In the 1970s and 1980s ExxonMobil did not know that their reports would be so wrongly misinterpreted in the 2010s. [emphasis, links added]
Since 2015, when “investigative journalists” uncovered reports written in the late 1970s by ExxonMobil’s Science Advisor J.P. Black, it has been a common talking point in alarmist circles to insist that “Exxon Knew” about the looming climate catastrophe imposed by continuing to use their petroleum products.
“ExxonMobil had known that burning fossil fuels would lead to potentially catastrophic climate impacts as early as the late 1970s.” – ExxonKnew.org
“Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.“
The accusation is that Exxon was pushing their products knowing full well – with certainty – how much damage they caused.
ExxonMobil 1977 Report
But if one were to actually read these internally published scientific reviews, it would be difficult to find even a hint of this definitive certainty pertaining to the science of climate change in the 1970s.
In the most notorious 1977 review (the written report was published in 1978), J.P. Black emphasized there is considerable uncertainty whether the increase in CO2 was all or even mostly due to fossil fuels.
The fundamental claim that fossil fuels drive CO2 level changes was still considered a never-validated assumption, as nature may contribute more to CO2 increases than human fossil fuel emissions do.
“The CO2 increase measured to date is not capable of producing an effect large enough to be distinguished from normal climate variations.”
“A number of assumptions and uncertainties are involved in the predictions of the Greenhouse Effect. At present, meteorologists have no direct evidence that the incremental CO2 in the atmosphere comes from fossil carbon.”
“There is considerable uncertainty regarding what controls the exchange of atmospheric CO2 with the oceans and with carbonated materials on the continents.”
“The conclusion that fossil fuel combustion represents the sole source of incremental carbon dioxide involves assuming not only that the contributions from the biosphere and from the oceans are not changing but also that these two sources are continuing to absorb exactly the same amount as they are emitting. The World Meteorological Organization recognized the need to validate these assumptions…”
“…biologists claim that part or all of the CO2 increase arises from the destruction of forests and other land biota.”
“…a number of other authors from academic and oceanographic centers published a paper claiming that the terrestrial biomass appears to be a net source of carbon dioxide for the atmosphere which is possibly greater than that due to fossil fuel combustion.”
The report also says that if the globe warms as predicted by models of doubling the CO2 concentration:
“…there will probably be no effect on the polar ice sheets.”
The Greenland ice sheet will experience “increased precipitation and actually result in the growth of this ice sheet.”
For East Antarctica’s ice sheet, doubled CO2 “would not affect this very large glacier and…it too might increase in size.”
Climate models are “primitive” and incapable of handling important aspects of climate.
“Modeling climatic effects is currently handicapped by an inability to handle all the complicated interactions which are important to predicting the climate. In existing models, important interactions are neglected.”
And there are benefits of a warmer climate around the world.
In a warmer world, “precipitation would increase. On a global scale, this should result in the lengthening of the growing season. Growing seasons are expected to increase about ten days for every 1°C increase in temperature.“
ExxonMobil 1982 Report
The 1982 ExxonMobil report continued to express uncertainty about the origins of the CO2 increase, saying nature may be a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere.
There was also no consensus on the detection of CO2-induced temperature warming, as a majority of climatologists at the time thought CO2’s impacts would not be detectable until 2000.
“A number of climatologists claim that they are currently measuring a temperature signal (above climate noise) due to a CO2 induced greenhouse effect, while the majority do not expect such a signal to be detectable before the year 2000.”
And most importantly, Exxon still did not know climate catastrophe was the inevitable consequence of using petroleum products in the 1980s. They suggested otherwise, saying we could adapt to the changes.
The consequences of fossil-fuel burning are uncertain and in need of further study. No “specific actions” need be taken until we learn more.
“…society can adapt to the increase in CO2 and this problem is not as significant to mankind as nuclear holocaust or world famine.”
“Given the long term nature of the potential problem and the uncertainties involved, it would appear that there is time for further study and monitoring before specific actions need be taken.”
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Greenpeace Knew, NRDC Knew that Climate Change id a fake its just these Eco-Freaks want us the change the way we live
Check Exxon’s records of meetings and you’ll find that Exxon’s scientists only ‘knew’ about CO2 purportedly causing “global warming” because they had conferred with climatologists, and the climatologists taught Exxon scientists to misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, said misuse conjuring “backradiation” out of thin air, said “backradiation” being the causative agent for the climatologists’ claimed “greenhouse effect”, that “greenhouse effect” being how the climatologists designated CO2 as a “global warming gas”.
The leftists pushing this outright scam, however, are, as usual, diametrically opposite to reality. Why diametrically opposite to reality? Because the easiest lie to tell is an inversion of reality… the climatologists needn’t invent new physics to explain their blather, and most people cannot distinguish between reality and flipped-causality anyway.
The reality: The AGW / CAGW hypothesis has been disproved. It is unphysical.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
The takeaways:
1) The climatologists have conflated their purported “greenhouse effect” with the Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect (aka the lapse rate).
2) The climatologists claim the causative agent for their purported “greenhouse effect” to be “backradiation”.
3) The Kelvin-Helmholtz Gravitational Auto-Compression Effect’s causative agent is, of course, gravity.
4) “Backradiation” is physically impossible because energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
5) The climatologists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation, using the idealized blackbody form of the equation upon graybody objects, which manufactures out of thin air their purported “backradiation”, it is only a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation. “Backradiation” does not and cannot actually exist. Its existence would imply rampant violations of the fundamental physical laws.
6) Polyatomic molecules are net atmospheric radiative coolants, not “global warming” gases. Far from the ‘global warming gas’ claimed by the climatologists, water acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause. CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause and the second-most prevalent (behind water vapor) below the tropopause. Peer-reviewed studies corroborating this are referenced in the paper at the link above.