For those who prefer to read... links below. Exxon emphasized uncertainty when they knew it was not that. They basically lied for years. The same uncertainty climate principle lives on today to mislead the public. Study: Exxon Mobil accurately predicted warming since 1970s https://apnews.com/article/science-...-environment-e9594dc9adb504a81ec82f4ac2b72ef9 Exxon Mobil’s scientists were remarkably accurate in their predictions about global warming, even as the company made public statements that contradicted its own scientists’ conclusions, a new study says. The study in the journal Science Thursday looked at research that Exxon funded that didn’t just confirm what climate scientists were saying, but used more than a dozen different computer models that forecast the coming warming with precision equal to or better than government and academic scientists. This was during the same time that the oil giant publicly doubted that warming was real and dismissed climate models’ accuracy. Exxon said its understanding of climate change evolved over the years and that critics are misunderstanding its earlier research. Scientists, governments, activists and news sites, including Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, several years ago reported that “Exxon knew” about the science of climate change since about 1977 all while publicly casting doubt. What the new study does is detail how accurate Exxon funded research was. From 63% to 83% of those projections fit strict standards for accuracy and generally predicted correctly that the globe would warm about .36 degrees (.2 degrees Celsius) a decade. The Exxon-funded science was “actually astonishing” in its precision and accuracy, said study co-author Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard science history professor. But she added so was the “hypocrisy because so much of the Exxon Mobil disinformation for so many years ... was the claim that climate models weren’t reliable.” Study lead author Geoffrey Supran, who started the work at Harvard and now is a environmental science professor at the University of Miami, said this is different than what was previously found in documents about the oil company. “We’ve dug into not just to the language, the rhetoric in these documents, but also the data. And I’d say in that sense, our analysis really seals the deal on ‘Exxon knew’,” Supran said. It “gives us airtight evidence that Exxon Mobil accurately predicted global warming years before, then turned around and attacked the science underlying it.” The paper quoted then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond in 1999 as saying future climate “projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or more often, sheer speculation,” while his successor in 2013 called models “not competent.” Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 What ExxonMobil knew versus what they said Our findings about the company’s early understanding of climate science contradict many of the claims that the company and its allies have made in public. Emphasizing uncertainties It has been established that, for many years, Exxon’s public affairs strategy was—as a 1988 internal memo put it—to “emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced greenhouse effect” (10, 44, 50). However, our analysis shows that in their reports and briefings to management, ExxonMobil’s own scientists did not particularly emphasize uncertainty; on the contrary, the level of uncertainty indicated by their global warming projections (bootstrapped 2σ standard error of the mean = ±21%) was commensurate with that reported by independent academics (±16%). Crucially, it excluded the possibility of no anthropogenic global warming; at no point did company scientists suggest that human-caused global warming would not occur. Nor did they conclude that the uncertainties were too great to permit differentiation of human and natural drivers. Yet publicly, ExxonMobil Corp made these claims until at least the early 2010s (see Box 2).
There's been a growth industry for about a decade that repurposes plastics (that don't get recycled otherwise) to make clothing: everything from jeans (Levi's is involved) to jackets. She's from Houston, btw, and a seamstress and fashion designer. I think your virtues just got signaled a lot more than her's.
More power to you if you want to wear a cape made of plastic bottles. To each his own. Surely that is saving the planet.
Mike Hulme has a new book coming out this spring on "climatism," i.e. climate rhetoric/climate ideology https://www.politybooks.com/bookdetail?book_slug=climate-change-isnt-everything--9781509556151 Climate Change isn't Everything: Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism Mike Hulme The changing climate poses serious dangers to human and non-human life alike, though perhaps the most urgent danger is one we hear very little about: the rise of climatism. Any and all social, political and ecological phenomena facing the world today – from the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the management of wildfires – quickly become climatized, explained with reference to ‘a change in the climate’. With complex political and ethical challenges so narrowly framed, arresting climate change becomes the supreme political challenge of our time and everything else becomes subservient to this one goal. In this far-sighted analysis, Mike Hulme reveals how climatism has taken hold in recent years, becoming so pervasive and embedded in public life that it is increasingly hard to identify without being written off as a climate denier. He confronts this dangerously myopic view that reduces the condition of the world to the fate of global temperature or the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to the detriment of paying serious attention to issues as varied as poverty, liberty, biodiversity loss, inequality, and diplomacy. We must not live as though climate alone determines our present and our future.
It is not surprising that "climate change" protesters have high ideological overlap with: - communists open to violence - extremist Palestinians who want to wipe Israel off the map - anti-American ideologues
I still can't believe there are so many dumbasses who believe climate change is a hoax. Why is it mainly Republicans who are so adamant about doing anything that actually helps people or the environment? What a bunch of self-serving selfish and ignorant bunch they are. If it doesn't put money into their own pockets, they call it fake news or woke thinking. SMH
MISS UNIVERSE NEW OWNER ACCUSED OF RIGGING ...Pageant for Miss USA https://amp.tmz.com/2023/01/15/miss-universe-new-owner-accused-rigging-pageant-miss-usa/
And? Your side ain’t too pretty either… A conservative candidate just got caught ordering men to fire guns at democrat candidates…. After losing his election. Would you be surprised he was an election denied?
Greta Thunberg should go to China and accuse the government there, the same way she hated on Trump and the German government. Also, Luisa Neubauer ("German Greta Thunberg") is super rich, her family's fortune is that of the Reemtsma family, they made a ton of money by giving people cancer with cigarettes. The hubris of these kids is quite remarkable.
So someone born super rich doesn't have a massive drive to maximize return on investment and doesn't have toxic "investor bro" genes in her. Good for her. You should care about something sincerely rather than from a standpoint of trying to rustle jimmies of people you don't like. It's very beta and very herd like mentality.
Opinion: I bought an induction stove. Then the power went out. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/18/gas-stove-induction-climate-change/
