The Fossil Fuel Industry Deceives the Public.

[Alate_One]

It seems the Exxon knew the dangers of their product's waste (CO2 emissions) back in the 1980s.

In an internal September 1982 document, Exxon scientists summarized the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and the consistency of their own research with that expert consensus. The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C … There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere … the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate.​

Source
This is on top of the $30 million or so they've sent to climate denier scientists and politicians.

I can't say I'm surprised by this. The same thing happened with big tobacco.

So, deniers, if Exxon says it's true, can it still be a conspiracy?

 

[gcthomas]

Exxon are guilty of racketeering as they conducted a campaign of disinformation to deceive the public into producing more profits for the company. It is still going on industry-wide.

 

[Nick M]

They believed the lie they were told. So what.

 

[Alate_One]

Their own scientists confirmed what the rest of the scientific community was saying. Scientists PAID by the fossil fuel industry.

You think neg repping me will make the truth go away Nick? :chuckle:

The fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in climate change not existing. A lot of them are doing their best to delude people like you.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, the delusion aligns with your beliefs about the nature of the world, thus you choose to believe the lie over actual evidence. So it is with those that believe in free market fundamentalism.

 

[Jose Fly]

So, deniers, if Exxon says it's true, can it still be a conspiracy?

Most denialists didn't come to their position after reviewing the data. Instead, they came to their denialism out of sheer tribalism. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans in congress, Dick Cheney, right-wing bloggers, etc., all spent years and years making global warming denial a key tenet of right-wing political thought. So if you're going to be on the right-wing team, you'd better be a warming denialist.

So it's unlikely that many of the regular rabble will be swayed by things like this. Like with evolution, it'll only be acceptable when their authority figures (and don't forget the importance of authority in conservatism) tell them it is.

 

[The Berean]

I'm not surprised that a huge corporation would supress information that paints them in a negative light. I am just curious why they even conducted climate studies in the first place? They had to known that he results would not have been to their liking.

 

[Stripe]

It seems the Exxon knew the dangers of their product's waste (CO2 emissions) back in the 1980s.

In an internal September 1982 document, Exxon scientists summarized the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and the consistency of their own research with that expert consensus. The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C … There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere … the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate.​

Of course the "human-caused" agenda is pasted on the front of the Exxon blurb, while the corporation basically assumed the truth of the numbers it was given.

You need evidence to show that humans are destroying the planet, not politics.

 

[Alate_One]

Let's try again. Where is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere coming from? Why is the pH of the oceans decreasing?

Could it maybe have something to do with the 40 billion tons of CO2 released annually worldwide?

Think of a cube filled with water that's 2.2 miles on each side. That would be equivalent to the mass of CO2 released every year. And we've been releasing nearly that amount for fifty years, and still more before that.

source

It's many times larger than all of the volcanoes that erupt on a regular basis.

Does anyone think that does nothing to the climate?

 

[Alate_One]

I'm not surprised that a huge corporation would supress information that paints them in a negative light. I am just curious why they even conducted climate studies in the first place? They had to known that he results would not have been to their liking.

My guess is they wanted to know the truth for their own information. An internal independent assessment allows them to decide if they want to tackle the problem or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[Quetzal]

Most denialists didn't come to their position after reviewing the data. Instead, they came to their denialism out of sheer tribalism. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Republicans in congress, Dick Cheney, right-wing bloggers, etc., all spent years and years making global warming denial a key tenet of right-wing political thought. So if you're going to be on the right-wing team, you'd better be a warming denialist.

So it's unlikely that many of the regular rabble will be swayed by things like this. Like with evolution, it'll only be acceptable when their authority figures (and don't forget the importance of authority in conservatism) tell them it is.

I find that when this discussion takes place there are (usually) three type of people.

1. Those who believe climate change is real and is a big problem.
2. Those who believe climate change is real but are hesitant about the overall impact of climate change.
3. Those who do not believe in climate change at all.

The first two are fairly easy to have a discussion with. Data gets tossed back and forth, usually followed by critical analysis. This happens because the first two have a common understanding: climate change is real. The third, however, does not accept this premise or any data that goes with it. In short, these individuals aren't worth your time because regardless of what you show them they are more interested in being "right" than addressing what could be a really big, global problem.

 

[OCTOBER23]

X on EXXON

 

[Nick M]

By the way, what is fossil fuel? Can I make some sort of fuel by stealing fossils from museums? How does the process work?

 

[gcthomas]

By the way, what is fossil fuel? Can I make some sort of fuel by stealing fossils from museums?

If the fossils are preserved as carbonised plant matter, then stealing from a museum will work. Just look for the display labelled "coal".

How does the process work?

Dead vegetation gets trapped in acidic and anoxic peat bogs that prevents rotting. Then further burial and geothermal heating carbonises the plant material, becoming these fuels in order: peat, lignite, bituminous coal, anthracite on a continuous scale (depending on the duration and intensity of the processing. )

But you didn't really want to be told, did you, as you have an internet connection and could have found out easily. Did you want to make your anti-science comment, that you are leading to, now?

 

[MortSullivan]

I'd bet my last dollar that every single one of you "fossil fuels are evil!!!" protagonists does more to harm the environment than help it.

Of all the environmentalists I've known over the years - and there are many - less than 1% of them actually practices what they preach.

I call that hypocrisy.

 

[gcthomas]

I'd bet my last dollar that every single one of you "fossil fuels are evil!!!" protagonists does more to harm the environment than help it.

Of all the environmentalists I've known over the years - and there are many - less than 1% of them actually practices what they preach.

I call that hypocrisy.

I have fully insulated my house, fitted an efficient boiler, turned down the thermostat, don't use aircon, fitted low energy lights throughout the house, run efficient/small cars driving with a light right foot and bicycle/walk where possible. I actively support the plans to build wind turbines locally as well as the larger nuke plant plans nationally.

Most of the people I know have done the same, since energy efficiency makes for lower bills and reduces fossil fuel usage. In my experience environmentalists do exactly what they preach, so I'm guessing you just fabricated your <1% figure for rhetorical effect.

 

[MortSullivan]

I have fully insulated my house, fitted an efficient boiler, turned down the thermostat, don't use aircon, fitted low energy lights throughout the house, run efficient/small cars driving with a light right foot and bicycle/walk where possible. I actively support the plans to build wind turbines locally as well as the larger nuke plant plans nationally.

Most of the people I know have done the same, since energy efficiency makes for lower bills and reduces fossil fuel usage. In my experience environmentalists do exactly what they preach, so I'm guessing you just fabricated your <1% figure for rhetorical effect.

So you support government wasting billions of dollars to build wind generators that supply less than 2% of our energy needs, will NEVER have a positive ROI, and kill millions of birds each year?

You support nuclear energy, that results in radioactive waste that can kill all life for thousands of years?

That's positive environmentalism?

Why aren't you living off-grid? Having a huge house that is insulated is not exactly being environmentally friendly. It's just doing less damage than most environmentalists are doing.

 

[gcthomas]

So you support government wasting billions of dollars to build wind generators that supply less than 2% of our energy needs, will NEVER have a positive ROI, and kill millions of birds each year?

You spew fossil fuel company propoganda.

Governments don't build turbines, private companied do. And they do so to make money. Which they do.

The UK produced over 12% of its electricity needs by wind last year and we've only just started. Plenty more capacity is coming on stream.

Estimates of bird deaths in the US are about 250 000 per year, compared to 7 million from collisions with cell/radio towers and 4 billion from domestic cats.

Are you campaigning to ban cats from homes for the sake of the birds, or are you a hypocrite?

You support nuclear energy, that results in radioactive waste that can kill all life for thousands of years?

Who has ever died from radioactive waste from a nuclear power station? Coal releases more uranium and thorium into the environment than nuclear stations, since coal has 2 grams per tonne of uranium and thorium.

Why aren't you living off-grid? Having a huge house that is insulated is not exactly being environmentally friendly. It's just doing less damage than most environmentalists are doing.

I have a small house that shares one wall with the neighbour, reducing surface area heat losses. When will you stop making up lies to criticise, and discuss like a grown-up?

 

[MortSullivan]

You spew fossil fuel company propoganda.
Hahahaha - that's cute!
Governments don't build turbines, private companied do. And they do so to make money. Which they do.
The United States Government SUBSIDIZES the building of all wind generators, and they do so at an ENORMOUS loss of money. Wind generators do NOT pay for themselves. Never have, and probably never will.
The UK produced over 12% of its electricity needs by wind last year and we've only just started. Plenty more capacity is coming on stream.
12% of the need of a tiny little country is insignificant.
Estimates of bird deaths in the US are about 250 000 per year, compared to 7 million from collisions with cell/radio towers and 4 billion from domestic cats.
Non sequitur.
Are you campaigning to ban cats from homes for the sake of the birds, or are you a hypocrite?
Straw man.


Who has ever died from radioactive waste from a nuclear power station?
Ummm... WHAT? Did you actually, seriously, just say that out loud?

Coal releases more uranium and thorium into the environment than nuclear stations, since coal has 2 grams per tonne of uranium and thorium.
Maybe in your dumpy country, but not here.

I have a small house that shares one wall with the neighbour, reducing surface area heat losses. When will you stop making up lies to criticise, and discuss like a grown-up?
After you.

You're too easy, barmpot.

 

[gcthomas]

You're too easy, barmpot.

You should look into the heavy metal content of American coal - plenty of uranium in it.

And I'd like you to answer the comment about deaths from nuclear waste. You know - stores of used fuel rods and the waste produced in processing such waste. Do you know of anyone who has died of such waste? Please relate the number you claim to deaths from fossil fuel waste related illnesses (NOx, smoke inhalation, slag heap collapses such as in Aberfan, etc).

If you can find that nuclear waste is as much as 0.1% as dangerous to health as coal power station waste, I will offer you an apology. (Even non-waste related accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima killed less than fossil fuels did in the same years.)

 

[Stripe]

Let's try again. Where is the CO2 increase in the atmosphere coming from? Why is the pH of the oceans decreasing?

Could it maybe have something to do with the 40 billion tons of CO2 released annually worldwide?

Think of a cube filled with water that's 2.2 miles on each side. That would be equivalent to the mass of CO2 released every year. And we've been releasing nearly that amount for fifty years, and still more before that.

source

It's many times larger than all of the volcanoes that erupt on a regular basis.

Does anyone think that does nothing to the climate?

Pasting your agenda to the front of physical processes does not build a convincing case.

Your claim is that people are going to cause the planet irrevocable harm. Telling us that some carbon that was once in the atmosphere is going to return there does not convince us to start fearing the end of the world.