Exxon Knew In 1966

In 1966, scientists knew that man-made CO2 was going to freeze us to death.


20 Mar 1966, Page 4 – The Anniston Star at Newspapers.com

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Exxon Knew In 1966

  1. I they knew about gas mirrors in 1966, how come they don’t exist now, and never will?

    • If they knew about gas mirrors in 1966, how come they don’t exist now, and never will?

      • Jason Bosh says:

        BTW the first “earth day” was in 1970. During the 70s, they brought about legislation to restrict emissions in automobiles requiring catalytic converters. The smog and pollution of postwar America brought about the deep freeze of the late 70s. Roughly 10 years after emissions restrictions were in place, we had decent hot summers in the 80s. But then again realize there is a natural cycle in climatic changes.

  2. Steve Case says:

    They make it up as they go along.

  3. Marty says:

    It’s lunacy to suggest anything other than Albedo decides how much energy comes in.

    No solar energy hits the surface of Venus after all, it is either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere.

    The hydrological cycle dominates all. The negative feedback is of a greater order than the effect of ALL GHGs (including water vapor).

    Without the hydrological cycle earth would cook, the more the earth would cook the more liquids become gases, with Venus to the point lead becomes a liquid, metals in the atmosphere.. Venus has no liquid water, that’s why it is so hot, it has no cooling mechanism.

    So the bottom line is evaporation cools and creates clouds that are a negative feedback probably at least an order of magnitude larger than the forcing of all GHGs

    You can see this in data. Look at water vapor trend, the warming we have had in the past 100 years shows no signal in water vapor and research shows the basins around the world are showing no increase (in fact a small decrease) in evaporation.

    These facts are anathema to AGW and CAGW.

    Earth would need to be closer to the sun to cause CAGW, and linear increasing evaporation of all liquid water would be required to the point where there is not enough precipitation to cool the planet, only then can you have “runaway warming”.

    So NASA need to adjust the data re how many AUs we are from the sun, and lie from there onward to make up a plausible story

  4. AndyG55 says:

    “The negative feedback is of a greater order than the effect of ALL GHGs (including water vapor).”

    Not quite right with the wording…… let’s tidy it up a bit :-)

    The negative feedbacks COMPENSATE for the effect of all GHG’s..

    As you say.. “The hydrological cycle dominates all” :-)

    Venus’ surface is the temperature it is because of the enormous atmospheric pressure…. Over the same atmospheric pressures that exist on Earth, Venus is almost exactly the temperature it should be, relative to its distance from the Sun.

    That same atmospheric pressure controls the Earth’s temperature though regulation of the hydrological cycle.

    • AndyG55 says:

      whoops , missed a word.

      Over the same atmospheric pressures that exist on Earth, Venus’ atmosphere is almost exactly the temperature it should be, relative to its distance from the Sun.

    • Venus’ temperature is because its H2SO4 clouds absorb incoming visible light and UV. Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t absorb incoming anything.

      • Marty says:

        Yes it does, it is just that there is less pressure. The temoeratures are great it is just that a molecule of air may have to travel 1km to hit another molecule, the lower you get the higher the density and therefor the higher the effect.

        Let me explain, you can be in 100 degrees c in a sauna and be fine but you cant be in 100c water, you’ll boil.

        Density. Look it up

        • Yes it does what? Absorb incoming sunlight? The density of Earth’s atmosphere has no bearing on the incoming sunlight it doesn’t absorb.

          • cdquarles says:

            Yes, it does. Due to the low density, it doesn’t absorb much. Both oxygen and nitrogen have absorption lines in the visible and near IR. Oxygen is actually a stronger absorber than nitrogen. If it wasn’t, liquid and solid oxygen wouldn’t look pale blue to human eyes when illuminated in ‘balanced’ lighting to mask the visual system’s differencing that enhances certain features.

      • Marty says:

        Venus temperature is relative to many things, no liquid water to evaporate, closer to the sun, and an unknown geological history makes any claims assumptions.

        As said about, I repeat it, Venus atmosphere pressure at 50km is the same as earths at ground level.

        If you put a light shield in front of Venus it would cool relatively quickly and as I said already, all absorbed energy is absorbed by the Atmosphere.

        I only mention Venus because of the ludicrous comparisons made by alamists, Venus is not and never was an analogue for Earth. It’s bogus

    • Marty says:

      “The negative feedbacks COMPENSATE for the effect of all GHG’s..”

      That’s semantics Andy :p

      I am talking magnitude, not definition. In terms of magnitude “greater order” is valid I think.

      I agree with the rest of your post. :D

      • AndyG55 says:

        “In terms of magnitude “greater order” is valid I think.”

        nope… same magnitude.

        Directly cancels any GHG effect…no more. no less..

        … that means it must be the same magnitude.

  5. Andy DC says:

    The dirty little secret that alarmists badly want to hide is that there was significant COOLING between 1940 and 1980, while at the same time CO2 was significantly rising!

    Also, a few degrees of warming would be far less harmful to humanity than a few degrees of cooling. With a few degrees of warming, there would be winners and losers. The big winners would be Canada and Russia, as they would be much more comfortably inhabitable while becoming huge food producers.

    On the other hand, a few degrees of cooling could easily trigger another Ice Age, which would be the ultimate catastrophe, basically “game over” for much of humanity.

    If AGW does actually exist (which is debatable), it could be looked upon as an insurance policy taken out to prevent another catastrophic Ice Age. These misguided alarmists that believe they are saving humanity could, if given their way, actually end up destroying it. First by destroying the worldwide economy and then the climate!

  6. mogur says:

    There is no mistaking that Exxon knew. Reflecting that they wanted to keep it quiet is another issue. I think that Obama was born in Hawaii. The failure, Drumpf, sent his best men, and they failed to find Obama’s Kenyan birth. But that doesn’t matter, Drumpf was bragging about making Obama show his birth certificate. The fact that Drumpf failed doesn’t matter. He made us his believer, for a second, and that is all it takes. We are Barnum’s suckers.

    • AndyG55 says:


      They might have heard there was a fairy-tale of some sort about CO2 being a problem. But that’s all it ever was, at its very best.

      Now its just a failed anti-science hypothesis.

      But there was no proof then, just like there is no proof now.

  7. Craig T says:

    I don’t think the author of the story knew what Bryson was saying. In the 60’s Reid Bryson proposed the “human volcano”, that human produced aerosols were cooling the planet. No one thought CO2 had doubled between 1950 and 1965. If I had a subscription to Newspaper.com I could try to make more sense of it.

Leave a Reply to Morgan Wright Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *