PBS Reports the Exxon Ignored their own internal climate change warnings:
Despite its efforts for nearly two decades to raise doubts about the science of climate change, newly discovered company documents show that as early as 1977, Exxon research scientists warned company executives that carbon dioxide was increasing in the atmosphere and that the burning of fossil fuels was to blame.
The internal records are detailed in a new investigation published Wednesday by InsideClimate News, a Pulitzer Prize-winning news organization covering energy and the environment.
The investigation found that long before global warming emerged as an issue on the national agenda, Exxon formed an internal brain trust that spent more than a decade trying to understand the impact of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere — even launching a supertanker with custom-made instruments to sample and understand whether the oceans could absorb the rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Today, Exxon says the study had nothing to do with CO2 emissions, but an Exxon researcher involved in the project remembered it differently in the below video [Ed: in linked story.], which was produced by FRONTLINE in association with the InsideClimate News report.
Related Stories
Exxon Mobil is facing an investigation by New York's attorney general:
New York's attorney general would like to know: Did Exxon Mobil lie to you about the risks of climate change and to investors about how those risks might reduce profits?
Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman's office confirms that a New York Times story is correct in reporting that an investigation has been launched into Exxon Mobil. That story said Schneiderman issued a subpoena on Wednesday, seeking financial records, emails and other documents.
The goal is to examine whether back in the 1970s, Exxon Mobil funded groups to undermine scientific studies involving climate change. Also, the attorney general is investigating whether the oil giant properly informed its investors of the profit risks that might arise as countries cut back on fossil fuels.
In a statement, Exxon Mobil confirms it is under investigation and says its executives "unequivocally reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed climate change research."
[More after the break.]
The first systematic analysis of data from over a hundred ExxonMobil documents has shown that the company's scientists have accurately modelled global warming caused by fossil fuels since the late 1970s. However, company executives chose to publicly denigrate climate models, insist there was no scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and claim the science was highly uncertain when their own scientists were telling them the opposite, the study's authors say. Their findings are likely to figure in court proceedings around the world as fossil fuel companies face increasing legal and political attacks for their role in climate change.
[...] 'Exxon leadership had specific, accurate, state-of the art scientific information, presented to them by their own scientists,' says Oreskes. 'And that science was consistent with what academic and government scientists were saying at the same time. Our findings highlight the stark hypocrisy of ExxonMobil [chief executives] Lee Raymond and Rex Tillerson, who for decades insisted on the high degree of 'uncertainty' in climate models, when, in fact, their own scientists had produced models that were not highly uncertain, and which, in hindsight, we can say were highly accurate.'
[...] Another new finding involves ExxonMobil's claim that the science was too uncertain to know when – or if – human-caused global warming might be measurable. In fact, ExxonMobil scientists in the early 1980s offered the date of 2000±5 years, which turned out to be correct, says Oreskes. 'The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] first declared man-made climate change to be 'discernible' in 1995 so they got that right, too.'
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday September 21 2015, @10:10PM
Wow, sounds like Exxon was actually thinking of solutions in the late 70s and early 80s. So different from their denial backed with a massive propaganda campaign that they've been doing in more recent years. Why this radical change in direction? Is it like the movie Horrible Bosses where the nice guy, responsible, elderly boss has a sudden heart attack and his spoiled rotten kid takes over?
I've seen firsthand how these heirs of the family fortune run the major company they inherited. As might be expected of people who didn't earn such a position through merit, it's a crap shoot. Some are competent, but many are not. The incompetents think and behave poorly. I worked for Lennox A/C and heating for a little while, and one evening attended an employee dinner. Our CEO, John Norris Jr., descendant (great grandson, I think) of the man who bought the company from Dave Lennox, addressed us. It was quite shocking the things he said. In front of a few hundred employees, Norris complained that he would have made more money if he'd sold Lennox and invested the proceeds in the stock market. But because he was a nice guy, he kept the company so we would all have jobs. Then Norris said he didn't believe Global Warming was real, but if it was, then good, because that meant Lennox could sell more A/Cs!
So that's the kind of 'tard you often find running large companies. I've heard the members of the Ford family that own Ford Motor Company have their own brand of stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2015, @10:36PM
Your ideas are of interest to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 21 2015, @11:03PM
Considering how much capital Exxon has, they will inevitably become a player in the renewable market. Simply put, the "death spiral" caused by ever-cheaper solar and wind energy will lead to investment in renewables. They will still sell fossil fuels because there be fuel-burning cars for decades and the renewable-battery problem.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday September 22 2015, @03:24AM
More likely, Exxon will find a way to capitalize on some gubmint subsidies related to "carbon credits" for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce carbon emissions - and that will happen because the US gubmint is totally in Exxon's back pocket (but I'm not ignoring all the other corporations that rule the US).
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 21 2015, @11:41PM
There are links to the documents sprinkled throughout, I recommend reading them. If you do you find they are saying the same things as are said today by "deniers", eg:
1) we don't know the effects of feedbacks (eg clouds)
2) warmer winters and cooler summers might actually trigger an ice age (increased precipitation at the poles)
3) the climate may be chaotic and unpredictably jump between stable states
4) we sorely need solid data because dire predictions are appearing the popular press and this issue is political
Apparently none of the issues have been resolved since the late 1970s. I thought there would be new data released here but it looks like not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @03:59AM
Deniers are, by definition, the ones who claim it doesn't exist at all. The questions you claim are being asked by "deniers" cannot be asked by deniers, because if they were asking those questions instead of denying that AGW exists, they'd be actual skeptics, in contrast to the delusional nutjobs calling themselves "skeptics" while trumpeting that today's snow and cold temperatures prove AGW isn't real.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @04:15AM
What evidence has allowed you to establish AGW exists?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:22AM
(Different AC here) Nowhere did he claim that AGW exists. Therefore you cannot know whether he believes of thinks to have evidence that AGW exists. All he did is to explain the difference between deniers and sceptics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @04:45PM
Nowhere was that claimed, but its very simple anyway. Say you have a bucket of water. It is a known, established fact that adding heat to that bucket of water makes the water's average temperature increase. So if one were to apply heat to that bucket of water, it would be very clear that the bucket of water would heat up. Do you deny this, that heating water causes it to get hotter?
Similarly, it is a well-known, established fact that greenhouse gases exist, and that they are called "greenhouse gases" because they increase the earth's retainment of heat, thus causing its average temperature to rise. If the amount of those greenhouse gases increases, the earth's average temperature will go up. Do you deny this, that greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat retained by the earth? And thus, by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, the retainment of heat will also increase, leading to higher average temperatures?
So, since human activity is increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, its clear that the earth's average temperature will increase. The exact amount and rate of increase are not properly known at this time, but it is a very simple and well-established cause-and-effect occurring.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday September 22 2015, @12:20AM
The similarities with the tobacco industry are interesting.
The oil industry knows well that it causes significant harms,
Investigates those harms and then decides to bury the evidence in a torrent of marketing jargon and doublespeak.
As we move forward as a global populace we really need to reconsider the role of profits over ethics and the role of the 20th century corporate model.
Large corporations ask to be treated as persons by the state but are not responsible in the same ways as people.
All the while they can claim to be following their primary mission of profits for shareholders. This situation is not tenable when these entities are willfully exploiting our limited resources and causing harms which they have no inclination or ability to mitigate. The result is the privatization of profit and the nationalization of risk, not a good formula for humanity to achieve sustainability.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @05:11AM
Its interesting because the theory of how AGW works was only discovered/invented in 1990.
And in the 2015, we have yet to find the CO2 hot spot.
I think Exxon was actually measuring the number of pirates on the seas. You see, the numbers of pirates on the oceans also coorelates with raising US postage stamp prices and CO2 measurements from Hawaii.
Last week the CSIRO published an article saying CO2 measurements were different and followed a different course to the ones in the north of the world.
CO2 is not lead ;)
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Tuesday September 22 2015, @05:56AM
Its interesting because the theory of how AGW works was only discovered/invented in 1990.
This explains why I only heard about it in chemistry classes in the early seventies.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @07:59AM
You're about a century off.
From http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ [nasa.gov] footnote 2:
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @08:55AM
And it is only a few whose speculations do deserve attention. Scientists included.
Remember what kinds of racial theories were held by perfectly reputable scientists of that same epoch, for example.
Hindsight is always 20/20. But in here-and-now, rare lucky guesses tend to drown in the random noise of crackpottery.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 22 2015, @04:05PM
Atlantic Richfield Corporation - yes, the oil company - knew very well that it would be out of business someday if it depended on the drilling and sale of oil, so it founded ARCO Solar.
ARCO Solar hired lots of Caltech graduates back in the early to mid eighties, but I haven't heard much about it in quite a long time.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]