Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday October 21 2019, @04:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the lies,-damn-lies,-and-statistics dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @07:09PM (32 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @07:09PM (#909968)

    I looked into how climate models worked the other day and found a bunch of stuff like this to calculate the effect of CO2:

    TERMA=(50.73-.03155*TLN-PLN*(.5543+.00091*TLN))*(1.-.1004*PLN)
    TERMB=(1.+.006468*ULN)*(1.+PLN*(49.51+.8285*PLN))
    TAU =(TERMA/TERMB)*ULN

    LN = "Layer N"
    U = Concentration
    P = Pressure
    T = Temperature
    TAU = Optical depth

    Magic numbers fit to get the "right" result.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday October 21 2019, @07:40PM (31 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 21 2019, @07:40PM (#909972) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @08:11PM (#909981)

      absolutely scientifically proven values straight from the laws of fucking physics

      Those values are not from laws of physics. They are a "parameterization", ie easier calculation to make. From your paper:

      For over 20 yr the k-distribution technique has been used successfully as a close approximation to integrated broadband LBL calculations

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @09:55PM (#910021)

        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.

        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

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @08:19PM (#909984)

      5. Are the data in HITRAN observed or calculated?

      The parameters in HITRAN are a mixture of direct observations, theoretical calculations, and semi-empirical values. The calculations are the result of various quantum-mechanical solutions. The goal of HITRAN is to have a theoretically self-consistent set of parameters, while at the same time attempting to maximize the accuracy. References for the source are included for the most important parameters on each line of the database.

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @08:59PM (#910001)

      Among the fundamental spectral parameters needed for terrestrial atmospheric radiative
      models (used to model natural radiative processes and to interpret remote-sensing data), there
      remain many deficiencies
      for the air-broadened half-widths, g air , and the air pressure-induced line
      shifts, d air . The goal of this work is to give a complete set of semi-empirical coefficients in order to
      calculate the g air and d air parameters of any rovibrational transition of the H 16 2 O isotopologue in
      order to update these parameters for the 2004 edition of the HITRAN database [1]. For the other
      isotopologues of water vapor, the number of references for the air-broadened half-widths and
      especially for the air pressure-induced frequency shifts is currently too small to determine the
      vibrational dependence of g air and d air .

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @09:05PM (#910005)

        It should be stressed that all these fits have been done individually by careful inspection of the
        data and graphical analysis. The reason for this approach was due to the fact that some
        experimental results, mainly from Refs. [15,16], exhibited in a number of cases a large difference
        for both g air and d air compared with the vibrational dependence of these parameters exhibited by
        all the other experiments and theoretical calculations (see in Table 2 the differences between
        experimental or theoretical values and the corresponding values calculated using semi-empirical
        coefficients). It should be emphasized that these exceptions are usually for high vibrational states
        where the spectral signal is weak resulting in some erroneous fits. When it is possible to compare
        the data from Refs. [15,16] with other measurements good agreement is generally observed. The
        outlying values are easily detected since they are often too large or small by factors of 2 or more.
        0 00 transition for the
        For example, Ref. [15] reports the air-broadened half-width of the 1 01
        2v 1 þ 3v 2 þ v 3 band as 0:041 cm �1 atm �1 compared with values from other measurements around
        0:1 cm �1 atm �1 (see Table 2). These erroneous results are easily detected by plotting all the
        measurements and calculations for the same set of rotational quantum numbers versus Dv. Figs. 2
        and 3 show fits of the measurements and the calculations, respectively, of air-broadened half-
        widths and air pressure-induced frequency shifts for six different sets of rotational quantum
        numbers. In these two figures, a different symbol has been used for each reference to the
        measurements and calculations and another symbol has been used to overlay them in order to
        identify which data have been kept for the fit. Indeed, the advantage of doing all these fits
        manually is that any suspicious data can be evaluated and removed before fitting the semi-
        empirical coefficients.

        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)

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday October 21 2019, @09:50PM (#910016) Journal

          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @09:54PM (#910018)

            They want to believe God's creation is supernaturally impervious to anything that little creatures do.

            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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @10:14PM (#910027)

            For example, in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a high end estimate of 60 cm (2 ft) through 2099,[6] but their 2014 report raised the high-end estimate to about 90 cm (3 ft).[7] A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".
            [...]
            Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by more than 125 metres (410 ft), with rates varying from less than a mm/year to 40+ mm/year

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @10:46PM (#910039)

              625 cm per century

              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)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @11:03PM (#910045)

            Tell me something. I'm curious. Why are deniers of anthropogenic climate change so eager to deny?

            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)

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:30AM (#910100) Journal

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:45AM (#910107)

                "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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:55AM (#910110)

                  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.

                  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)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:01AM (#910114)

                    Citation needed.

                    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:09AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:09AM (#910116)

                      Since at least the start of the 20th century, the average global sea level has been rising. Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16–21 cm (6.3–8.3 in).[2] More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,[3]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century.
                              [...]
                      Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by more than 125 metres (410 ft), with rates varying from less than a mm/year to 40+ mm/year

                      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)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:57AM (#910153)

                        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

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:01AM (#910155)

                          Probably a waste of time to deal with such an idiotic post, but here are the next few words included in the same quote:

                          Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by more than 125 metres (410 ft), with rates varying from less than a mm/year to 40+ mm/year, as a result of melting ice sheets over Canada and Eurasia.

                          Good luck to you.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:06AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:06AM (#910137)

                The idea that scientists could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous.

                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)

                  by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:03AM (#910158) Journal

                  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

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:53AM (#910256)

                    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

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:52PM (#910485)

                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)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:26AM (#910096) Journal

            Why are deniers of anthropogenic climate change so eager to deny?

            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)

              by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:29AM (#910141) Journal

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:37AM (#910144)

                We've been rushing blindly into "enormous profound changes".

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:46AM (#910146)

                  I'm not a Prepper.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:56AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:56AM (#910151)

                    When shit hits the fan, your body will hit the floor.

                • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:13AM (3 children)

                  by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:13AM (#910162) Journal

                  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)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:56AM (#910259)

                    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)

                      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:36PM (#910359) Journal

                      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

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @05:07PM (#910412)

                        The plan is to head this off before it becomes dire.

                        You are never going to stop the climate from changing, and should not want to either. You should adapt to the changing climate.

                        On the local level, I've given the city Hell over their lawn ordinances and enforcement.

                        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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 22 2019, @08:02PM (#910523) Journal

                We've been rushing blindly into "enormous profound changes".

                So what? You still are rushing blindly into "enormous profound changes". What makes your preference better than other choices?