I can't believe I am even making this Thread... 

 

But, it seems to have taken over the politics Thread so I figured we can hash this out here (though the way the conversation was heading about AGW, maybe it should have stayed in the Politics thread...

 

 

So here we go, let's have at it!

 

 

I believe there is overwhelming evidence in AGW and it is a vocal, self-serving minority of the scientific community that derail and muddy up the issue so we can not act in a constructive manner to curtail this global thread.

Edited January 2, 20233 yr by Wanna-B-Fanboy

I have to be honest, I think climate change is real.  I think its not the calamity the climate change chicken littles think it is (I dont mean that as an insult just conveying the people who are really trying to drive panic).

What I saw a lot this year was a particular day with a high temp and lots of social media chatter about climate change.  But it would go like this "wow, today is the 4th hottest May 23rd in history.  Global Warming is real.  We must do something".  But the other 3 higher temps were like 1889, 1912, 1956 etc.  And I'd say Hmmmm

I recall reading that temperatures on Mars were also rising and that this phenomenon was not simply Earth-based.

I can recall being very young in school (think very early 80's and being taught that we were on the cusp of a new ice age.  

I certainly embrace the idea of climate change (as opposed to global warming) as the phenomenon can create crazy weather, not just warming.   Very anecdotal, I feel like our own weather seems to be leaning towards earlier springs...almost like the seasons are shifting a bit earlier in the year.

I think as a society we should always embrace being kind to the earth.  We should work towards getting off fossil fuels.  We should stop poisoning ourselves, let alone the planet.  But we should be responsible and measured.

When it comes out that we're all ******* doomed by 2030 unless we undertake an impossible global effort...I mean, come on.  How does that engage people?  It doesnt.  It creates conflict because most nations where leadership is cyclical and temporary are not going to bankrupt themselves to prevent what seems like certain absurdity over doomsday sayers.  

And ultimately, we should all screenshot these 2030 headlines so in 2030 when the new doomsday clock is 2050 we can be like yeah right.

In closing, be kind to the earth.  Climate Change is real.  But in the history of the Earth, its been ice-free and ice-covered with no input from humans.  And it will again regardless of what we do.  Its just the way it is.  So lets not go crazy.  

Edited October 10, 20187 yr by The Unknown Poster

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I have to be honest, I think climate change is real.  I think its not the calamity the climate change chicken littles think it is (I dont mean that as an insult just conveying the people who are really trying to drive panic).

What I saw a lot this year was a particular day with a high temp and lots of social media chatter about climate change.  But it would go like this "wow, today is the 4th hottest May 23rd in history.  Global Warming is real.  We must do something".  But the other 3 higher temps were like 1889, 1912, 1956 etc.  And I'd say Hmmmm

I recall reading that temperatures on Mars were also rising and that this phenomenon was not simply Earth-based.

I can recall being very young in school (think very early 80's and being taught that we were on the cusp of a new ice age.  

I certainly embrace the idea of climate change (as opposed to global warming) as the phenomenon can create crazy weather, not just warming.   Very anecdotal, I feel like our own weather seems to be leaning towards earlier springs...almost like the seasons are shifting a bit earlier in the year.

I think as a society we should always embrace being kind to the earth.  We should work towards getting off fossil fuels.  We should stop poisoning ourselves, let alone the planet.  But we should be responsible and measured.

When it comes out that we're all ******* doomed by 2030 unless we undertake an impossible global effort...I mean, come on.  How does that engage people?  It doesnt.  It creates conflict because most nations where leadership is cyclical and temporary are not going to bankrupt themselves to prevent what seems like certain absurdity over doomsday sayers.  

And ultimately, we should all screenshot these 2030 headlines so in 2030 when the new doomsday clock is 2050 we can be like yeah right.

In closing, be kind to the earth.  Climate Change is real.  But in the history of the Earth, its been ice-free and ice-covered with no input from humans.  And it will again regardless of what we do.  Its just the way it is.  So lets not go crazy.  

Great post and pretty much the way I see it too.

I just get a kick out of certain people who disregard science because it doesn't fall in line with their stance and then turn around and tell people they are anti-science. I don't like the politicization of it which is really all this was ever about, sad but true. 

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Great post and pretty much the way I see it too.

I just get a kick out of certain people who disregard science because it doesn't fall in line with their stance and then turn around and tell people they are anti-science. I don't like the politicization of it which is really all this was ever about, sad but true. 

Yeah...I mean I dont want to be critical.  There is science that tells us Climate Change is real.  But we also cant take any one year as a sure-fire sign.  Im not a scientist so Im not sure how many years we can take to show us legitimate trends in the over-all history of a planet.  Especially when we know the planet, devoid of industry, has gone through many heating/cooling periods.

And because most of us arent scientists we want to trust the data from scientists. But it also gives those people an edge in manipulating us.  Its like going to the doctor...you trust what he says (and sometimes doctors are wrong).  In the climate change issue, there have been over zealousness and "exaggerated data" so we have to be careful.  Im just not sure what is expected...okay, lets say we're doomed unless we make an impossible global effort.  We're not going to.  So whats next?

43 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah...I mean I dont want to be critical.  There is science that tells us Climate Change is real.  But we also cant take any one year as a sure-fire sign.  Im not a scientist so Im not sure how many years we can take to show us legitimate trends in the over-all history of a planet.  Especially when we know the planet, devoid of industry, has gone through many heating/cooling periods.

And because most of us arent scientists we want to trust the data from scientists. But it also gives those people an edge in manipulating us.  Its like going to the doctor...you trust what he says (and sometimes doctors are wrong).  In the climate change issue, there have been over zealousness and "exaggerated data" so we have to be careful.  Im just not sure what is expected...okay, lets say we're doomed unless we make an impossible global effort.  We're not going to.  So whats next?

Why are China and India still allowed to build coal plants? If it was such a crisis, why wouldn't they be cracked down upon first. They can afford nuclear weapons and vast militarization but still have to build coal plants? Two grossly over populated countries sucking up resources at an alarming rate yet that is okay. Little old Canada that is carbon neutral has to suck it up for everyone else, something is rotten. 

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Why are China and India still allowed to build coal plants? If it was such a crisis, why wouldn't they be cracked down upon first. They can afford nuclear weapons and vast militarization but still have to build coal plants? Two grossly over populated countries sucking up resources at an alarming rate yet that is okay. Little old Canada that is carbon neutral has to suck it up for everyone else, something is rotten. 

If climate change lobbyists could get those countries on board, then sure, let's hold hands and move together.  But if we're going to bankrupt ourselves to save the world while other nations burn it to the ground effectively making our efforts inconsequential, that just doesnt work.  Thats always been the problem.  

I thought by now we'd all have little nuclear power packs in our homes and cars and be set for life.

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think as a society we should always embrace being kind to the earth.  We should work towards getting off fossil fuels.  We should stop poisoning ourselves, let alone the planet.  But we should be responsible and measured.

Well said. I agree 100%.

A carbon tax solves what, exactly? In the grand scheme of things, nothing. Especially when you consider what other countries are doing, ones that are less regulated and significantly more populated.

5 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Well said. I agree 100%.

A carbon tax solves what, exactly? In the grand scheme of things, nothing. Especially when you consider what other countries are doing, ones that are less regulated and significantly more populated.

Quote

 

 Yale professor William Nordhaus shared the Nobel Prize for economics for his pathbreaking work on carbon pricing. (just the other day)

Nordhaus has been writing for four decades about climate change and the value of using prices to reduce carbon emissions. His research shows that raising prices through, say, a carbon tax, is a far more effective and efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government controls on the quantity of emissions through, say, regulatory limits on cars and power plants. Higher prices will encourage firms and consumers to find alternatives to carbon-based products as well as encourage new technologies that will make those substitutes competitive. This has become the mainstream view among economists.

 

Quote

When the time comes for Congress to take the idea of a carbon tax seriously, they’ll look back on the work of Bill Nordhaus beginning in the late 1970s and perhaps wonder: What took us so long?

Forbes

 

12 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Yale professor William Nordhaus shared the Nobel Prize for economics for his pathbreaking work on carbon pricing. (just the other day)

Nordhaus has been writing for four decades about climate change and the value of using prices to reduce carbon emissions. His research shows that raising prices through, say, a carbon tax, is a far more effective and efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government controls on the quantity of emissions through, say, regulatory limits on cars and power plants. Higher prices will encourage firms and consumers to find alternatives to carbon-based products as well as encourage new technologies that will make those substitutes competitive. This has become the mainstream view among economists.

When the time comes for Congress to take the idea of a carbon tax seriously, they’ll look back on the work of Bill Nordhaus beginning in the late 1970s and perhaps wonder: What took us so long?

So, it could work if the majority of countries actually got on board and worked cooperatively...? That seems like a lofty aspiration considering the sociopolitical state both here and around the world. What does that do for Canada and Canadians if a carbon tax is implemented while other countries continue to pollute excessively? It seems like a drop in the bucket when looking at the big (global) picture.

A couple more noteworthy parts from that Forbes article:

Quote

Nordhaus is relatively agnostic about whether the best mechanism is a direct tax on carbon or its cousin, a cap and trade system. But either way, he has argued that nations must raise the price of fossil fuels to protect the climate, a global public good. If not, firms, individuals, and even countries will free-ride, taking the benefits of using fossil fuels without paying for their environmental costs. Unless those global costs—externalities in econo-speak—are built into the price, there is no incentive for individual carbon users to reduce their consumption, and all humanity may suffer the consequences.

One Nordhaus solution: A global climate club. A critical mass of countries would participate by agreeing to an international target carbon price. They could meet that price, say $25 or $30 per ton of CO2, any way they want—with a tax, a cap-and-trade system, or some combination. Countries that refused to join such a pricing system would be punished, perhaps by club members imposing stiff tariffs on all goods imported from non-members. If the cost of refusing membership is high enough, most nations would join the club.

In theory, it sounds feasible. But it relies on a considerable number of moving parts to be realized effectively. Realistically, when looking at the world as a whole, does that seem feasible?

Here's the full article for anyone interested: https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/10/10/bill-nordhaus-the-nobel-prize-climate-change-and-carbon-taxes/#5fabc0d96a03

And a link to Nordhaus' research: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/kyoto_long_2005.pdf

It would make far more sense to give us incentives to reduce rather than taxing, imo.

It's going to cost me $20G to put solar panels on my roof through my local Hydro supplier and a carbon tax on top of that regardless if I have the panels or not? What a deal, sign me up.

How about just rewarding me instead to reduce my carbon footprint? Why not just give me a discount on my utility bills for using less and other green initiatives?  

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

It would make far more sense to give us incentives to reduce rather than taxing, imo.

It's going to cost me $20G to put solar panels on my roof through my local Hydro supplier and a carbon tax on top of that regardless if I have the panels or not? What a deal, sign me up.

How about just rewarding me instead to reduce my carbon footprint? Why not just give me a discount on my utility bills for using less and other green initiatives?  

You produce less carbon, you save on taxes.... I can see the incentive here.

11 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You produce less carbon, you save on taxes.... I can see the incentive here.

No I won't. I will use the same amount of fossil fuels whether it's taxed or not because 1) there is no affordable alternative and 2) there is no incentive for me not to. 

Just now, pigseye said:

No I won't. I will use the same amount of fossil fuels whether it's taxed or not because 1) there is no affordable alternative and 2) there is no incentive for me not to. 

Just because you choose not to use that incentive, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Saw an interesting story on twitter...cant recall where so I cant post it.  But it was quoting a magazine or newspaper from the 70's and saying leading scientists were quite sure we'd all be wearing gas masks in the 80's and half the sun would be blocked out.  Those of us in school in the 70's or early 80's know we were taught that same thing and that it would lead to an ice age.

What will "leading scientists" say 15-30 years from now?  I think that is what people struggle with.  We're talking about micro-fraction of time over the course of the planet's life.

20 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Saw an interesting story on twitter...cant recall where so I cant post it.  But it was quoting a magazine or newspaper from the 70's and saying leading scientists were quite sure we'd all be wearing gas masks in the 80's and half the sun would be blocked out.  Those of us in school in the 70's or early 80's know we were taught that same thing and that it would lead to an ice age.

What will "leading scientists" say 15-30 years from now?  I think that is what people struggle with.  We're talking about micro-fraction of time over the course of the planet's life.

Acid rain was averted because we made into law limits to curb our sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Air Pollution was curbed (it's still an issue, but it's being dealt with) due to legislative proposals that curbed air pollutants. think of catalytic converter on all cars now. 

Ozone Layer depletion- legislation to curb CFCs.

Lead pollution due to leaded fuel was an epidemic until legislators banned leaded fuel.

 

When legislators listen to science, a lot can be done. Evidence based decision making is a must when making laws to protect our planet. 

Edited October 11, 20187 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

There's certainly a ton of fear-mongering as far as this subject goes. The reality is we, as tenants of this planet, can and should do a much better, more responsible job of caring for this planet.

At the end of the day, we'll be the ones to suffer the consequences of whatever happens. The Earth will go on with or without us until our star expands and engulfs the inner planets in some 5 billion years or so.

54 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Acid rain was averted because we made into law limits to curb our sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Air Pollution was curbed (it's still an issue, but it's being dealt with) due to legislative proposals that curbed air pollutants. think of catalytic converter on all cars now. 

Ozone Layer depletion- legislation to curb CFCs.

Lead pollution due to leaded fuel was an epidemic until legislators banned leaded fuel.

 

When legislators listen to science, a lot can be done. Evidence based decision making is a must when making laws to protect our planet. 

We averted an ice age?  Man is powerful.  Sorry, dont buy it.  

My issue is the extremist panic.  Of course, let's be good to the Earth.  Nations should commit to that in a reasonable fashion.  Again, at what cost when heavy nations wont comply at all?

In a real world way, is like asking me to use low energy bulbs, low flow toilets, recycle, turn the lights off etc vs installing geo therm and solar panels.  I can do all the former.  I cannot do the latter.  No one is saying dont do anything.  

25 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

We averted an ice age?  Man is powerful.  Sorry, dont buy it.  

My issue is the extremist panic.  Of course, let's be good to the Earth.  Nations should commit to that in a reasonable fashion.  Again, at what cost when heavy nations wont comply at all?

In a real world way, is like asking me to use low energy bulbs, low flow toilets, recycle, turn the lights off etc vs installing geo therm and solar panels.  I can do all the former.  I cannot do the latter.  No one is saying dont do anything.  

Ice age?

Check on the amount of peer reviewed papers in support of global cooling and those of global warming during the 70s into the 80s. 

Also, a lot of people arguing in favour of global cooling were using incomplete data. 

Think of today- there are still those that don't believe in global warming... but they are in minority, just like back when people were predicting an ice age.

 

I am all for a cap and trade system with a nnually shrinking finite amount of carbon credits. 

Edited October 11, 20187 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Ice age?

Check on the amount of peer reviewed papers in support of global cooling and those of global warming during the 70s into the 80s. 

Also, a lot of people arguing in favour of global cooling were using incomplete data. 

Think of today- there are still those that don't believe in global warming... but they are in minority, just like back when people were predicting an ice age.

 

I am all for a cap and trade system with a nnually shrinking finite amount of carbon credits. 

I think people who dont embrace the extremist view are called deniers and are said they dont believe.  That is generally untrue.  

But if society has collapsed due to climate change in 2030, Ill come back here and say you were right and I was wrong.  

On 2018-10-11 at 10:42 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

I think people who dont embrace the extremist view are called deniers and are said they dont believe.  That is generally untrue.  

But if society has collapsed due to climate change in 2030, Ill come back here and say you were right and I was wrong.  

Well if past history is any indication, I don't think you have much to worry about, here are some of the past predictions:

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Al Gore

Ice free arctic by 2012, 2018 at the latest - James Hanson NASA

Ice free arctic by 2012 - Jay Zwally NASA

Ice free arctic by 2013 not 2050 - John Kerry

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Sierra Club Canada

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Peter Wadhams Cambridge U

Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

 

On 2018-10-12 at 11:06 AM, pigseye said:

Well if past history is any indication, I don't think you have much to worry about, here are some of the past predictions:

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Al Gore

Ice free arctic by 2012, 2018 at the latest - James Hanson NASA

Ice free arctic by 2012 - Jay Zwally NASA

Ice free arctic by 2013 not 2050 - John Kerry

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Sierra Club Canada

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Peter Wadhams Cambridge U

Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

The crazy thing is, because this is a planet in a solar system and we lack the technology to do much about it, eventually they will be right.  Of course, it could be an ice free arctic in the year 5 million, I dont know.  But since the planet has gone through ice free and snow ball cycles in it's history that had nothing to do with humans, Im not even sure what the sky is falling stuff is all about.  Like, nothing we do, short of developing technology that can effect the sun, will stop the earth from going through its natural warming/cooling cycles.

In short, be kind to the planet.  Doomsday scenarios have always been wrong, as you have pointed out.  So why is it right this time?

PS: saw a report from a former Astronaut that denies human-caused climate change.  Now, some of those astronauts are nuts but I think he's a real scientist.  

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The crazy thing is, because this is a planet in a solar system and we lack the technology to do much about it, eventually they will be right.  Of course, it could be an ice free arctic in the year 5 million, I dont know.  But since the planet has gone through ice free and snow ball cycles in it's history that had nothing to do with humans, Im not even sure what the sky is falling stuff is all about.  Like, nothing we do, short of developing technology that can effect the sun, will stop the earth from going through its natural warming/cooling cycles.

You're in you car with windows rolled down on a hot and sunny day, because the AC is broken. For some reason, you decide to roll up the windows. It starts to get warmer inside the car. Feels like a greenhouse in here (see what I did  ). Holy ****, its getting hot in the car. Sweltering heat. you are certain you will die in the car if the temp keeps rising.

Now- you can lament the fact that you lack the technology to effect the sun, or you can roll the windows down. 

 

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

In short, be kind to the planet.  Doomsday scenarios have always been wrong, as you have pointed out.  So why is it right this time?

Acid rain was averted because we made into law limits to curb our sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Air Pollution was curbed (it's still an issue, but it's being dealt with) due to legislative proposals that curbed air pollutants. think of catalytic converter on all cars now. 

Ozone Layer depletion- legislation to curb CFCs.

Lead pollution due to leaded fuel was an epidemic until legislators banned leaded fuel.

 

Also- here is one of trump's appointees:

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-nasa-chief-changed-his-mind-on-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

 

These were all doomsday scenarios at one point and they were right- we just got off our asses and did something about it. Worked out pretty good I would say. 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

PS: saw a report from a former Astronaut that denies human-caused climate change.  Now, some of those astronauts are nuts but I think he's a real scientist.  

Yeah, Harrison Schmitt it was pretty odd. Here is an article about him.

https://www.inverse.com/article/27842-climate-change-denier-nasa-congressional-hearing-harrison-schmitt

Note, many of his assertions have been debunked. 

Edited October 18, 20187 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

I'm just going to drop this here:

On 2018-10-12 at 11:06 AM, pigseye said:

Well if past history is any indication, I don't think you have much to worry about, here are some of the past predictions:

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Al Gore

Ice free arctic by 2012, 2018 at the latest - James Hanson NASA

Ice free arctic by 2012 - Jay Zwally NASA

Ice free arctic by 2013 not 2050 - John Kerry

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Sierra Club Canada

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Peter Wadhams Cambridge U

Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

If you want to discuss timelines:

 

1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)
In a report produced for the American Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2  in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.” The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1970s
1978 (Global CO2 level: 335 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $2.4 billion)
James Black, working under Exxon’s Products Research Division, writes an internal briefing paper called “The Greenhouse Effect” following from a 1977 presentation to Exxon’s management committee. The paper warns that human-caused emissions could raise global temperatures and result in serious consequences. “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,” Black writes in his summary of the presentation. (Source:InsideClimate News)

1979
At the urging of an Exxon scientist, Henry Shaw, Exxon begins analyzing the absorption rate of carbon dioxide in the oceans, considered one of the key questions of climate science at the time. “Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation,”Shaw wrote in a letter to Exxon research executives. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1979-1983
Major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil (two companies that became Chevron) meet regularly as part of a task force to discuss the science and implications of climate change. The meetings are organized with the help of the American Petroleum Institute. A minutes document from one of the meetings suggests that oil companies knew that climate change was occurring, and that they would bear some responsibility for managing it. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1980s
1982  (Global CO2 level: 341 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.2 billion)
Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Programs manager M.B. Glaser sends Exxon management a primer on climate change. The primer is “restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.” It describes “potentially catastrophic events” if fossil fuel use is not reduced. (Source: InsideClimate News)

1982
Roger Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon, writes a memo summarizing Exxon’s climate modeling research. The memo states: “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 [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…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.” Cohen would later become a lead climate science denier at an Exxon-funded front group.

1983  (Global CO2 level: 343 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $5 billion)
Exxon cuts funding for climate research from $900,000 per year to $150,000. Exxon’s total research budget at the time was more than $600 million.

1984
An Exxon report on the Natuna gas field in Indonesia warns that the project would be “the world’s largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem.”

1988
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is formed.

1989
Shell announces that it will redesign one of its natural gas platforms, raising it a meter or two to account for sea level rises resulting from climate change.

1989  (Global CO2 level: 353 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $3.5 billion)
Exxon and other fossil fuel companies create the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). The GCC is created to oppose mandatory reductions in carbon emissions by obscuring the scientific understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on the climate. The GCC created a scientific “backgrounder” for lawmakers and journalists that claimed “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.”

1990
Dr. Brian Flannery, “representing the International Petroleum Industries’ Environmental Conservation Association, but on the payroll of Exxon,” argues strongly against wording in the IPCC’s first report, which states that global carbon emissions must be reduced 60 to 80 percent. Flannery argues that too much “scientific uncertainty” exists to recommend such reductions. IPCC scientists agree that enough certainty exists to justify the reductions, and the report moves forward. (The Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett, cited in 2002 Greenpeace report, “Denial and Deception”).

1992  (Global CO2 level: 356 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.8 billion)
By 1992 Exxon has become a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which actively undermines action on climate change at the federal and state levels. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

1993
Lee Raymond becomes CEO of Exxon.

1995 (Global CO2 level: 361 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $6.5 billion)
The Global Climate Coalition distributes an internal memo, organized by Mobil chemical engineer and climate expert Leonard Bernstein, warning that the “greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” Members of the coalition included BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Shell. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)

1996
In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Lee Raymond denies the scientific consensus on climate change. Raymond claims that “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.”

1996
Mobil engineers, as a part of a project jointly owned by Mobil, Shell and a subsidiary of Exxon, note that “An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” in their planning for exploration and production facilities along the coast of Nova Scotia.

October 1997 (Global CO2 level: 364 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $8.5 billion)
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond tells the 15th World Petroleum Congress in Beijing that the world’s climate isn’t changing, and that even if it was, fossil fuels would play no part.

April 1998
The New York Times, with documents leaked to the National Environmental Trust, reveals that the American Petroleum Institute is organizing a $5-million plan to challenge the science of climate change. Representatives of Exxon and Chevron are listed as participating in the plan. One line item of the plan is to “Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal” (p. 6 of Greenpeace report appendix).

1998
ExxonMobil-funded think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute, co-publishes the “Oregon petition,” a petition challenging the consensus around climate change. The petition comes with a “research paper” made in the style of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confusing some legitimate scientists into signing the petition. Other petition signatories, suspiciously, include fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. and Spice Girl “Dr.” Geri Halliwell.

1998
In its proxy statement to shareholders, Exxon reports that shareholders have requested the creation of an outside directors committee to independently review and publish “a full report about the impact on climate change on our company’s present policies and practices…[including] anticipated liabilities our company may incur from its possible contribution to the problem…” Exxon’s board recommends against the proposal, citing, among other things, that the science around climate change remains uncertain.

1999
Exxon and Mobil merge.