happen by about 2050. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies thinks that global temps. have so far risen by 0.8 C since 1880. This means that the Exxon researcher's warning that "a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius" could still come to pass. Several of the projections in the IPCC's figures suggest a 2C rise by ~2050 is possible, so they could still be proven right.
"Still might come to pass" in 2050 is far different than "5 to 10 years" from 1978. But keep moving the goal posts and you may eventually figure out a way to prove them right.
I can't find that purported prediction for "5 to 10 years" in either of the reports referenced. To the contrary, the reports very explicitly made no predictions for 5-10 years; it said that in that time period it would not be possible to distinguish the global warming signal from the statistical fluctuations. The only explicit numerical prediction in the 1978 Exxon report is on page 34 (the very last page, labeled "summary"). This stated "Doubling CO_2 could increase average global temperature by 1C to 3C by 2050 A.D. (10C predicted at poles)."
So I don't know what you mean about "moving the goalposts" on predictions. The goalpost in the 1978 prediction was "by 2050". This has not changed. The prediction in 1978 (based on the 1977 presentation) overlaps the IPCC's current prediction of 2C by 2050-- neither the prediction nor the "goalposts" have changed.
(The 1982 Exxon report had a slightly different timespan for doubling, stating that "We estimate doubling could occur around the year 2090 based upon fossil fuel requirements projected in Exxon's long range energy outlook". This report, however, is by a different author and dated 3 years later, so it's not unexpected that it would have a slightly different fossil fuel use model.)
The only reference to "five to ten years" in 1978 report is the statement on page 2 "Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical".
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths
Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.
He was likely referring to what's needed by the wind generators.
Perhaps that is what he might have been referring to, if he knew what he was talking about, but it is not what he did say. Or he might have seen a blog post about indium or gallium, which aren't a rare-earth elements and aren't used in silicon panels, but are often brought up in the same discussions in which people talk about rare earths.
Either way, though, I'd advise not paying much attention to anything he posts until you have verified it against a reputable source.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
> 'Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,' one scientist wrote in an internal document."
And we know that global temperatures rocketed up several degrees in the 1980's and we're all dead now.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Since we now know that climate change is largely natural this is simply another fail post.
NEXT!
Just as the "science" had predicted.
by big oil. You can't trust them they were oil company shills.
lose != loose
No one is being asked to give up electricity, and nobody cares if they're electricity comes from burning coal or unicorn farts. There all alternatives to burning fossil fuels, and we should be pursuing them. No one has to "give up" anything....except maybe some profits for oil companies. Boo-hoo.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
citation needed.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The acted on it. The report was hidden and the researchers were made to sign an NDA, killed, or relocated to Siberia.
Am I right?
It's obviously not them that have the money since they need governments to put it up, so where on earth are you going with what you've written above? It makes no sense as written.
The country took a determined turn to the right in the 1980s, with the Reagan Revolution and all. In addition, the attention of corporate leaders changed from long term issues to quarterly profits. Less well known is that the corporate leaders of Exxon-Mobil did as well. The team that supervised actual research into the effects of fossil fuel consumption (and was also investigating long term strategies for the company for after the oil biz was dead) was replaced by executives that doubled down on petroleum now, petroleum forever.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
1) Pollution is bad mmmkay, kids?
2) Burning fossil fuels creates pollution
3) Don't believe 1) & 2)? breathe deeply off the exhaust pipe of your car long term and see what happens to your health
4) Therefore burning fossil fuels is bad and we don't have to bring climate into the equation
5) Profit?!
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson