{"id":279322,"date":"2023-09-18T19:08:29","date_gmt":"2023-09-18T17:08:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279322"},"modified":"2023-09-18T19:08:32","modified_gmt":"2023-09-18T17:08:32","slug":"exxonknew-more-correction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=279322","title":{"rendered":"\u2018ExxonKnew\u2019: More Correction"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Master Resource<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Robert Bradley Jr.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ed Note<\/strong>: The erroneous, agenda-laden ExxonKnew<\/a> narrative was again in evidence in last weekend\u2019s WSJ News Exclusive, \u201cInside Exxon\u2019s Strategy to Downplay Climate Change<\/a>.\u201d For other rebuttals involving the author, (see here<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cExxon doesn\u2019t \u2018know\u2019 anything. It\u2019s a collection of people and just like any other organization with many people, there are many views and understandings on almost every topic imaginable. I worked with Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and Libertarians.\u201d \u2013 Glen Lyons, former employee (below)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A sober look at the \u201cExxonKnew\u201d campaign reveals an anti-fossil-fuel agenda inspiring a myopic view of the company\u2019s old investigations into carbon dioxide (CO2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are many corrections to this leaky narrative. First, note that the company assigned the CO2 studies to individuals with their own personal motivations and did not partake in studies on the offsets<\/em> to CO2 (from sulfur dioxide) or the benefits<\/em> of CO2 (plant growth and resiliency, global greening, warmer winters). Or the advantages of fossil fuels over the dilute, intermittent alternative energies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problems of the day were different to Exxon (later ExxonMobil). There was scare about global cooling and a new Ice Age<\/a>. And there was concern about Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, note that the studies certainly did not represent the existing views of the company but an expedition into embryonic, unsettled science. James Hansen, the father of the climate alarm (in 1988), stated<\/a> in 1993:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Climate is always changing. Climate would fluctuate without any change of climate forcings. The chaotic aspect of climate is an innate characteristic of the coupled fundamental equations describing climate system dynamics.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

And in 1998<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Gerald North, head of the climatology department at Texas A&M, and a corporate consultant to climate-alarmist Enron (another story), said<\/a> the same thing in a different way. \u201cThere is a good reason for a lack of consensus on the science,\u201d he stated<\/a> in 1998. \u201cIt is simply too early. The problem is difficult, and there are pitifully few ways to test climate models.\u201d The same can be said today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These points and other are developed in the following posts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n