ExxonMobil climate change investigation

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
TJ - what's going on?! Exxon is in trouble for denying what you claim does not exist! It's crazy....

NYTimes:

The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.​
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,087
22,238
1
TJ - what's going on?! Exxon is in trouble for denying what you claim does not exist! It's crazy....

NYTimes:

The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.​
Pointless post!
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
TJ - what's going on?! Exxon is in trouble for denying what you claim does not exist! It's crazy....

NYTimes:

The New York attorney general has begun a sweeping investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how those risks might hurt the oil business.

According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.

The focus includes the company’s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science. A major focus of the investigation is whether the company adequately warned investors about potential financial risks stemming from society’s need to limit fossil-fuel use.​

The Alarmists can't compete on the science, where Mother Nature has bitch slapped them repeatedly. Alarmist CAGW claims and bogus climate models are international laughingstocks.

We covered this awhile ago with an Alarmist quote, that they essentially just chose Exxon for blind propaganda, because they wanted another trigger word for the vast hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes.

Alarmists are all about promoting false fantasies. They need a Boogie Man and just picked one. Honesty, decency, facts and reality mean nothing to the corrupt and dishonest Radical Leftist Alinskyites.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
The Alarmists can't compete on the science, where Mother Nature has bitch slapped them repeatedly. Alarmist CAGW claims and bogus climate models are international laughingstocks.

We covered this awhile ago with an Alarmist quote, that they essentially just chose Exxon for blind propaganda, because they wanted another trigger word for the vast hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes.

Alarmists are all about promoting false fantasies. They need a Boogie Man and just picked one. Honesty, decency, facts and reality mean nothing to the corrupt and dishonest Radical Leftist Alinskyites.


We covered this awhile ago with an Alarmist quote, that they essentially just chose Exxon for blind propaganda, because they wanted another trigger word for the vast hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes.


Do you include Exxon in the "hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes"?

https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx

There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.


How about Ken Cohen?

Ken Cohen is vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil Corporation. He has worldwide responsibility for the company’s public policy, government relations, communications, media relations and corporate citizenship activities.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/03/31/managing-climate-risk/

We know that climate change is real and the risks associated with it warrant action. Our corporation is taking action in numerous ways, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and engaging with policymakers on constructive public policy options.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
We covered this awhile ago with an Alarmist quote, that they essentially just chose Exxon for blind propaganda, because they wanted another trigger word for the vast hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes.

Do you include Exxon in the "hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes"?

https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx

There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.


How about Ken Cohen?

Ken Cohen is vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil Corporation. He has worldwide responsibility for the company’s public policy, government relations, communications, media relations and corporate citizenship activities.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/03/31/managing-climate-risk/

We know that climate change is real and the risks associated with it warrant action. Our corporation is taking action in numerous ways, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and engaging with policymakers on constructive public policy options.

So what's your beef with those statements from Exxon?

The first is a rough statement of the rational skeptical position. There is no attribution. Climate changed multiple times in the 20th century, not correlated to CO2.

The second statement is a PR statement. It does not support the exaggerated CAGW hysteria.

=====

Yet, the loonie left specifically targeted Exxon for the sole purpose of having a name it could use, to brainwash their ignorant, emotional, anti-science and mindless followers to stop thinking and to stop ranting like fools. Right out of the brainwashing tactics from the dishonesty tactics in Rules for Radicals.
Disgusting leftist Marxist-style attacks.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
So what's your beef with those statements from Exxon?

The first is a rough statement of the rational skeptical position. There is no attribution. Climate changed multiple times in the 20th century, not correlated to CO2.

The second statement is a PR statement. It does not support the exaggerated CAGW hysteria.

=====

Yet, the loonie left specifically targeted Exxon for the sole purpose of having a name it could use, to brainwash their ignorant, emotional, anti-science and mindless followers to stop thinking and to stop ranting like fools. Right out of the brainwashing tactics from the dishonesty tactics in Rules for Radicals.
Disgusting leftist Marxist-style attacks.

When you lose Exxon well, maybe you need to rethink your position eh?
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
When you lose Exxon well, maybe you need to rethink your position eh?

You are clueless.

You attack EXXON like a mindless monkey. Then try to misuse their comments.

Then, you display your total ignorance, showing you have no idea that Exxon's statement does not support the Alarmist extremism.

Funny stuff... No surprise you are so incredibly ignorant on the topic.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
You are clueless.

You attack EXXON like a mindless monkey. Then try to misuse their comments.

Then, you display your total ignorance, showing you have no idea that Exxon's statement does not support the Alarmist extremism.

Funny stuff... No surprise you are so incredibly ignorant on the topic.


You are the clueless one, defending a position that even Exxon has given up on....

Here is a chart from Exxons own research in 1981.....

Exxon_1981_graph-590x510.png
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
You are the clueless one, defending a position that even Exxon has given up on....

Here is a chart from Exxons own research in 1981.....

Exxon_1981_graph-590x510.png

Worthless speculation, that isn't science. It's fantasy.

That was opinion, based upon false assumptions and bogus modeling that has been shown to be false.

Models are NOT evidence in science.

We now know the extreme climate model projections were faulty. They were based upon falsely assigning natural El Niño transfer of solar energy to CO2. It was ridiculous anti-science nonsense.

Garbage In - Garbage Out!

Note that that chart doesn't include the Pause in Temps that has extended for 18 years, 9 months. The Pause was recognized by the UN IPCC and has been the focus of some 60 plus studies.

Real world data has shown that the incomplete, inadequate, fantasy based climate models are international laughingstocks.
 

jj410

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2014
3,137
423
1
Worthless speculation, that isn't science. It's fantasy.

That was opinion, based upon false assumptions and bogus modeling that has been shown to be false.

Models are NOT evidence in science.

We now know the extreme climate model projections were faulty. They were based upon falsely assigning natural El Niño transfer of solar energy to CO2. It was ridiculous anti-science nonsense.

Garbage In - Garbage Out!

Note that that chart doesn't include the Pause in Temps that has extended for 18 years, 9 months. The Pause was recognized by the UN IPCC and has been the focus of some 60 plus studies.

Real world data has shown that the incomplete, inadequate, fantasy based climate models are international laughingstocks.
Yeah models are worthless you have to wait until after disaster happens.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Yeah models are worthless you have to wait until after disaster happens.

Stupid comment.

The climate models have NEVER been validated. They are garbage.

Ignorant liberal propaganda perpetuates anti-science hysteria, while they abandon the scientific method.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
Worthless speculation, that isn't science. It's fantasy.

That was opinion, based upon false assumptions and bogus modeling that has been shown to be false.

Models are NOT evidence in science.

We now know the extreme climate model projections were faulty. They were based upon falsely assigning natural El Niño transfer of solar energy to CO2. It was ridiculous anti-science nonsense.

Garbage In - Garbage Out!

Note that that chart doesn't include the Pause in Temps that has extended for 18 years, 9 months. The Pause was recognized by the UN IPCC and has been the focus of some 60 plus studies.

Real world data has shown that the incomplete, inadequate, fantasy based climate models are international laughingstocks.

Wow, look how "off" their model was in 1981!

Comparing_Exxon_IPCC_NOAA-610x506.png
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Wow, look how "off" their model was in 1981!

Comparing_Exxon_IPCC_NOAA-610x506.png

LOL - Fantasy "projections" with false assumptions and ridiculously fudged NOAA nonsense.

Of course those lines don't represent the real world, which had multiple changes in temps in the 20th Century, via natural factors. The climate models have no predictive ability, as show via the 18 year 9 month pause, along with other real world data.

But notice that even NOAA's highly fudged and unsupportable fantasy line can't make up the huge gap with the bogus invalidated runaway models.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
LOL - Fantasy "projections" with false assumptions and ridiculously fudged NOAA nonsense.

Of course those lines don't represent the real world, which had multiple changes in temps in the 20th Century, via natural factors. The climate models have no predictive ability, as show via the 18 year 9 month pause, along with other real world data.

But notice that even NOAA's highly fudged and unsupportable fantasy line can't make up the huge gap with the bogus invalidated runaway models.


I take you don't agree with Exxons research then? Are they a member of the "climate cabal"?
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,194
1,269
1
We covered this awhile ago with an Alarmist quote, that they essentially just chose Exxon for blind propaganda, because they wanted another trigger word for the vast hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes.

Do you include Exxon in the "hordes of ignorant, emotion-driven liberal dupes"?

https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx

There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.7 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period - and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.


How about Ken Cohen?

Ken Cohen is vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil Corporation. He has worldwide responsibility for the company’s public policy, government relations, communications, media relations and corporate citizenship activities.

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2014/03/31/managing-climate-risk/

We know that climate change is real and the risks associated with it warrant action. Our corporation is taking action in numerous ways, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research into technology breakthroughs, and engaging with policymakers on constructive public policy options.
He also said this:

We know enough based on the research and science that the risk is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk. But given the essential role that energy plays in everyone’s lives, those steps need to be taken in context with other realities we face, including lifting much of the world’s population out of poverty.

If you drill down in the web page you linked to "Exxon's outlook for energy : a view for 2040" you find that exxon estimates that in 2040 wind and solar will only provide 12% of global electricity as compared to combined coal and gas at nearly 60%.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
He also said this:

We know enough based on the research and science that the risk is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk. But given the essential role that energy plays in everyone’s lives, those steps need to be taken in context with other realities we face, including lifting much of the world’s population out of poverty.

If you drill down in the web page you linked to "Exxon's outlook for energy : a view for 2040" you find that exxon estimates that in 2040 wind and solar will only provide 12% of global electricity as compared to combined coal and gas at nearly 60%.

Gee, what exactly do you expect them to say? We are going out business by 2040?
 

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,194
1,269
1
Gee, what exactly do you expect them to say? We are going out business by 2040?
You were using Exxon to support your position on climate change!! Even though Exxon paid lip service to the current dogma, their published reports from their research indicates that renewables (wind and solar) will only be a small player 25 years from now.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
You were using Exxon to support your position on climate change!! Even though Exxon paid lip service to the current dogma, their published reports from their research indicates that renewables (wind and solar) will only be a small player 25 years from now.

Even though Exxon paid lip service to the current dogma, their published reports from their research indicates that renewables (wind and solar) will only be a small player 25 years from now.

That is the opinion of Exxon who may be a little bit biased don't you think?

What do you the renewable energy companies would say? Do you think their opinion would be the same as Exxons? I bet they would not agree, wouldn't you?

I believe the big four fossil fuel companies in Germany claimed at one point that renewable in Germany could not provide more than 2% of their needs. They were way, way off. And now, this:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...tility-goodbye-fossil-fuels-hello-renewables/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...tility-goodbye-fossil-fuels-hello-renewables/

On Sunday, Germany’s biggest utility E.ON announced plans to split into two companies and focus on renewables in a major shift that could be an indicator of broader changes to come across the utility sector. E.ON will spin off its nuclear, oil, coal, and gas operations in an effort to confront a drastically altered energy market, especially under the pressure of Germany’s Energiewende — the country’s move away from nuclear to renewables. The company told shareholders that it will place “a particular emphasis on expanding its wind business in Europe and in other selected target markets,” and that it will also “strengthen its solar business.”​
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Yeah models are worthless you have to wait until after disaster happens.

Quote of the Week:

The basic problem with the IPCC’s extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research…

is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.
Harold Doiron, et al. TRCS research team​

=========

Un-Validated [Climate] Models:

The basic problem with the IPCC’s
[UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research, from which it draws its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 [carbon dioxide]and other GHG [greenhouse gases], is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.

Moreover, in our opinion, the results of computer model studies should only be published in scientific journals if they are accompanied by supportive empirical observations.

This conclusion is based on over a half-century of experience from many of our research team members, using models for critical decision-making in design and operation of spacecraft, where human safety was involved.


“Although computer models based on first principles are used extensively for design of commercial airplanes, bridges and buildings, engineers never base design decisions on output of un-validated computer models, and for good reasons supported by a grateful public.

For what possible reason would it be appropriate to base public policy decisions regarding climate, with potentially severe unintended consequences, on un-validated climate simulation models, as the IPCC advocates and as adopted by the IWG
[US Interagency Working Group] for SCC {Social Cost of Carbon] calculation?” (p.22)

“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant global warming caused by human activity, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” (p.11)

The above statements by part of the team that proved they could successfully model human landings on the moon, without any texts or similar guidance, illustrates what SEPP believes to be the most glaring deficiency (pink flamingo) in climate science as supported by the IPCC and many governments, including the US – the failure to validate a climate model.

Using government documents, mainly from the General Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the White House, SEPP estimates that the US government has spent at least $40 Billion on what it classifies to be Climate Science, since 1993. These sums do not include the more than $100 billion in expenditures, both actual outlays and tax expenditures (tax exemptions and credits for selected purposes) for the research and deployment of forms of energy creation in the name of combating global warming/climate change, mainly solar and wind generated electricity.

According to “Our Changing Planet” by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, the FY 2014 self-reported – not independently analyzed – enacted budget of the USGCRP was $2,503,000,000 and the FY 2015 requested budget was $2,512,000,000 (p. 32). The report was sent to Congress in October 2014, signed by John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The fiscal year (FY) ended on September 30, 2015, but SEPP was unable to find an update.

Interestingly, the reports identifies Thomas Karl as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, Mr. Karl has earned dubious fame as leading the effort to re-calculate historic records of sea surface temperatures in a manner many find unfitting, and, recently, refusing to respond to a subpoena by the relevant committee in Congress, the House Science and Technology Committee, to explain the basis for these re-calculations.

But, the main point is the failure of the USGCRP, or any government entity, to validate any global climate model, or express interest to do so. Yet, the forecasts (projections, predictions or other) are a fundamental reason for the Administration’s power plan, which is opposed to fossil fuels and other forms of reliable electricity. These non-validated models are the justification for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) scheduled between November 30 and December 11. Without a valid model able to predict dire consequences from human use of fossil fuels, COP-21 can be considered un-validated.

Given the deficiencies in their science, the motto of the USGCRP “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science” is inappropriate, perhaps changed to Limit the Nation to our Vision?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
Quote of the Week:

The basic problem with the IPCC’s extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research…

is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.
Harold Doiron, et al. TRCS research team​
=========

Un-Validated [Climate] Models:

The basic problem with the IPCC’s
[UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] extensive analysis of peer-reviewed, published research, from which it draws its conclusions regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 [carbon dioxide]and other GHG [greenhouse gases], is that it makes the critical mistake of giving any credence whatsoever to projections of future climate changes, and attribution of those changes, from output of un-validated climate simulation models.

Moreover, in our opinion, the results of computer model studies should only be published in scientific journals if they are accompanied by supportive empirical observations.

This conclusion is based on over a half-century of experience from many of our research team members, using models for critical decision-making in design and operation of spacecraft, where human safety was involved.


“Although computer models based on first principles are used extensively for design of commercial airplanes, bridges and buildings, engineers never base design decisions on output of un-validated computer models, and for good reasons supported by a grateful public.

For what possible reason would it be appropriate to base public policy decisions regarding climate, with potentially severe unintended consequences, on un-validated climate simulation models, as the IPCC advocates and as adopted by the IWG
[US Interagency Working Group] for SCC {Social Cost of Carbon] calculation?” (p.22)

“The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant global warming caused by human activity, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” (p.11)

The above statements by part of the team that proved they could successfully model human landings on the moon, without any texts or similar guidance, illustrates what SEPP believes to be the most glaring deficiency (pink flamingo) in climate science as supported by the IPCC and many governments, including the US – the failure to validate a climate model.

Using government documents, mainly from the General Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the White House, SEPP estimates that the US government has spent at least $40 Billion on what it classifies to be Climate Science, since 1993. These sums do not include the more than $100 billion in expenditures, both actual outlays and tax expenditures (tax exemptions and credits for selected purposes) for the research and deployment of forms of energy creation in the name of combating global warming/climate change, mainly solar and wind generated electricity.

According to “Our Changing Planet” by the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, the FY 2014 self-reported – not independently analyzed – enacted budget of the USGCRP was $2,503,000,000 and the FY 2015 requested budget was $2,512,000,000 (p. 32). The report was sent to Congress in October 2014, signed by John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The fiscal year (FY) ended on September 30, 2015, but SEPP was unable to find an update.

Interestingly, the reports identifies Thomas Karl as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, Mr. Karl has earned dubious fame as leading the effort to re-calculate historic records of sea surface temperatures in a manner many find unfitting, and, recently, refusing to respond to a subpoena by the relevant committee in Congress, the House Science and Technology Committee, to explain the basis for these re-calculations.

But, the main point is the failure of the USGCRP, or any government entity, to validate any global climate model, or express interest to do so. Yet, the forecasts (projections, predictions or other) are a fundamental reason for the Administration’s power plan, which is opposed to fossil fuels and other forms of reliable electricity. These non-validated models are the justification for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) scheduled between November 30 and December 11. Without a valid model able to predict dire consequences from human use of fossil fuels, COP-21 can be considered un-validated.

Given the deficiencies in their science, the motto of the USGCRP “Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science” is inappropriate, perhaps changed to Limit the Nation to our Vision?
The post was about the research on climate change being done by Exxon. Why are babbling about climate models?

Did you ever notice how any chain of your responses to any post about climate change always ends up about how wrong you think climate models are? Have you also noticed that you know absolutely nothing about climate models?
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
The post was about the research on climate change being done by Exxon. Why are babbling about climate models?

Did you ever notice how any chain of your responses to any post about climate change always ends up about how wrong you think climate models are? Have you also noticed that you know absolutely nothing about climate models?


You idiot. You are the one who posted the bogus graph that included the Climate Model projections.

You are clueless rumble. You don't even know what you've posted.

It's funny watching you stumble and bumble rumble.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
You idiot. You are the one who posted the bogus graph that included the Climate Model projections.

You are clueless rumble. You don't even know what you've posted.

It's funny watching you stumble and bumble rumble.


Wow, you sound pretty upset.

Still angry about the keystone pipeline cancellation?
 

tgar

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2001
19,123
19,117
1
Thanks Exxon, TJ getting schooled. Everybody knew there was research like this out there somewhere. I am a little surprised it goes back as far as it does, I am not surprised by the strategy they used once they discovered what the science told them.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Thanks Exxon, TJ getting schooled. Everybody knew there was research like this out there somewhere. I am a little surprised it goes back as far as it does, I am not surprised by the strategy they used once they discovered what the science told them.

BAHAHA.... You can't be serious.

The climate models today are not validated and don't represent the real world even today.

tgar - You still don't understand that unsubstantiated opinions aren't evidence.

Funny stuff. ;)
 

tgar

Well-Known Member
Nov 14, 2001
19,123
19,117
1
BAHAHA.... You can't be serious.

The climate models today are not validated and don't represent the real world even today.

tgar - You still don't understand that unsubstantiated opinions aren't evidence.

Funny stuff. ;)

Whatever Don Quixote , whatever.
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Whatever Don Quixote , whatever.

As usual, more illogical attacks and Anti-science ignorance from the Alarmists.

tgar, typical of Alarmist hysteria, runs from the science and blabbers "Nyah, Nyah-like childishness."



 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
OKay then.

Seriously tgar. More than happy to have you provide facts and information to support whatever position you've been led to believe.

The catty attacks aren't your style, are they? Look forward to posts on the issues, if you have input.

At this point, the climate models are still not validated and their fantasy fabrication factors don't represent how the real world works.

The Alarmists' fantasy fudging of data isn't supported by the science.

Even the fudged data doesn't mask the fact that the false and inadequate assumptions in the runaway climate models, leave them streaking way off into fantasyland, way above reality.

Even the UN IPCC has had to continue to drop their exaggerated, runaway extremist claims, because they've become an international laughingstock.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
Seriously tgar. More than happy to have you provide facts and information to support whatever position you've been led to believe.

The catty attacks aren't your style, are they? Look forward to posts on the issues, if you have input.

At this point, the climate models are still not validated and their fantasy fabrication factors don't represent how the real world works.

The Alarmists' fantasy fudging of data isn't supported by the science.

Even the fudged data doesn't mask the fact that the false and inadequate assumptions in the runaway climate models, leave them streaking way off into fantasyland, way above reality.

Even the UN IPCC has had to continue to drop their exaggerated, runaway extremist claims, because they've become an international laughingstock.

More on TJ's hero, Exxon.

 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
More on TJ's hero, Exxon.


Shaking head... A left-wing, anti-science propaganda, political smear campaign, attack against world experts.

Gee - what else is new?

=====

The interesting part is that the should be investigating the Climate Cabal, for justification of their fudging the public databases.

This looks like a political counter ploy to muddy the water. They want to take the focus off of the Climate Cabal's Data Fudging.

Those who have been fudging the numbers are Alarmists, who refused to turn over the info needed by investigators.

Where's Frontline's investigation of the anti-science hysteria claims, that aren't backed by the science?
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
Well it sounds like you have the radical left wing media and left wing NY Poiticians having an axe to grind against "big bad oil". Nothing but BS.

Looks a judge or jury will make that decision. I'm sure Exxon was truthful all these years just like the tobacco campaniles were about the cancer risks from smoking.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,087
22,238
1
Looks a judge or jury will make that decision. I'm sure Exxon was truthful all these years just like the tobacco campaniles were about the cancer risks from smoking.
I certainly wouldn't trust liberal judge to make a fair and impartial decision. Even though cigarette packages are labeled, I still see a lot of people smoking, especially many young people. When do people need to take responsibility for thier actions?
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,300
19,615
1
DFW, TX
Well it sounds like you have the radical left wing media and left wing NY Poiticians having an axe to grind against "big bad oil". Nothing but BS.

What seems to be lost in this thread is that the state of NY, in an effort to close their budget gap, has decided to randomly shake down large corporations and banks.

That's how they paid for the Tappan Zee bridge project and the methods started by spitzer are just going to expand until the state is a shell of what it once was.

It is a sad state of this country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T J

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
Looks a judge or jury will make that decision. I'm sure Exxon was truthful all these years just like the tobacco campaniles were about the cancer risks from smoking.

Corrupt Alarmists and Climate Cabal have not been truthful.

We have seen Alarmists who refused to comply with investigations, in cover-up fashion.

Where is the outrage from rumble and the Frontline investigative report of the Alarmists' hysteria claims?
 
Last edited:

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
What seems to be lost in this thread is that the state of NY, in an effort to close their budget gap, has decided to randomly shake down large corporations and banks.

That's how they paid for the Tappan Zee bridge project and the methods started by spitzer are just going to expand until the state is a shell of what it once was.

It is a sad state of this country.

What seems to be lost in this thread is that the state of NY, in an effort to close their budget gap, has decided to randomly shake down large corporations and banks.

That's how they paid for the Tappan Zee bridge project and the methods started by spitzer are just going to expand until the state is a shell of what it once was.


If you leave a crumbling bridge in service wouldn't that cause NY to be "shell of what it once was"?

The bridge will cost $3.9 billion, has received $1.6 billion in federal money.

That's a great deal for the NY economy, they raise 2.3 billion to spend on the bridge and federal government chips in 1.6 billion. That's a pretty good return on money spent don't you think? Plus they get to replace a dangerous bridge with a brand new one.

 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,151
5,280
1
I certainly wouldn't trust liberal judge to make a fair and impartial decision. Even though cigarette packages are labeled, I still see a lot of people smoking, especially many young people. When do people need to take responsibility for thier actions?

I certainly wouldn't trust liberal judge to make a fair and impartial decision.

Do you think the liberal judges made the wrong decision in the tobacco case?

Even though cigarette packages are labeled, I still see a lot of people smoking, especially many young people.

Smoking in the US is way down.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report Thursday showing that smoking among Americans again has reached an all-time low, with just 16.9 percent of the population counting as smokers.

The figure, which is the rate for 2014, marks a significant decline since 2005, when 20.9 percent of adults smoked. Progress has been even more remarkable since a landmark surgeon general report about the dangers of tobacco. In 1965, 42.4 percent of Americans smoked, according to the CDC

Cigarette smoking rates among high school students have dropped to the lowest levels since the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) began in 1991, according to the 2013 results released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

By achieving a teen smoking rate of 15.7 percent, the United States has met its national Healthy People 2020 objective of reducing adolescent cigarette use to 16 percent or less.

When do people need to take responsibility for thier actions?


Why do we allow companies to sell a highly addictive product that cause cancer?

When do these corporations take responsibility for the their actions?
 

T J

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
98,099
7,907
1
I certainly wouldn't trust liberal judge to make a fair and impartial decision.

When do people need to take responsibility for their actions?

Why do we allow companies to sell a highly addictive product that cause cancer?

When do these corporations take responsibility for the their actions?


When will the Democrat Party pay Trillions in reparations for inflicting Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, Opposing anti-lynching Laws, Supporting Rigged Courts, Poll Taxes and supporting the Right of Ownership over others while inflicting Rapes, Tortures and Death on innocent individuals?

When does the Democrat Party take responsibility for their actions?​
 
Last edited: