Oil companies knowledge of climate change

[ursaminortaur]

It seems that oil companies were well aware of the dangers of global warming whilst publicly denying its existence


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 94636.html

In The Greenhouse Effect, a 1988 internal report by Shell scientists, the authors warned that “by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the situation”.
.
.
.
Similar documents have previously emerged concerning ExxonMobil’s knowledge of climate change.
In both cases, critics pointed out that the documents contrasted sharply with the public stand the companies took on climate change throughout the 1990s.

[XFool]

You trying to start a 'controversy' on the science thread, ursaminortaur?

[vrdiver]

It's a classic case of "who pays for the science dictates the outcome".

Big Tobacco spent millions on "disproving" health links to tobacco, oil will have happily buried inconvenient research, automotive gamed emissions tests, fishermen declare an abundance of stocks; all backed up by scientific research of course.

Just like everything else, you have to ask where the interests of the author/publisher/company lie, and whether others with different self-interest also agree? In the end, science is neither pure nor unbiased: understanding that is key to understanding almost anything published these days.

VRD

[Sorcery]

[quote="ursaminortaur"]It seems that oil companies were well aware of the dangers of global warming whilst publicly denying its existence

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 94636.html
/quote]

Some Californian cities are suing oil companies: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1FC2RR
What are Californian cities going to do if the suppliers withhold supply?
Die, starve?
It seems utterly futile to sue an oil company for supplying something you really, really need for your survival.

To the OP, the potential for a greenhouse effect has been recognised for some time, since Arrhenius I think : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

The questions are about the impact of a doubling of C02, (IPCC estimates are for 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, a very inexact estimate), the certainty, the potential for beneficial effects on the biosphere (such as the greening of the Sahel), unknown feedbacks etc
A fascinating subject, that involves every science known to man and where there is only one real-life experiment.

[tjh290633]

The IPPC only has one objective, to adjust records to suit its own agenda. Even so the effects of CO2 levels have been comprehensively shown to diverge from their theories.

Environmental theorists like to ignore practical measurements which do not fit their theory.

TJH

[XFool]

The IPPC only has one objective, to adjust records to suit its own agenda. Even so the effects of CO2 levels have been comprehensively shown to diverge from their theories.

'ere we go!