Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Charges that Exxon Mobil misled investors on the financial risks of climate change will be heard in court this month after a New York judge gave the green light for a trial.
[...] Barry Ostrager, a New York judge, rejected motions on Wednesday night and set a trial to begin next Tuesday.
The lawsuit alleges that Exxon defrauded investors by claiming to fully account for the financial impact of future climate change mitigation policies, when it was not actually doing so.
[...] "As a result of Exxon's fraud, the company was exposed to far greater risk from climate change regulations than investors were led to believe," according to the complaint, which said the scheme enabled Exxon to avoid large asset write-downs that would have represented billions of dollars in lost revenue.
The complaint points the finger at the highest levels of Exxon, including former chief executive and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who "knew for years that the company's representations... were misleading," the complaint said.
An Exxon spokesman said the New York case against it "is misleading and deliberately misrepresents" the company's practices for assessing climate policies.
"The New York Attorney General's allegations are false," the spokesman said.
[...] In August 2018, the US Securities and Exchange Commission ended an investigation into Exxon's decision not to write down assets because of future climate change regulations, taking no action against the company.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @07:09PM (32 children)
I looked into how climate models worked the other day and found a bunch of stuff like this to calculate the effect of CO2:
LN = "Layer N"
U = Concentration
P = Pressure
T = Temperature
TAU = Optical depth
Magic numbers fit to get the "right" result.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 21 2019, @07:40PM (31 children)
And those numbers differ from the computed values of absorption spectra documented in this cited literature [ametsoc.org] how?
Magic numbers are terrible programming practice, but the comments in RADIATION.f are pretty clear where they fucking comment.
Pretending they just plugged in whatever they felt like rather than absolutely scientifically proven values straight from the laws of fucking physics is just a psychotic break.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @08:11PM (1 child)
Those values are not from laws of physics. They are a "parameterization", ie easier calculation to make. From your paper:
So it is a computationally efficient approximation to some other calculations. Where do they compare this to data? BTW, this site is becoming unusable due to fascist mods trying to shut down discussion not aligning with the US warmongering party.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @09:55PM
Nope. Read at '-1' like most of us do. That way, we even get to see your drivel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @08:19PM
https://hitran.org/faq/ [hitran.org]
So even the LBL models are not derived from physical laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @08:59PM (27 children)
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2004.11.018 [sci-hub.se]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @09:05PM (26 children)
So basically they manually tuned the parameters until they got the expected result. This could be ok, or not...
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday October 21 2019, @09:50PM (25 children)
Tell me something. I'm curious. Why are deniers of anthropogenic climate change so eager to deny? They own beachfront property? Monster trucks? Stock in oil companies? They like the noise of internal combustion engines? They don't want a job? Going to take a lot of work to deal with climate change.
I think they're scared little people who hate the notion that we now have the power and numbers to really fuck up the whole world. They want to believe God's creation is supernaturally impervious to anything that little creatures do. But I guess even they accept that nuclear war can change things profoundly and in very bad ways. So, why can't they also accept that we can change the climate and make it much worse?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @09:54PM
I expect MORE climate change than the IPCC models, not less. And that has little to do with CO2 emissions. It is simply that the climate models predict less than the average rate of climate change seen since the LGM.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @10:14PM (1 child)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
So on average the sea level has been rising 100 cm/m * 125 m / 20e3 yr = 0.625 cm/yr. That would be 625 cm per century, or 2-3 x the worst possible predictions from the climate models, nearly an order of magnitude greater than the IPCC "high end". That is what I would say we should prepare for.
All along the Mississippi there are already levees ~700 cm tall built pretty much entirely since 1900. During this time of "extreme change" the US prospered and became the most wealthy nation in the known history of Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @10:46PM
That should be 62.5 cm/century. The current rate is ~ 20 cm/century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @11:03PM (11 children)
Maybe because every occurrence now gets a "climate change" angle since She Lost? Maybe because the level of discourse is religious, and some proponents are apparently driven by obtaining more publicity and grant money?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:30AM (10 children)
That's particularly stupid conspiracy theory crap. The idea that scientists could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous. If they were wrong, surely some scientists would conclude that the Earth is actually cooling, and about to enter another Ice Age. Or if they're all lying, could they all agree on the same big lie? No scientists at all would be willing to break ranks? Really? And for what? Risk their reputations and careers for the pathetic dribblings of grant money devoted to general science, begrudged by ignoramuses who can't ever satisfy their suspicions that it might all be fake? Absurd! Besides, military and defense monies are far greater and more readily obtained.
But we don't need to rely on scientists. Just look, and call a spade a spade, damn it. In recent years, temperature records have been broken far more often at the high end than the low end. CO2 in the atmosphere is now above 400 ppm. It has fluctuated between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for millions of years, and this jump above 400ppm is unprecedented in its speed. The arctic sea ice has shrunk dramatically. Glaciers all across the world are in retreat.
As for "religious" level of discourse, no. Such a suggestion merely shows the suggester does not get science. Science is not religion. The key difference is that religions take things on faith. Science takes nothing on faith, not even objective reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:45AM (5 children)
"Science is not religion. The key difference is that religions take things on faith. Science takes nothing on faith, not even objective reality." - But you don't consume science. You consume what the MSM tells you "the science says". Yes, it was the WARMEST JULY EVAH! in Northern Minnesota or wherever, but the news quashes any limiting qualifying statements the scientists have put on their work. A local long-term maximum tells you next to nothing about predicting what the rest of the world is going to be like.
Scientists have to eat too. If they need to ask muggles for money, they'll bias their proposals to the audience, such that more money is liable to flow.
Glaciers melting has been an issue for over a hundred years now, but don't forget we've just come out of the Little Ice Age 150 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:55AM (4 children)
Wtf? Glaciers melted at a rate in the last 100 years about 1/3 slower than the long term average.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:01AM (3 children)
Citation needed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:09AM (2 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
So that is 62.5 cm/century on average vs 16 - 30 cm/century the last 100 years. The average is 2-3.9 times higher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:57AM (1 child)
Supposing you are the GP, the request was for citation on change in glacier melt rates you were asserting. Not sea level rise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:01AM
Probably a waste of time to deal with such an idiotic post, but here are the next few words included in the same quote:
Good luck to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:06AM (2 children)
1300 AD: The idea that monks and priests could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous.
That is the default state of things, if it is surprising to you that means you are ignorant of history.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:03AM (1 child)
False equivalence. Monks and priests are practitioners of religion, which takes things on faith, as I already stated. They made up stuff about all kinds of things which they had no idea about. In many cases, they had to, to maintain the appearance of having all the Answers. And they were often at odds with one another. Why else does Christianity have so many sects?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:53AM
It is exactly the same. It is a bunch of self proclaimed experts patting themselves on the back who have become part of the political establishment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:52PM
That's particularly stupid conspiracy theory crap. The idea that politicians could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous. If they were wrong, surely some voters would conclude that the two party system is actually destroying our civilization and we are about to enter another totalitarian state. Or if they're all lying, could they all agree on the same big lie? No politicians or voters at all would be willing to break ranks? Really?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:26AM (9 children)
My take is extraordinary claims justifying enormous profound changes to human society warrant a lot of attention and constructive criticism. When those claims and resulting fixes aren't based on the actual science, then who really are the deniers?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:29AM (8 children)
We've been rushing blindly into "enormous profound changes". 250 years ago, there was no extensive network of paved roads or railroads, almost no steam engines let alone internal combustion engines, very few oil wells, coal mining only on a very small scale, and no coal burning power plants. Since then, we've pulled billions of tons of hydrocarbons out of the ground and burnt it. Plants take a lot of that out, but not near as much as we put in. The situation is not balanced. Can't expect an unbalanced situation to stay unbalanced.
> When those claims ... aren't based on the actual science
Very glib of you. Claims that aren't based on science should be viewed with suspicion and distrust. However, the claims around climate change are based on science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:37AM (6 children)
Keep repeating the same talking points... based on past history the climate is going to change much more profoundly than you think, and probably in the opposite way. Have you personally prepared at all?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:46AM (1 child)
I'm not a Prepper.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:56AM
When shit hits the fan, your body will hit the floor.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:13AM (3 children)
What sort of preparations do you mean? Take a survivalist mentality and prepare for doom with a bunker and lots of stored food? Try to run away from this, like a rat leaving a sinking ship? Hell no. Stop the leaks, save the ship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:56AM (2 children)
So you are very worried about climate change but haven't even thought of what preparations you could make for it? SMH...
What is your plan? To sit around and wait for the government to help you? They are all going to be in their bunkers with their hordes of food, water, fuel, and tools. Some troops might be sent out to keep order as you wait in line for your rations at walmart.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:36PM (1 child)
Do you imagine that we're helpless babies dependent upon governments or other authorities? No way! I'm not waiting on anything or anyone. The plan is to head this off before it becomes dire. As for governments, make them do their jobs, which is to serve the people, not anti-social corporate and special interests. Talk of huddling in bunkers while the world goes through a climate apocalypse is just nuts. Yeah, I know there are some rich assholes who prepare to do just that, and in their heart of hearts (assuming they have hearts) even sort of want catastrophe to happen. Denial, fatalism and learned helplessness serves that agenda all too well.
On the local level, I've given the city Hell over their lawn ordinances and enforcement. I fancy they're actually afraid to tangle with me. Sadly, there are still a few neighbors who don't agree with my views on reducing lawn care. I'd rather not mow at all, but for that purpose, I have a plug-in electric mower. No battery issues that way. The one big inconvenience is that you must be careful not to run over and cut the cord. But all else is great. Less maintenance, quieter, no fumes, instant on/off, lighter, smaller, and takes less energy. Still, I'd like to see cities maintain herds of goats or cattle, and rotate them through lawns.
I have spent years reducing my own energy use. I _like_ lower electricity bills. Replaced incandescent lights with CFLs, then, when they became available, LEDs. One that often goes unnoticed is the computer. My computers are low power. Use 33W max, 9W on an average load, way less than the over 100W of typical desktops from 15 years ago. The biggest energy burner is indoor climate control. I have cultivated feeling comfortable with wider seasonal temperature differences. I find up to 83F very comfortable in the summer. All these things add up. I cut annual electricity use nearly in half, from 10,000 kWh to 5200 kWh.
But now, I recently bought an electric car, a used Leaf, so I expect electricity use will go up. I have always used small economical cars, and always bought used. Yes, that did make it much harder to attract women, but I consoled myself that those were high maintenance sorts I wouldn't want anyway.
I'm looking into adding solar panels. But the first use of solar energy should be heating of water. On that one, I've been frustrated, quoted ridiculous prices of $17,000 to install a solar water heating system, when a new tank for the existing system was only $300. $16,700 will pay for many, many years of heating water with gas or electricity. A big problem is, there's only so much you can do with the incredibly stupidly wasteful and frivolous designs of current housing. That half our energy is blown on mere heating and cooling is just criminal.
All that is on an individual level. We need more. Our transportation systems favor the automobile far too much. Think about trying to cross the road, on foot, when that road is an interstate highway. Actual attempts are extremely rare, because most people have the sense not to try it. Even if you could do it without getting run over, it's generally illegal. You might think, just use the bridge or underpass at the nearest interchange. Maybe, but sometimes those bridges have absolutely no room for pedestrians, or no curb. Highways are immense barriers, and we should change that. There is finally recognition of this problem, and I understand new freeways are designed to be friendlier to pedestrians.
Most promising is wind, solar, and hydroelectricity. It's not that hard. Really!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:07PM
You are never going to stop the climate from changing, and should not want to either. You should adapt to the changing climate.
I am sorry to say this is not going to stop the climate from changing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:02PM
So what? You still are rushing blindly into "enormous profound changes". What makes your preference better than other choices?