The #ExxonKnew Lie Spreads to Motor Metropolis

The #ExxonKnew Lie Spreads to Motor City

Guest "No schist Sherlock" by David Middleton

Exclusive: GM, Ford knew about climate change 50 years ago
Maxine Joselow, E&E News Reporter Published: Monday 26 October 2020


E&E News received hundreds of pages of documents covering GM's corporate history from the General Motors Heritage Center and Wayne State University in Detroit. Ford's climate research documents were unearthed by the Center for International Environmental Law. The Climate Investigations Center made additional material available to both manufacturers.

The research reveals striking parallels between two of the country's largest automakers and Exxon Mobil Corp., one of the world's largest publicly traded oil and gas companies. Exxon knew about climate change privately in the late 1970s, but publicly denied scientific consensus for decades. This is based on reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times in 2015, which spawned the hashtag #ExxonKnew and sparked a wave of climate disputes against the oil major.


E&E News

The E&E journalist got a BA in English in 2016 … She probably didn't take much science courses, and certainly not in the 1970s.

Note to Mrs. Joselow: Everyone “knew about climate change 50 years ago” …


About the influence of changes in the CO2 concentration in the air on the radiation balance of the earth's surface and on the climate

F. Möller

The numerical value calculated by Plass of a change in temperature under the influence of a change in CO2 only applies to a dry atmosphere. An overlap of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range of 15 μ reduces the temperature changes significantly. New calculations result in ΔT = + 1.5 ° if the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness reduces the radiation effects, but not the temperature changes, since when the sky is cloudy, larger temperature changes are required to compensate for a uniform change in the downward longwave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with increasing temperature causes a self-reinforcing effect that leads to almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = + 10 ° in the above-mentioned case. It turns out, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a change in temperature. The effect of increasing CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be fully compensated for by changing the water vapor content by 3 percent or by changing the turbidity by 1 percent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at everything. Therefore, the theory that climatic fluctuations are caused by fluctuations in CO2 levels becomes very questionable.


In this case we have to differentiate between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged despite the warming (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases). Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases by 1 ° from 75 to 70.34 percent or by 4.66 percent per degree. According to the above calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm results in a temperature change ΔT = + 1.5 ° for Δf = -4.66 percent per degree and a temperature change ΔT = + 9.6 ° for Δf = 0.


We see that for Δf = 0.8 percent per degree, the temperature change becomes infinite. Very small deviations cause a sign reversal or large gains.

It is not too difficult to conclude from these figures that if the turbidity is increased by +0.006 or the water vapor content is decreased by -0.07 cm, the change in the radiation budget due to a changed CO2 concentration can be completely offset without changing the surface temperature le


These are fluctuations in the turbidity by 1 percent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 percent of its value. No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean turbidity or the mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy. much less can a change of this magnitude be proven or its existence denied. Based on these values, the entire theory of climate change caused by CO2 Variations become questionable.

Möller, F. (1963), On the Influence of Changes in the CO2 Concentration in the Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth's Surface and on the Climate. J. Geophys. Res., 68 (13), 3877-3886, doi: 10.1029 / JZ068i013p03877.


The covering effect of the atmosphere on the earth's surface was compared to the way a greenhouse works. Short-wave sunlight falls just as easily through the glass of the greenhouse as it does through the atmosphere. Since glass is opaque to long-wave radiation from the warm interior of the greenhouse, it hinders the escape of energy.

As a planet, the earth does not heat up or cool down significantly on average because it loses as much radiant energy as it gains.

Kolenkow, Robert J., Reid A. Bryson, Douglas B. Carter, R. Keith Julian, Robert A. Müller, Theodore M. Oberlander, Robert P. Sharp, and M. Gordon Wolman. Physical geography today: a portrait of a planet. Del Mar, California: CRM Books, (1974). p. 64.


FORECAST OF THE FUTURE. We can now try to decide whether we are now in an interglacial stage and more glaciers will follow, or whether the world has finally emerged from the Kenozoic Ice Age. According to Milankovitch's theory, fluctuations in radiation of the type shown in Fig. 16-18 must persist, and therefore future glacial stages will continue. According to the theory just described, polar latitudes are cold as long as the north and south poles maintain their current thermally isolated locations. and as the Arctic Ocean continually oscillates between ice-free and ice-covered states, the glacial-interglacial climate will continue.

Whichever theory you agree with, we can expect the fluctuations of the past to materialize as long as we don't see a fundamental change in the late Cenozoic climate trend and the presence of ice on Greenland and Antarctica indicates that no change has happened for millions of years go on.

Donn, William L. Meteorology. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill 1975. pp. 463-464


Science News, March 1, 1975


The suggestion that changing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be a major contributor to climate change dates back to 1861 when it was proposed by British physicist John Tyndall.


Unfortunately, we cannot accurately estimate changes in past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or oceans, nor is there a firm quantitative basis for estimating the amount of drop in carbon dioxide required to trigger icing. In addition, the entire concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect is controversial as the speed of equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere is uncertain.

Dott, Robert H., and Roger L. Batten. Evolution of the earth. McGraw-Hill, Inc. Second Edition 1976. p. 441.

Do you already have the picture?

Everyone (scientist) knew that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas". Everyone (scientist) knew that increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration while other factors remained the same would cause the mass atmosphere to become a little warmer than usual. Everyone (scientist) knew that the earth does not allow all other factors to be the same. Nobody knew how sensitive the earth's climate was to atmospheric CO2. Nobody knows until today. Every living being should know that the benefits of fossil fuels for the world's well-being have far outweighed the damage that ~ 1-2 ° C warming could have caused … Especially since this warming began at the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest climatic phase of the Holocene . There is more evidence that overall warming and CO2 fertilization were extremely beneficial than harmful.

Let that take effect

This graphic appears as Figure 3 in almost every bogus climate suit filed against oil companies in recent years:

What #ExxonKnew in 1977.

Here is the same diagram with HadCRUT4 NH:

#ExxonKnew that the models were wrong.

HadCRUT4 tracks the lower edge of the uncertainty range (just like modern climate models) and barely exceeds the "approximate range of the undisturbed climate in recent centuries".

Process this now

According to IPCC AR4, all of the warming since around 1975 can only be explained by anthropogenic forcing. Natural forcing alone (as the IPCC understands it) would have resulted in the climate now being cooler than when "the Ice Age comes" …

The climatariat tells us that temperature observations have followed the black curve and that the blue curve is exactly what temperatures would have done had we just agreed to freeze in the dark in the interests of the polar bears. Changed according to IPCC AR4

How could I finish a post on Detroit Motor City without a song by the great Motor City Madman?

Like this:

To like Loading…