Crime Trillions Spent on ‘Climate Change’ Based on Faulty Temperature Data, Climate Experts Say

[Voodoo_Child906]

Who would prefer global cooling? lol...

Have the slightest idea what would happen if winters got longer and worse? With shorter growing seasons in smaller farmable regions?

Exxon would, then they'd be able to extract every ounce of fossil fuels from their reserves. All the executives and board members could move wherever they wanted so they wouldn't care about winter.

 

[N13]

they dont understand the reason co2 is up is deforestation

And pollution in the waters.

 

[chardog]

They certainly would have preferred global cooling, but they had to reject it because their own scientists models predicted warming. And yes, greening will have a negative net effect on total CO2, but of course it's never quite that simple with a control system as large as the earths climate. With greening, the water cycle will change and water vapor will increase (a much more potent greenhouse gas) in some regions while other areas will become uninhabitable dessert. The interaction between cloud formation, ice dynamics, ocean currents, carbon sinks and the earths overall carbon cycle will change, and we don't know exactly how.

I dont think so, exxon was already being blamed for the global cooling and the next ice age.

they were getting blamed either way, they have a ton of money then, they have a ton now, they will always be targets of whatever climate agenda is trending, always.

as for the effects of CO2 on temperatures, that was overstated in the exxon study, changing the trajectory. The virtue signalling game has been played for decades, exxon had the idea of carbon credits for decades and then it became a thing....... interesting how that worked out perfectly for them, virtue points played to the T.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I dont think so, exxon was already being blamed for the global cooling and the next ice age.

they were getting blamed either way, they have a ton of money then, they have a ton now, they will always be targets of whatever climate agenda is trending, always.

as for the effects of CO2 on temperatures, that was overstated in the exxon study, changing the trajectory. The virtue signalling game has been played for decades, exxon had the idea of carbon credits for decades and then it became a thing....... interesting how that worked out perfectly for them, virtue points played to the T.

That's interesting, how were they getting blamed for global cooling, the properties of CO2 as an insulator was known back in the 1850s with John Tyndall. If you're referring to Sulphur and So2, I'm sure you realize the much higher content of Co2 released compared to So2 when hydroCARBONS are burned. Do you have a citation for this?

If I'm looking at the graph correctly, Exxon's models had upper and lower bands and ranges based on different variables, looks like a fairly decent model for the time. And yes I agree, Exxon on a purely capitalistic scale played this perfectly for themselves. They understood their product and what's it's effects were and their marketing team took care of the rest. They may have to leave 100s of millions of barrels in the ground though depending on what happens in the next few decades.