• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Politics of Global Warming

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

A Range of Opinions on Climate Change at Exxon Mobil
By THE NEW YORK TIMES NOV. 6, 2015
LINK: A Range of Opinions on Climate Change at Exxon Mobil (Published 2015)
TEXT: "The New York attorney general’s investigation of Exxon Mobil will seek to determine whether the company lied to the public and investors about the risks of climate change. The investigation will focus on whether statements the company made to the public about climate risks were consistent with its own long-running scientific research. Here are some examples of statements made by the company – including executives and its own scientists – over the years.
  1. 1980
    Internal Exxon Document
    From a paper titled, “Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological Forecast CO2 Effect,” by H. Shaw and P.P. McCall: “Projections of scientists active in the area indicate that the contribution of deforestation, which may have been substantial in the past, will diminish in comparison to the expected rate of fossil fuel combustion in the future. A number of scientists have postulated that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could occur as early as 2035. Calculations recently completed at Exxon Research indicate that using the energy projections from the CONAES (Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems) study and the World Energy Conference, a doubling of atmospheric CO2 can occur at about 2060.
  2. 1989
    Duane G. Levine, Exxon’s Manager of Science and Strategy Development
    A year after the NASA climate scientist James Hansen warned Congress that global warming was already occurring, an Exxon scientist made a presentation on the topic to the company’s board of directors. His notes included the following language: “In spite of the rush by some participants in the greenhouse debate to declare that the science has demonstrated the existence of [global warming] today, I do not believe such is the case. Enhanced greenhouse is still deeply imbedded in scientific uncertainty, and we will require substantial additional investigation to determine the degree to which its effects might be experienced in the future.”
  3. 1995
    Lenny Bernstein, Exxon Mobil Chemical Engineer and Expert on Climate Change
    An email by Mr. Bernstein to Ohio University’s Institute for Applied and Professional Ethics shows that Exxon (before its merger with Mobil) was aware of climate change science years before it became a political issue.

    In his note, Mr. Bernstein refers to a giant natural gas field in Indonesia that Exxon did not ultimately develop:
    “Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia. ”“When I first learned about the project in 1989, the projections were that if Natuna were developed and its CO2 vented to the atmosphere, it would be the largest point source of CO2 in the world and account for 1 percent of projected global CO2 emissions.”
  4. 1997
    Lee Raymond, Exxon Chief Executive
    Mr. Raymond, in a speech to the 15th World Petroleum Congress in Beijing, addressed the issue: “It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.”
  5. 2000
    Exxon Mobil Newspaper Ad
    In response to the Clinton Administration’s report on the potential effects of climate change on different regions and industries in the United States, the company took out a lengthy ad. Excerpts include: “The report’s language and logic appear designed to emphasize selective results to convince people that climate change will adversely impact their lives.”“The report is written as a political document, not an objective summary of the underlying science. Climate change is an important public issue. That is why we support emphasis on further climate research, the development and encouragement of promising technology, the promotion of more efficient use of energy, the removal of barriers to innovation, and cost-benefit assessments of proposed policies.”
  6. 2002
    Bob B. Peterson, Chief Executive of Imperial Oil, Exxon Mobil’s Subsidiary in Canada
    Mr. Peterson told the Canadian Press news service that “Kyoto is an economic entity,” referring to the Kyoto Protocol initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: “It has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with world trade. This is a wealth-transfer scheme between developed and developing nations.”
  7. 2004
  8. Exxon Mobil Newspaper Ad
    “Scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change or the degree and consequences of future change.”
  9. 2007
    Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil’s Chief Executive
    Mr. Tillerson changed course in a speech before a conference in Houston organized by the energy consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates: “The risks to society and ecosystems from climate change could prove to be significant. So, despite the uncertainties, it is prudent to develop and implement sensible strategies that address these risks.”“A range implies a certain degree of uncertainty. Policy decisions need to accommodate that uncertainty.”
  10. 2008
    J. Stephen Simon, an Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President
    Testifying before a Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 2008, Mr. Simon was pressed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who suggested that fringe views on climate change were being endorsed and espoused by oil companies. Mr. Simon responded: “In other words, that we are supporting junk science and trying to make people think that this is not an issue. I think all of us recognize it is an issue. It is how we deal with it – and I think we are dealing with it, and we are doing so in a responsible fashion.”
  11. 2010
  12. Exxon Mobil Annual Report
    “Because we want to ensure that today’s progress does not come at the expense of future generations we need to manage the risks to our environment. This includes taking meaningful steps to curb global greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, while also utilizing local resources to help maintain secure supplies. Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions represent close to 60 percent of global GHG emissions attributed to human activities, and are expected to increase about 25 percent from 2005 to 2030. This increase is substantially lower than the projected growth in energy demand over the period, reflecting improved energy efficiency, as well as a shift to a significantly less carbon-intensive energy mix – mainly natural gas, nuclear and wind gaining share as fuels for power generation.”
  13. 2014
    Exxon Mobil Annual Report
    The company commented on various countries’ consideration of rules for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to control climate change: “These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times, and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas.”
  14. 2015
    Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobil Vice President for Public and Government Affairs
    Mr. Cohen, in a blog post entitled “Exxon Mobil’s commitment to climate science,” wrote: “What we have understood from the outset – and something which over-the-top activists fail to acknowledge — is that climate change is an enormously complicated subject. “The climate and mankind’s connection to it are among the most complex topics scientists have ever studied, with a seemingly endless number of variables to consider over an incredibly long timespan.”
 
A short 3:20 minute Frontline video on the EXXON situation - EXXON knew CO2 was a problem as far back as 1977. They had the research to prove the CO2 was increasing, but in 1995 began the disinformation campaign questioning the science.

It is noteworthy that many deniers identify themselves as having been pro-climate change up until round about the mid-90's when they 'saw the light' - at the time the oil companies (like EXXON) were beginning the 'science is not settled' meme.

Exxon Researched Climate Change in 1977 | FRONTLINE
TEXT: "Published on Sep 16, 2015: A short FRONTLINE film about Exxon's early research into climate change produced in collaboration with InsideClimate News."
 
Last edited:
Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says: Research provides first deep look at how global warming may already influence armed conflict. By Craig Welch, for National Geographic PUBLISHED MARCH 02, 2015
LINK: Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says

Published on Monday, November 16, 2015
Amid Terror Fever, [Bernie] Sanders Refuses to Back Down on Climate Threat Stance
"If we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see all sorts of international conflict," said candidate, repeating previous assertion that climate change is our greatest national security threat by Lauren McCauley,
LINK: Amid Terror Fever, Sanders Refuses to Back Down on Climate Threat Stance
 
EDIT NOTE: @mike_thoth was making excellent points. Would love a conversation with him now. - September 2026

I have followed this global warming story for the last 10 years or so, I have covered many scientific subjects and many subjects covered by the Paracast. I also work in a broad sense in the scientific community where when statements are made and need to be backed up with evidence, citing papers etc…. And the global warming debate is much like the debate of whether the UFO phenomena is real regardless of its origin.

For instance in the "Science world" UFOs are not considered real, the "Skeptics" in this case demand evidence, they want physical evidence but lacking physical evidence, any documentary evidence from pilots for instance is also not compelling, as the person in question could have misidentified the phenomena.

When radar and multiple witness sightings occur, the radar could have been a flock of birds, a temperature inversion whilst at the same time the witness misidentified something. In other words they claim no evidence exists but are largely unaware of the excellent cases and any physical evidence left behind. This is why a cosmologist like Hawking can say only lunatics see UFOs (I am paraphrasing here) when one of his distinguished colleagues Michio Kaku has looked into the subject himself and found many cases compelling. In other words, an Air Force Pilot or Astronaut are not lunatics.

On the other side lets take global warming. I am firmly in the skeptic camp on this front for one reason, the scientists promoting Global Warming alarm act very much like the skeptics or debunkers in the anti UFO camp.

They act unscientific first of all by claiming a consensus exists. The consensus is also that UFOs are not real. It used to be consensus that women should not vote. These consensus arguments are always used when there is a lack of genuine proof. The alarmists ignore science, by claiming that CO2 is a pollutant and that we MUST lower the atmospheric concentration of this evil molecule before the earth overheats.

Over geological time periods temperature & CO2 concentration simply do not have a lock step relationship, that is not an argument that is fact. They also ignore the ecological benefits of CO2. Higher yields of crops, increase in vegetation, global greening and the receding desert. Should the UNIPCC get their way and lower the CO2 concentration to 150ppm or lower like they have expressed in official documents, then life on Earth would start to die off as many plants cannot exist in an atmosphere with so little CO2. As plants die off and then animals. This anti scientific mind set has co opted so many environmentalists these days that in order to be considered an environmentalist, you must identify with the group calling for a ban on fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels MUST be replaced because of the CO2 they emit. If we were to ban all fossil fuels today, or in 5 years or 10 years, what would follow would be mass die offs. All of our farming techniques to feed our populations require of fossil fuels, there is no replacement available.

Now this leads to another topic that has also been covered on this thread, over population. If we go back in time to Giammaria Ortes or to Thomas Malthus, or even to the writings of "The Old Oligarch" population control was always considered a major problem. From having too many people pushing down on the breast of Mother Earth to rising living standards and wealth of the ordinary man, elites have always considered population the road to ruin. We also have more contemporary examples, in Science we have the likes of James Hansen and more popular of all, the ultimate doomsayer of humanity, Paul Erlich. Both these men couldn’t predict a day would follow the night, there are so many examples of the irrational predictions they make, it could almost be called cruel to bring them up. But again like so many people, they fail to comprehend that science and technology can improve the lives of people, that population means historically….wealth. Consider the elites today, the wonderful British Royal Family, who often talk of over population and one particular member, wishes to return as an Ebola virus to help thin out the stock.

So what are we left with just on the global warming front? We have first a very tentative hypothesis which says CO2 means higher temperatures. Well it may make a difference but in all likely hood it is impossible to detect a human fingerprint to assign a percentage of warming to human factors. Computer models are being used to estimate the warming expected and these models over predict the real world by factors of 2, 4, 8 or higher. So we are meant to use computer models to enact policy? Lunacy.

We have the benefits of slight warming clearly understood, in the UK given the stupid green energy policies enacted here, means that prices for heating the homes of people have shot up, so we can expect this many deaths of our most vulnerable people because of cold, and because they cannot afford the energy thanks to the green tariffs enacted.

Around the world these days the usual suspects point to each weather event and claim it proves global warming, or climate change. Just imagine being in an argument where the public are told that more rain, less rain, more snow, less snow, more heat, less heat, more hail less hail, terrorism, murders, rapes, car theft, late trains (and I could cite dozens of papers funded because in the grant proposal the word climate was carefully inserted) are all proofs of their hypothesis. Its an argument that cannot be lost but it is absurd.

In Paris soon leaders will all turn up for a jolly old meeting just before Christmas where millions of dollars will be spent, potentially enacting policies which will cost trillions annually, to save us from a problem that exists inside a computer system and not in the real world. I look around the world today and see the same weather patters and variation as was in existence when I started school, no change. This is a threat that exists only in the minds of wealthy westerners; it’s a hypochondria of the world that developing nations do not care about, because they have real problems like poverty and they need to get their populations out of said poverty. That is where money should be spent.

In 10 years time I will come back to this blog where the alarmist supporters will still be here. However in 2025 they will be saying "we warned you that by 2035 if we don’t cut CO2 drastically we will get sea level rise" etc.… In other words, the only thing that will have changed would the date for this impending catastrophe. Just like has recently with Michael Mann, Al Gore, Prince Edward, it’s the easiest game to play on Earth, wait until the next tipping point date comes, and then simply add 10 or 20 years.

I am not waiting 20 years, I have officially had enough of this. It is time that money were put to better use and not used to enact policies that will ultimately take away peoples freedoms.
 
I occasionally drop in to see what is posted here. It seems to be the same... long winded posts that go nowhere. I see lots of statistics but one thing is always missing. No one ever states what they are personally going to do to change matters. Please do not say that you plan to vote in a different set of politicians. Politicians take their money and orders from whatever interest groups and nothing really changes.

All the hot air expended is not going to change the environment.
 
A good quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair

Have to start listening to the Climate Scientists who are actually doing the research. He gives good advice: Google Scholar to see if someone has actually published a paper on what they are commenting on.

Slaying the "zombies" of climate science | Dr. Marshall Shepherd | TEDxAtlanta
TEXT: "Published on May 29, 2013: About This Talk - One of the nation's leading climate scientists explains how he goes about knocking down the "zombie theories" that plague our discussions about climate change. What is a zombie theory? Says Shepherd: "It's one of those theories that scientists have refuted or disproven time and time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs and on the radio stations."

"About This Speaker - As the 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, Shepherd is a leading international expert in weather, climate and atmospheric sciences, and recently briefed the U.S. Senate on climate and extreme weather. A professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Georgia, Shepherd is director of the University's Atmospheric Sciences Program. Shepherd spent 12 years as a research meteorologist in the Earth-Sun Division at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center. Shepherd was recently named the UGA Athletic Association Professor in Geography and 2004 was honored at the White House by President Bush with a PECASE award as one of the top young scientists and engineers in the country."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top