Amazing! Judging from the comments above, it would appear that no one has actually read the documents that are alluded to in the Doonesbury cartoon on 11/8/15….including Garry Trudeau himself. The cartoon implies that Exxon knew as scientific fact in 1978 that the Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative was true; that global temperatures were going to increase 3-5°C when atmospheric CO2 doubled, and that this would cause innumerable global disasters. Trudeau implies (states?) that documents show that Exxon knew this to be fact, but chose to suppress this proven information even though it meant this would create a world unfit for our grandchildren. Well, I’ve read the documents and can state with confidence that this view is inaccurate at best.My reading of the documents revealed to me that there was a great deal of uncertainty at the time and not much fact. These were the takeaway ideas and recommendations that I gleaned from the documents: 1. Atmospheric CO2 is rising, probably due to fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, but the relative contribution of these sources is unknown. 2. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, and its increase in the atmosphere will cause an increase in global temps. Just how much, however, is unknown. 3. The predictions for the increase in global temps are based on computer models. Because these models use non-linear equations with multiple variables, some of which are not well-understood or even measureable, “there are major uncertainties in these models….” Nonetheless, these questionable models were used, and the temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 was estimated to be from 0.75°C to 3°C ± 1.5°C. 4. Some of the global effects of the increased temps would likely be increased rainfall, longer plant growing season, increased plant growth, and probably little or no melting of the polar ice sheets. But if the West Antarctic icecap were to melt, they estimated it would take up to 1,000 years. There was no mention of mass starvation, global extinctions, and etc. 5.) There is so much uncertainty in even the basic science, more study is needed. The studies they recommended were mainly empirical studies, not the computer “studies” we are fed in the media warning us of future Armageddon. The underlying theme of these documents is the uncertainty of the science and the difficulty in trying to predict the future climate. In fact, one of the documents states: “a serious question has been raised as to whether climate is really predictable.” These documents seem to me to be honest attempts to look at the issue objectively, unlike “the science is settled, the debate is over” (I actually don’t recall ever hearing an open public debate on the issue) approach by today’s climate scientists. Trudeau’s depiction of Exxon is disingenuous and misleading, at best. Exxon may be deserving of criticism for lots of other issues, but this is not one of them, at least not based on these two documents. I encourage you to read them and decide for yourself if Trudeau is an honest person or a political hack: The Greenhouse Effect: J. F. Black 1978 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/James%20Black%201977%20Presentation.pdf and Primer on CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect: M. B. Glaser 1982 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf BTW, I’m a retired surgeon and am still waiting for that fat check from “Big Oil.”
According to CAE stats, total private donations account for 6.5% of total univ expenses. Corp donations account for 17% of private donations, or 1% of total univ expenses.Research funding is: 60% from feds, 7% from states, and just 6% from industry/corps. Assuming universities do the biding of their financial masters, to whom will they be listening? The caption should read: "Which part of ’don’t do anything that will kill our GOVERNMENT funding’ didn’t you understand?
Amazing! Judging from the comments above, it would appear that no one has actually read the documents that are alluded to in the Doonesbury cartoon on 11/8/15….including Garry Trudeau himself. The cartoon implies that Exxon knew as scientific fact in 1978 that the Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative was true; that global temperatures were going to increase 3-5°C when atmospheric CO2 doubled, and that this would cause innumerable global disasters. Trudeau implies (states?) that documents show that Exxon knew this to be fact, but chose to suppress this proven information even though it meant this would create a world unfit for our grandchildren. Well, I’ve read the documents and can state with confidence that this view is inaccurate at best.My reading of the documents revealed to me that there was a great deal of uncertainty at the time and not much fact. These were the takeaway ideas and recommendations that I gleaned from the documents: 1. Atmospheric CO2 is rising, probably due to fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, but the relative contribution of these sources is unknown. 2. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, and its increase in the atmosphere will cause an increase in global temps. Just how much, however, is unknown. 3. The predictions for the increase in global temps are based on computer models. Because these models use non-linear equations with multiple variables, some of which are not well-understood or even measureable, “there are major uncertainties in these models….” Nonetheless, these questionable models were used, and the temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 was estimated to be from 0.75°C to 3°C ± 1.5°C. 4. Some of the global effects of the increased temps would likely be increased rainfall, longer plant growing season, increased plant growth, and probably little or no melting of the polar ice sheets. But if the West Antarctic icecap were to melt, they estimated it would take up to 1,000 years. There was no mention of mass starvation, global extinctions, and etc. 5.) There is so much uncertainty in even the basic science, more study is needed. The studies they recommended were mainly empirical studies, not the computer “studies” we are fed in the media warning us of future Armageddon. The underlying theme of these documents is the uncertainty of the science and the difficulty in trying to predict the future climate. In fact, one of the documents states: “a serious question has been raised as to whether climate is really predictable.” These documents seem to me to be honest attempts to look at the issue objectively, unlike “the science is settled, the debate is over” (I actually don’t recall ever hearing an open public debate on the issue) approach by today’s climate scientists. Trudeau’s depiction of Exxon is disingenuous and misleading, at best. Exxon may be deserving of criticism for lots of other issues, but this is not one of them, at least not based on these two documents. I encourage you to read them and decide for yourself if Trudeau is an honest person or a political hack: The Greenhouse Effect: J. F. Black 1978 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/James%20Black%201977%20Presentation.pdf and Primer on CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect: M. B. Glaser 1982 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf BTW, I’m a retired surgeon and am still waiting for that fat check from “Big Oil.”