ExxonMobil’s deliberate attempts to sow doubt on the reality and urgency of climate change and their donations to front groups to disseminate false information about climate change have been public knowledge for a long time, now.
Investigativereports in 2015 revealed that Exxon had its own scientists doing its own climate modeling as far back as the 1970s: science and modeling that was not only accurate, but that was being used to plan for the company’s future.
Now, a peer-reviewed study published August 23 has confirmed that what Exxon was saying internally about climate change was quantitatively very different from their public statements.
Specifically, researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found that at least 80 percent of the internal documents and peer-reviewed publications they studied from between 1977 and 2014 were consistent with the state of the science – acknowledging that climate change is real and caused by humans, and identifying “reasonable uncertainties” that any climate scientist would agree with at the time.
Yet over 80 percent of Exxon’s editorial-style paid advertisements over the same period specifically focused on uncertainty and doubt, the study found.
The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon?
I have a unique perspective – because I was there. (...)
Ricky Bobby Perry is the definition of "empty suit." I see that he's still trying to raise his IQ with those "I am serious and intelligent" glasses.
If Rick Perry was correct that people are contributing to climate change but only a small part of the contribution, the conclusion is that we have to alter our behavior sooner and more radically. Maybe cutting our emissions in half would be enough if we are the major cause, but if we are only a minor contributor (we are a major contributor, but for the sake of discussion), then we have to make proportionally greater change to have the same effect.
TL;DR: get your thumb out of your butt and cut emissions
The thing that is missing in the response to climate change deniers is asking for their evidence. The science community tends to focus on laying out all our reasons people are changing the climate and respond with more studies and more data when challenged.
But the real response should be, "Ok Scott Exxon, explain the science behind your belief. Do you agree that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? Does that CO2 end up in the atmosphere? Show evidence that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas that causes the atmosphere to trap more heat from solar radiation? What other mechanism do you have that explains our climate trends and calculate the magnitude of the effect (be sure to show your work)? How do you propose we can adapt to survive under conditions of periods in the earth history when temperatures were much warmer? If we mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, how much would that help provide additional time to adapt to any changes due to your mystery process?"
Bottom line, The monkey is on your back. If you disagree with climate change science, it is time to buck up and show where you can demonstrate it is wrong. Saying you don't believe it is worth SFA.
The shitgibbon doesn't require evidence to support his outrageous claims; why should climate change deniers?