[Truth To Power]

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.  

But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research. 

They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

I've posted that before, and you know it. Which suggests to me that you're a paid troll.

And as I informed you before, merely having received one scientist's (incorrect) opinion is very different from knowing that that opinion is correct.

[Pants-of-dog]

I know what it says, thanks.

Then what is the argument?

[late]

And as I informed you before, merely having received one scientist's (incorrect) opinion is very different from knowing that that opinion is correct.

I've been following the science since the 80s. The warming bit has never faced a serious challenge.

Paid trolls in a political forum can't change that.

[Truth To Power]

I've been following the science since the 80s. The warming bit has never faced a serious challenge.

<sigh> The world has warmed since the Little Ice Age, true. There is no doubt of it. Atmospheric CO2 has increased because of our use of fossil fuels, true. There is no doubt of it. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas that absorbs infrared radiation, slowing the loss of the earth's surface heat to space and warming the planet, true. There is no doubt of it. But THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE CO2 CAUSED THE WARMING, or that further increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause enough further warming to be harmful or exceed the limits of natural climate variability, and no scientific paper or analysis has ever made a convincing case that it did or could.

How many times do I have to say it?

Paid trolls in a political forum can't change that.

<yawn>

[Truth To Power]

Then what is the argument?

That the sun has a much greater effect on variations in the earth's surface temperature than is assumed in CO2-centered climate theory, which consequently greatly overestimates the effect of CO2.

[XogGyux]

<sigh> The world has warmed since the Little Ice Age, true. There is no doubt of it. Atmospheric CO2 has increased because of our use of fossil fuels, true. There is no doubt of it. CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas that absorbs infrared radiation, slowing the loss of the earth's surface heat to space and warming the planet, true. There is no doubt of it. But THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE CO2 CAUSED THE WARMING, or that further increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause enough further warming to be harmful or exceed the limits of natural climate variability, and no scientific paper or analysis has ever made a convincing case that it did or could.

How many times do I have to say it?

<yawn>

This is silly. The overwhelming scientific stance, of the people that actually dedicate their lives to this shit, is that there is evidence and that we are at least, a big part of the equation.

I'll grant you the hypothetical that the scientific community could, in theory, be wrong, but their assessment is not very ambiguous at all, for decades.

Let's entertain the possibility they could be wrong. The reality is, even professionals can be wrong. A chef can on occasion overcook your sirloin, a pilot on occasion can crash the plane and a surgeon on occasion can nick an artery and have you bleed to death. But I am sure you'd prefer the chef and not the surgeon to cook your meal, the surgeon and not the pilot to take your busted appendix out and the pilot and not the chef to operate your airbus. How is it that you feel so strongly as to dismiss the opinion of an entire professional community, WORLD WIDE, and substitute it with your own warped reality?
This is outrageously prideful and stupid.
Now, even more importantly... what is the downside if we move our planet towards a more sustainable consumption? CO2 is not the only downside of burning shit up. There are many cancers, respiratory diseases, etc that are a direct consequence of the particulate matter (not the CO2) that is released when buring shit up... So even if CO2 was a non-issue... there is still good reason to stop burning old dinosaurs to power our world. (and yes I am aware that most of the fossil fuel is not actual dinosaurs but vegetation and bacteria of ancient times, dinosaurs just sound cooler).
But even if you don't believe on that... fossil fuels are limited, there is no option but to move away from them ANYWAYs.

[Pants-of-dog]

That the sun has a much greater effect on variations in the earth's surface temperature than is assumed in CO2-centered climate theory, which consequently greatly overestimates the effect of CO2.

So the paper does not make verifiable claims?

Does it even describe a possible causal chain?

[Truth To Power]

So the paper does not make verifiable claims?

You made that up.

Does it even describe a possible causal chain?

You could read it.

[Truth To Power]

delete editing error

[Truth To Power]

This is silly.

Dismissal is not refutation.

The overwhelming scientific stance, of the people that actually dedicate their lives to this shit, is that there is evidence and that we are at least, a big part of the equation.

But when I ask to see that evidence, it is not presented.

I'll grant you the hypothetical that the scientific community could, in theory, be wrong, but their assessment is not very ambiguous at all, for decades.

I suggest that you are not attuned to their expressions of ambiguity.

How is it that you feel so strongly as to dismiss the opinion of an entire professional community, WORLD WIDE, and substitute it with your own warped reality?

As a matter of objective physical fact, my reality is not the one that is warped. Anyone can look out their window and confirm that there is no climate "crisis" or "emergency."

This is outrageously prideful and stupid.

<yawn>

Now, even more importantly... what is the downside if we move our planet towards a more sustainable consumption?

Billions needlessly impoverished and millions needlessly dead.

CO2 is not the only downside of burning shit up. There are many cancers, respiratory diseases, etc that are a direct consequence of the particulate matter (not the CO2) that is released when buring shit up... So even if CO2 was a non-issue... there is still good reason to stop burning old dinosaurs to power our world.

That's a different problem. If you want to clean up dirty emissions, fine, I support that; but be honest about it, don't pretend there is a different problem that is not actually a problem.

But even if you don't believe on that... fossil fuels are limited, there is no option but to move away from them ANYWAYs.

Then let it happen naturally, as market forces increase their prices and other technologies improve and get cheaper.

The computers and software are constantly improving. The modeling will get more accurate (if the data fed into them are not systematically falsified). Why the imperative to act drastically, NOW, before the science is actually settled and before there has even been any discernible harm from CO2? There are very good reasons to think CO2 is broadly beneficial, and even to the modest extent that it enhances warming, that's a good thing. Periods of warm global climate were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically inconvenient.

[Pants-of-dog]

You made that up.

You could read it.

Let us try it this way:

Please summarize any scientifically verifiable claims made in the paper that seriously challenge ACC theory. Thank you.

[late]

But THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE CO2 CAUSED THE WARMING

How many times do I have to say it?

That was looked into, in great detail, a long time ago.

How many times do you have to repeat your dumbass propaganda? As long as they keep paying you.

[Truth To Power]

That was looked into, in great detail, a long time ago.

Yes, and it was determined that CO2 could not have caused the warming, so climate science was corrupted and data deliberately and systematically falsified to conform to hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

How many times do you have to repeat your dumbass propaganda? As long as they keep paying you.

<yawn> Speaking of dumbass propaganda, look our your window. Do you see any evidence whatever of a climate "crisis" or "emergency"? Look at any statistic on global agricultural productivity. Do you see any evidence whatever that the warmer climate since the Little Ice Age, or since the 1970s, whether it is due to CO2 or not, has been harmful to agriculture or to human beings?

Think!

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

The paper to which you linked seems to ask a lot of questions but does not seem to settle on a real claim or argument.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[late]

Yes, and it was determined that CO2 could not have caused the warming, so climate science was corrupted and data deliberately and systematically falsified to conform to hysterical anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

It was determined that GHGs were the cause.

You're projecting, the corruption is yours.

Oil companies do propaganda, little troll, not science..

[Truth To Power]

It was determined that GHGs were the cause.

No, that's just baldly false. GHGs were assumed to be the cause, and climate "science" journals were told to select papers for publication with a view to supporting that assumption.

You're projecting, the corruption is yours.

I'm not changing historical data to conform to a false theory. Your side is.

Oil companies do propaganda, little troll, not science..

Except when they agree with you...?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Since you are unable to tell anyone what the claim supposedly is, I think we can all assume that the paper you cited had no verifiable scientific arguments.

[late]

GHGs were assumed to be the cause

This started in the 1970s, long before your fake controversy was developed. Not only that, one of the outfits was an oil company.

The 80s and 90s were spent working out the details. I remember one study that examined the mineral content in the runoff water from the Himalyas. Decades of research is the absolute opposite of assumption.

You need better lies.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

The paper to which you linked seems to ask a lot of questions but does not seem to settle on a real claim or argument.

No, your claims continue to be baldly false.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Since you are unable to tell anyone what the claim supposedly is,

No, your claims are false and disingenuous. The paper's basic scientifically verifiable -- and thoroughly verified -- argument is stated in somewhat different words a number of times in different places, such as in the executive summary:
"An important scientific task has been to quantify the solar impact on climate, and it has been found that
over the eleven-year solar cycle the energy that enters the Earth’s system is of the order of 1.0–1.5 W/m2.
This is nearly an order of magnitude larger than what would be expected from solar irradiance
alone, and suggests that solar activity is getting amplified by some atmospheric process."

In part 4, p 11:
"We therefore conclude that the Sun has a large effect [on climate] over the solar cycle. In fact,
it is about 5–7 times larger than can be expected from changes in solar irradiance alone."

In the Conclusion:
"The temperature change between the two periods is of the order of 1.0–1.5 K.
This shows that solar activity has had a large impact on climate. The above statement is
in direct contrast to the IPCC, which estimates the solar forcing over the 20th century as
only 0.05 W/m2, which is too small to have a climatic effect. One is therefore left with the
conundrum of not having an explanation for the difference in climate between the Medieval
Warm Period and Little Ice Age. But this result is obtained by restricting [the effect of] solar
activity to only minute changes in total solar irradiance."

In the Appendix:
"So the solar signal found is ≈5–7 times larger than the change in solar irradiance alone."

I think we can all assume that the paper you cited had no verifiable scientific arguments.

Such claims are false, absurd, and disingenuous. Any reader can read the paper and see that your claims are false, as it is packed with verifiable scientific arguments referencing peer-reviewed papers. You just choose to assume because you will not read. Or think.