8 ms·

Godalmighty, Exxon Knew Everything

52 points by kitkat_new 4y ago

mc32 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Izkata 4y ago
Makes a lot of claims but doesn't link to any of what he's referencing.
- erulabs 4y ago
  The lack of references combined with the “I was arrested for pointless virtue signaling protest” lead in doesn't make for the effective argument the author thinks it does.
- mturmon 4y ago
  It's the release of a much-awaited study in Science today: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 The authors have been doing work in this direction for several years. Since McKibben's substack is written for "insiders", I guess he assumed people would know where to look.
- kevstev 4y ago
  The "famous", at least in some circles, paper on climate change created in 1977. It has predicted our current actual temperature increases along with carbon emissions with startling accuracy: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/James-Black-1977-Presentation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiew-Lrv8P8AhUvRDABHeErCC4QFnoECF4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1DitOw-vEbNf9WZM0MAEjD https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... It's worth a read.
GalenErso 4y ago
In China, the authorities would immediately send the police to arrest the entire corporate suite. They have even executed corrupt CEOs, for example in the tainted milk scandal. In the United States, nothing will happen. No law was broken, you would say. Still. There should be consequences. There should have been consequences. In China, prosecutors would chalk it up to general charges of "corruption" or "public dishonesty" or whatever.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mc32 4y ago
  They also would not allow people like Jane Fonda to drive public opinion on critical infrastructure policy like Nuclear Power.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Ah yes, former energy secretary Jane Fonda. How could we forget.
- yreg 4y ago
  > There should be consequences. The public institutions should not punish or execute people who did not break a law.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Are we sure they did not? Let's examine their past Congressional testimony and see if it was honest or perjurious.
    - yreg 4y ago
      No, I’m not sure they did not. I disagree with the parent poster who praises a dictator regime for being able to dispose of people at will.
willis936 4y ago
Obligatory relevant Climate Town telling of history (with citations). https://youtu.be/MondapIjAAM https://youtu.be/MondapIjAAM
metadat 4y ago
Discussed previously today: Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 70s & 80s https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358759 (111 comments)
teawrecks 4y ago
Can't believe they don't have any sources. Here's the recent paper the article is referring to: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
uejfiweun 4y ago
So, now we know, Exxon has the best crack team of climate scientists. My question is, what are they predicting for the 2020s-2100s period (my lifetime)? If they're really so accurate then we could assume their future predictions are reasonably accurate as well.
willbudd 4y ago
Perhaps this is just my ignorance showing, but wasn't the data that Exxon based its own modelling on more or less publicly available? It can't have been a secret how many barrels were being pulled out of the ground each year? What am I missing? Far from wanting to defend Exxon, but regardless whether or not they knew; if the narrative is that the "world outside Exxon" didn't know, doesn't that in itself amount to wilful ignorance or negligence at best? What data did they have that the rest of the academic/political world couldn't add up on its own without corporate cooperation?
fwungy 4y ago
Great. Dissolve Exxon.. What about the state oil companies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and others that produce the other 95% of the oil? Climate Change is not a problem that can be unilaterally solved by the West. Saudi Arabia isnt going to agree to be a poor desert backwater again to protect beachfront property in Malibu. Climate Change is a massively intractable problem. The fact that the West's favored solutions are Hail Mary bets on radically increased performance of batteries and renewable energy sources that are unlikely to be achieved at best, is highly disconcerting. We've had a good 25 years to ramp up next gen nuclear, which can work at volume and much more safely, but it's been frittered away on the hope that renewables can function as baseload.

52 points by kitkat_new 4y ago

mc32 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Izkata 4y ago

Makes a lot of claims but doesn't link to any of what he's referencing.

erulabs 4y ago
The lack of references combined with the “I was arrested for pointless virtue signaling protest” lead in doesn't make for the effective argument the author thinks it does.
mturmon 4y ago
It's the release of a much-awaited study in Science today: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 The authors have been doing work in this direction for several years. Since McKibben's substack is written for "insiders", I guess he assumed people would know where to look.
kevstev 4y ago
The "famous", at least in some circles, paper on climate change created in 1977. It has predicted our current actual temperature increases along with carbon emissions with startling accuracy: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/James-Black-1977-Presentation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiew-Lrv8P8AhUvRDABHeErCC4QFnoECF4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1DitOw-vEbNf9WZM0MAEjD https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... It's worth a read.

GalenErso 4y ago

In China, the authorities would immediately send the police to arrest the entire corporate suite. They have even executed corrupt CEOs, for example in the tainted milk scandal. In the United States, nothing will happen. No law was broken, you would say. Still. There should be consequences. There should have been consequences. In China, prosecutors would chalk it up to general charges of "corruption" or "public dishonesty" or whatever.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mc32 4y ago
They also would not allow people like Jane Fonda to drive public opinion on critical infrastructure policy like Nuclear Power.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Ah yes, former energy secretary Jane Fonda. How could we forget.
yreg 4y ago
> There should be consequences. The public institutions should not punish or execute people who did not break a law.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Are we sure they did not? Let's examine their past Congressional testimony and see if it was honest or perjurious.
  - yreg 4y ago
    No, I’m not sure they did not. I disagree with the parent poster who praises a dictator regime for being able to dispose of people at will.

willis936 4y ago

Obligatory relevant Climate Town telling of history (with citations). https://youtu.be/MondapIjAAM https://youtu.be/MondapIjAAM

metadat 4y ago

Discussed previously today: Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate predictions in 70s & 80s https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358759 (111 comments)

teawrecks 4y ago

Can't believe they don't have any sources. Here's the recent paper the article is referring to: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

uejfiweun 4y ago

So, now we know, Exxon has the best crack team of climate scientists. My question is, what are they predicting for the 2020s-2100s period (my lifetime)? If they're really so accurate then we could assume their future predictions are reasonably accurate as well.

willbudd 4y ago

Perhaps this is just my ignorance showing, but wasn't the data that Exxon based its own modelling on more or less publicly available? It can't have been a secret how many barrels were being pulled out of the ground each year? What am I missing? Far from wanting to defend Exxon, but regardless whether or not they knew; if the narrative is that the "world outside Exxon" didn't know, doesn't that in itself amount to wilful ignorance or negligence at best? What data did they have that the rest of the academic/political world couldn't add up on its own without corporate cooperation?

fwungy 4y ago

Great. Dissolve Exxon.. What about the state oil companies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, and others that produce the other 95% of the oil? Climate Change is not a problem that can be unilaterally solved by the West. Saudi Arabia isnt going to agree to be a poor desert backwater again to protect beachfront property in Malibu. Climate Change is a massively intractable problem. The fact that the West's favored solutions are Hail Mary bets on radically increased performance of batteries and renewable energy sources that are unlikely to be achieved at best, is highly disconcerting. We've had a good 25 years to ramp up next gen nuclear, which can work at volume and much more safely, but it's been frittered away on the hope that renewables can function as baseload.