ExxonMobil Knew Climate Change Was Real As Early As 1981. (salary, Indiana, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial."
1893 the first electric car appeared. So someone killed it?
New technologies are introduced and fail all the time. Can you not accept the fact that electric cars are not yet a viable solution, even if when periodically resurrected.
Economics does not support failed, read that, immature technology. Consumers simply do not have the cash to nurse theoretical technology, which will probably be replaced long before it ever comes in sight of being a viable product.
Talk about in foil hats and conspiracy.
Exxon and the other oil companies keep the federal government solvent by way of their taxes. The government would crash without big oil.
then again to think Exxon knew a secret the federal government didin't? Seriously?
In the 70s the NJ college of ag science taught the world was cooling.
Have you gotten rid of your car and converted to solar yet?
You are either missing the point or trying to divert attention away from the topic of the thread. I suspect the latter. This article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the deniers are preaching is completely false courtesy of big oil. Admit it, they duped you into hawking their points for them. How does that feel? I'm glad the world is finally waking up to this mess they've created.
"ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial."
That doesn't in any way say that they "knew" anything, because they STILL don't "know" today. It only suggests that they were being careful because of the ongoing discussion of CO2 warming the planet. Nobody knows anything definite even today.
You are either missing the point or trying to divert attention away from the topic of the thread. I suspect the latter. This article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that what the deniers are preaching is completely false courtesy of big oil. Admit it, they duped you into hawking their points for them. How does that feel? I'm glad the world is finally waking up to this mess they've created.
They didn't know anything at that time and still don't today. Not a single computer model prediction has come true. That means WITHOUT a doubt that the hypothesis is wrong.
Having read through the e-mail it's just a whole bunch of way after the fact speculation on why people were taking particular actions at the time. There's no smoking gun there. The oil industry doesn't like high percentage of CO2 in fields for a whole lot reasons that having nothing to do with climate change. This is another case of the ignorant seeing something that really isn't there. But, when you're dealing with people who are driven by ideology and emotion you can't expect much else.
Gruber was right about the political Left, and the Guardian proves it on an almost daily basis.
Add to that the Left's insane logic:
"ExxonMobile knew about global warming in 1981 at the Natuna gas field! And those evil bastards Still left all that natural gas in the ground! ... Wait?... WHAT???"
Pipeline quality natural gas is "refined" to 0-2% CO2 by volume or else it starts doing nasty things to customers stoves and furnaces (not to mention the pipelines).
Let's face it. If there were cheaper energy sources impoverished nations would be using them. The conspiracy theorists on this thread need to be ignored.
Exxon also insures, through the purchase of the Republican Party, that alternative energy investment is minimal, as far as Federal dollars are concerned.
Involvement of the federal gov't in alternative energy might be the single best way to ensure that alternative energy never gets off the ground. Consider the consumer electronics industry. Not only do not federal dollars subsidize them, but just the reverse. Yet prices go down, and quality and selection go up. Or something even more pedestrian (pun intended) the shoe industry. As a kid the Chuck Taylor Converse all stars were the epitome, and today we have such things as the Mizuno Wave Universe 2.8 oz.(!) running shoe. And prices of shoes, after adjusting for inflation, have dramatically declined. There is very little involvement of the federal gov't in the shoe business.
Contrast that to something like bridge-building that is lock, stock, and barrel a gov't enterprise. We're in the process of replacing a major bridge that was built in 1963 here in the Seattle area. The old bridge was built in the era of slide rules and drafting tables. Despite that, the new bridge will cost about 18 times (inflation adjusted) what the old bridge cost. They literally spent more on studies and planning, prior to any construction, than the entire cost of building the old bridge (inflation adjusted).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
