Climate alarmists believe oil companies have been engaged in a 45 year long conspiracy to destroy the climate – in exchange for money. Climate alarmists also like to accuse others of being “conspiracy theorists”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming! Please help with a gift by clicking the button below.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
When warming alarmist Steven Schneider was asked about his global cooling alarmism past of the 70ies he answered that climate science was still in its infancy(a century long one:) during this time.(after 100years++ :)
I wonder how Exxon,with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of climate budget and scientists world wide and with people who were not even really interestedin climate research (otherwise they wouldnt have joined an oil company )
were so extremely ahead of time to able to outsmart the whole global climate community which was still in its infancy.
The only crazier thing is the claim that a corporation conspired(which happens from time to time in terms of price fixing ) to conceal a warming scenario in a world of global cooling.
There is nothing warming-related to conceal and no need for conspiracy in a world that is heading towards an ice age.
Any warming related news would have been welcomed with great euphoria and Exxon could have presented themselves as the company that is saving us from the ice age – the positive PR for Exxon would have been overwhelming.
Another interesting point about the current state and regress of climate science is Gretas ancestor(guy with the complicated name).
Despite his crazy and typically 100% wrong climate predictions,
he was at least able to paint a way more balanced and logical warming scenario
than all of his modern successors combined,
as he was also willing to talk about the benefits of global warming resulting in huge farmlands in Russia,Greenland etc.
Nowadays there is only a downside to warming but no positive impacts at all.
I have a suggestion for a name for you unnamed puppy.
It’s SCAM-P to be pronounced SCAMPY.
Well, they must have known something, because every engineer had the Hottel et al charts in their heat transfer text books. Hottel, not a scientist, but a chemical engineer, did the first studies to quantify how much heat is absorbed by gases at various concentrations. CO2’s ε was much less than H2O, which is more dominate in the atmosphere, so maybe CO2 was correctly assumed to be less significant. Possibly they also understood the bigger picture, the one where the people of the world would no longer be starving, cold, and living in damp, unhealthy huts.
https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/global-warming-northern-hemisphere-snow-cover-56-year-high
Part of my job in quality control at a major defense company was risk assessment, actuarial analysis. I estimated the reliability of the instrumentation and machinery used to produce and inspect the company’s products and statistically derived producer risk vs consumer risk and recommended maintenance and calibration intervals. I was always aware that my analysis could be examined in any lawsuit should our product fail and result in injury or death. During my tenure our products functioned as intended.
I am upset when I see a lawsuit where lawyers introduce actuarial analysis as condemning evidence. Risk analysis is essential in deciding a company’s liability when selling a product. No product is 100% safe and no one would market anything if that were the expectation. Analysis of possible effects of CO2 emission is no exception and EXXON would obviously be remiss if they did not consider it.
Besides – is EXXON responsible for how their product is used? The defense company I worked at made weapons. Is it responsible for how they are used?