Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Exxon Mobil aware of climate change in 2001


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Quote

ExxonMobil moved to squash a well-established congressional lecture series on climate science just nine days after the presidential inauguration of George W Bush, a former oil executive, the Guardian has learned.

Exxon’s intervention on the briefings, revealed here for the first time, adds to evidence the oil company was acutely aware of the state of climate science and its implications for government policy and the energy industry – despite Exxon’s public protestations for decades about the uncertainties of global warming science.

Indeed, the company moved swiftly during the earliest days of the Bush administration to block public debate on global warming and delay domestic and international regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to former officials of the US Global Change Research Program, or USGCRP.

 

Read more at The Guardian

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*GASP*  You mean that ...LOBBYISTS walked the halls during a Bush administration?  Say it isn't so!  FWIW - a little primer on Kyoto

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504298

https://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR021405.html

http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/warming2.pdf

At this point it seems well established that climate IS changing but far from proven that it is essentially man made.  Either way though, this deal was one for suckers.  When India and China were essentially given a pass then it became obvious that this was just a Greenie convention that wanted to screw over the US and take the billions to continue to push their agenda.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been proven for a long time that it's a man-made problem. Big oil definitely has interest in making it seem as if it isn't, though. 

The cry was at first was an overwhelming it isn't happening at all (which some still cling to, fervently). Now that they look crazy for saying that, they'll concede it's happening, but claim no responsibility for it. The end result would be the same. Not doing anything until Florida is under water. Really smart, people. 

Edited by ChaosRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius
2 hours ago, and then said:

*GASP*  You mean that ...LOBBYISTS walked the halls during a Bush administration?  Say it isn't so!  FWIW - a little primer on Kyoto

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504298

https://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR021405.html

http://accf.org/wp-content/uploads/1997/01/warming2.pdf

At this point it seems well established that climate IS changing but far from proven that it is essentially man made.  Either way though, this deal was one for suckers.  When India and China were essentially given a pass then it became obvious that this was just a Greenie convention that wanted to screw over the US and take the billions to continue to push their agenda.  

 

Show us the credible evidence that it is anything other than mainly man made.

You have entered the 4th stage of climate denial, only one more step before you arrive at reality.

 

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Br Cornelius said:

Show us the credible evidence that it is anything other than mainly man made.

You have entered the 4th stage of climate denial, only one more step before you arrive at reality.

 

Br Cornelius

I've never claimed that I KNEW for sure.  What I said in so many words is that Kyoto was a sucker's deal and Bush had every right - even obligation - to walk away.  This may be an unthinkable concept for you but maybe the US cannot fix everything that's wrong with the planet.  And look on the bright side... when it all falls down, over population won't be a problem any longer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, and then said:

I've never claimed that I KNEW for sure.  What I said in so many words is that Kyoto was a sucker's deal and Bush had every right - even obligation - to walk away.  This may be an unthinkable concept for you but maybe the US cannot fix everything that's wrong with the planet.  And look on the bright side... when it all falls down, over population won't be a problem any longer.  

Kyoto was never an effective proposal to begin with.  Its total effect on warming would have reduced emissions over seven years by the amount emitted in one year.  That Bush walked away from it has made little difference.  But the reason he walked away from it speaks volumes, showing a total enslavement to big money and big oil.

Are humans the cause of global warming?  To say "No" is to take refuge in semantics.  It is CO2 that is causing global warming, not humans.  But if humans are the reason CO2 levels are rising, then one could also say that humans are causing warming.

The "global warming fingerprint" derives from the physics of carbon.  CO2 absorbs energy and readmits it as heat.  Atmospheric moisture inhibits that effect, so wet areas are not showing much warming.  In the US, that's the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  In dry areas there is no water to inhibit warming.  Frozen water does not affect the reaction, so continental areas in the Arctic are, effectively, deserts.  Warming is greatest in dry areas.

As far as warming goes, carbon is carbon.  Carbon12 is just as damaging as carbon13 or carbon14.  But where those different isotopes come from makes a huge difference.  Carbon12 is the earth's primordial carbon - the earth was born with it.  Most of it resides in the oceans.  Carbon14 is created by ultraviolet rays striking nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere.  Land plants incorporate carbon14 into their tissues.  Carbon13 is the result of radioactive carbon14 decaying.

The great coal forests were once-living plants that died, becoming entombed in mud.  The carbon14 in their tissues became entombed with them where the radioactive carbon14 decayed to carbon13.  Thus, coal has a much higher percentage of carbon13 than does sea water, or plants that grew in the sea.

Two hundred years ago our atmosphere had a much lower level of carbon13 than it does now.  That level has been increasing.  Where is it coming from?  Not the sea - there isn't that much carbon13 in the sea.  What else is left?  Once-living land plants.  So that leaves only tundra (permafrost) and coal.  Melting permafrost is a consequence of warming.  It makes a bad situation worse, but it needed some warming to get the process started.  So coal is the only remaining source of carbon13.

So how does carbon13 get from a coal bed into the air?  If humans are involved in that process, then we are the cause.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/5/2016 at 5:07 PM, Doug1o29 said:

Kyoto was never an effective proposal to begin with.  Its total effect on warming would have reduced emissions over seven years by the amount emitted in one year.  That Bush walked away from it has made little difference.  But the reason he walked away from it speaks volumes, showing a total enslavement to big money and big oil.

Are humans the cause of global warming?  To say "No" is to take refuge in semantics.  It is CO2 that is causing global warming, not humans.  But if humans are the reason CO2 levels are rising, then one could also say that humans are causing warming.

The "global warming fingerprint" derives from the physics of carbon.  CO2 absorbs energy and readmits it as heat.  Atmospheric moisture inhibits that effect, so wet areas are not showing much warming.  In the US, that's the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific coasts.  In dry areas there is no water to inhibit warming.  Frozen water does not affect the reaction, so continental areas in the Arctic are, effectively, deserts.  Warming is greatest in dry areas.

As far as warming goes, carbon is carbon.  Carbon12 is just as damaging as carbon13 or carbon14.  But where those different isotopes come from makes a huge difference.  Carbon12 is the earth's primordial carbon - the earth was born with it.  Most of it resides in the oceans.  Carbon14 is created by ultraviolet rays striking nitrogen atoms in the upper atmosphere.  Land plants incorporate carbon14 into their tissues.  Carbon13 is the result of radioactive carbon14 decaying.

The great coal forests were once-living plants that died, becoming entombed in mud.  The carbon14 in their tissues became entombed with them where the radioactive carbon14 decayed to carbon13.  Thus, coal has a much higher percentage of carbon13 than does sea water, or plants that grew in the sea.

Two hundred years ago our atmosphere had a much lower level of carbon13 than it does now.  That level has been increasing.  Where is it coming from?  Not the sea - there isn't that much carbon13 in the sea.  What else is left?  Once-living land plants.  So that leaves only tundra (permafrost) and coal.  Melting permafrost is a consequence of warming.  It makes a bad situation worse, but it needed some warming to get the process started.  So coal is the only remaining source of carbon13.

So how does carbon13 get from a coal bed into the air?  If humans are involved in that process, then we are the cause.

Doug

 

"Surprisingly" I have never seen any climate change sceptic respond to the matter of the different carbon isotopes. I guess it is a mixture of not knowing about it and their "sources" completely skipping this question because they know they can't explain it. Either way it would be nice to see a response to this question once in a awhile. Probably not going to happen though. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

"Surprisingly" I have never seen any climate change sceptic respond to the matter of the different carbon isotopes. I guess it is a mixture of not knowing about it and their "sources" completely skipping this question because they know they can't explain it. Either way it would be nice to see a response to this question once in a awhile. Probably not going to happen though. 

To respond to this item requires a rudimentary knowledge of isotopic chemistry.  That's probably why they don't understand it.  When I took this stuff in high school and college, there wasn't much emphasis on isotopic chemistry.  The latest issue of Science News has an article on some new methods for studying isotopes.  Because plants are selective about which isotopes they use, we are likely to see whole bunches of new studies in this area in the coming few years.  Exciting stuff.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

"Surprisingly" I have never seen any climate change sceptic respond to the matter of the different carbon isotopes. I guess it is a mixture of not knowing about it and their "sources" completely skipping this question because they know they can't explain it. Either way it would be nice to see a response to this question once in a awhile. Probably not going to happen though. 

What always made me kind of wary about the "skeptics", even in the days when climate change was not yet so evident, is that many of those denying that carbon could warm up the planet were less than a decade before in agreement that to terraform Mars you had to blow its atmosphere full of carbon dioxide to warm the planet up. Well, physics works the same way everywhere, no matter if Mars or Earth.

 

Edited by questionmark
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.