Science, science, science.

trouble with the spam program on last posting.

Now replace “Global Warming" with “Earth’s natural temperature cycles". Unless you have the computer models agreeing, you really got nothing but the promoting of political agendas. Where's the beef (science)? Give me something that both sides agree upon otherwise it is contested science you are using.
Well they have. Only you need a serious education before you can understand how to read them. Your criminality is that you believe it's just fine to ignore the exquisitely detailed understanding scientists have established. You can delude yourself with all that pompous bullshit that merely serves to underscore your profound lack of understanding for the most fundamental climate science understanding. One more time
* Global warming is definitely directly related to that hot Gulf of Mexico waters that fed an explosive intensification of a tropical storm. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that the atmosphere is holding more moisture and making it available for storm systems such as Harvey to collect and dump. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that our Jet Stream has gotten weirder and is currently causing the stalling and reversal of Harvey’s northward movement. * Global warming is definitely directly related to the fact that sea level is rising and thus adding substantially to damaging storm surges. * Global warming is definitely directly related the Brown Ocean Effect that continued feeding moisture, energy into Harvey after it made land fall.
Everyone of those statements is based on observation and models based understanding. There is a treasure trove of knowledge available for the curious with a good faith desire to understand our planet and her processes. But, as in your case it means nothing, all you know is your political agenda. The real tragedy is that Americans en mass had so little curiosity, so little critical thinking, so little concern for this Earth (our mother, in every sense of the word!), the thing that provides our life support system - that the con job was a cinch. All it needed was driven very wealthy absolutists, ruthlessness and lacking all scruples, and zero concern for what they left behind for future generations, them and their sycophantic servants such as our pal here.

Follow up for CC from post #7.
The George Manbiot issue.
What is President Trump? He is not a true Republican or Democrat. He had to fight both parties during the election. He acts like a progressive.
George Monbiot says that President Trump censors the discussion of climate change.
That is a lie. What President Trump has done is stopped the American efforts of globalization of the world by the use of climate change. Now that was the real story that needs to be published. But who would publish the truth? Maybe Fox. Now explain to me how he is censoring the discussion of climate change when we are discussing the matter right now! Do you feel censored, I don’t?
George Monbiot next sentence. This is why, though the links are clear and obvious, the majority of news reports on Hurricane Harvey have made no mention of the human contribution. Monbiot posted on September 2nd. On August 28th, Politico Magazine was saying Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like. The Guardian also on August 28th, It’s a fact: climate change made Hurricane Harvey more deadly. And that was written by somebody I think you know, Michael Mann.
Where are we on the count, three lies. Next, Trump believes Climate Change is a hoax. As of June 1st, Trump does not agree with that statement as reported in Newsweek. So we are being misled as the least.
Next, he blasts the news networks for their coverage. That’s correct and good. Then he says we should question the entire political and economic system as it relates to climate. That’s great. I agree.
Next, he is confusing by saying “climate breakdown" and linking to Harvey. He defined climate breakdown earlier to include our current economic policy and political system.
I will stop here because you get the idea. He didn’t balance his story by telling us that as CO2 has been on the rise and the number of hurricanes has been dropping over the last couple of decades. And that new data puts the hurricanes closer to matching the sun cycles than the CO2 data.

Who are you kidding you joker. Donald trump is exactly who the Republican Party is!
He’d have been impeached by now, if not for that sad fact.
just for starters . . .

Who are you kidding you joker. Donald trump is exactly who the Republican Party is! He'd have been impeached by now, if not for that sad fact. just for starters . . .
I don't know about "exactly", but he's not a progressive either. He's blatantly pro-business. Anyway, it seems to me we're in a transition phase, on the scale of the Southern Strategy. When it's over, "Republican" will mean something different than it does now. It's hard to imagine a three party system here, but there is a definite split going on and I don't think the party names mean much of anything right now.

Science is science and facts are facts. My administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and accountability without political bias. The American people deserve this and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration.
Who do you think made this statement?

Science is science and facts are facts. My administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and accountability without political bias.{What a great idea, I'm all for it.} The American people deserve this and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration. Who do you think made this statement?
I don't know, who? John Kennedy? Please don't tell me your prez. trump. For Your Eyes Only - wouldn't want to embarrass you in front of all your friends :kiss:
T r u m p ’ s L i e s Many Americans have become accustomed to President Trump’s lies. But as regular as they have become, the country should not allow itself to become numb to them. So we have catalogued nearly every outright lie he has told publicly since taking the oath of office. Updated July 21: The president is still lying, so we've added to this list, and provided links to the facts in each case. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html
All False statements involving Donald Trump

All False statements involving Donald Trump
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

George Monbiot says that President Trump censors the discussion of climate change. That is a lie. What President Trump has done is stopped the American efforts of globalization of the world by the use of climate change. Now that was the real story that needs to be published. But who would publish the truth? Maybe Fox. Now explain to me how he is censoring the discussion of climate change when we are discussing the matter right now! Do you feel censored, I don’t?
Your train of logic is an amazing thing to try and follow. But, yes the idiots and liars and slanders have been given another green light.
Can Trump Censor Climate Science? 08/31/2017 11:55 pm ET http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/can-trump-censor-climate-science_us_59a8d108e4b0bef3378cd786 Global warming embarrasses President Trump’s insular creed of “America First." Government scientists recently confirmed all-time record-high temperatures and sea levels around the world. Yet President Trump has promised the United States will be virtually alone in refusing to honor the commitments it had made in the Paris climate agreement. Indeed, his administration has systematically deregulated previous efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while dismantling efforts to protect the country’s air, water, and wildlife. More elusive threats to climate science are lurking behind the scenes. The Trump administration ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to shut down its climate webpage, gagged EPA and Department of Agriculture employees from using terms like “climate change" and “emissions reduction" in any written communications, and forbid scientists there from discussing their research with anyone outside of the agency. The White House has also defunded climate science and terminated ongoing studies into environmental threats ranging from the toxicity levels of Midwestern streams to the health risks of Appalachian mining. The latest controversy concerns the Climate Science Special Report prepared by top scientists from 13 federal agencies. The next one—due out this month—won’t be released unless and until the Trump administration approves it. This is the President who’s referred to climate change as “bullshit" peddled by “so-called ‘scientists’" and a “total hoax" perpetrated by the Chinese. He’s also appointed staunch climate-change skeptics Scott Pruitt and Rick Perry to lead the EPA and Department of Energy. Little wonder the scientists who prepared the draft report were so worried it’d be edited, rejected, or concealed that they leaked a copy to the New York Times. ...
The climate report scientists are afraid Trump will censor, explained The report is a reminder US climate politics are still insane. David Roberts Aug 9, 2017, https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/9/16117406/leaked-climate-report-scandal
You'll find words to love, while ignoring the essence of the article, namely that we have a president so hostile to climate science that they can no long trust his integrity to allow them to share their understanding. Why? Refer to the information offered in the first article. On a related note, here's some of the reasons why honest folks distrust and in fact fear the trump.
All False statements involving Donald Trump http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Again, a lot of money science is all you got. I agree that all the items you listed affect global warming. As does the truck going across the golden gate bridge or the cows farting in Colorado.
None of these items are the MAIN DRIVING FORCE that caused Harvey to form. What is a hurricane? It is nature’s way of redistributing the energy on earth. What is the driving force that put that energy on earth? The sun of course. And when I say sun, it is understood that it is not the sun by itself. It is the sun used in combination with earth’s orbit, the moon, the water cycles, carbon based lifeforms, natural disasters, land changes, water vapor, greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide. I listed them in order of importance. Greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide being the least important. Ref: 58:45 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObmapEm2a4
The CO2 helps hold some of the energy from going back out in space. But 93% of that energy that stays on earth is stored in the oceans. Ice could be freezing the Panama Canal and the CO2 level could be over a 1,000 ppm. You could pump more CO2 in the air and the Panama Canal would still freeze. Because the CO2 is not the main driving force.
The problem we are dealing with today has more to do with political forces and money than the real science. The Republican leadership is threating to reduce funds on climate research. Are the Republican scientists complaining? If they are, you can’t hear them. The academics to the left, outnumber the conservatives by 8 to 1. As Jonathan Haidt names them the “tribal-moral community".
How much money are we talking about each year? Well, the green groups get $500 million and the Feds are spending more than $10 billion. The groups that are supposed to keep the issues going down the correct path and inform the public, they get $15 million. So, $15 million. That’s not peanuts. Well compare to the other side it is. But we should be hearing something from them. Do you think that groups from the left that tried to get Attorney General Loretta Lynch to charge the think tanks not backing the CO2 as the main driving force with federal racketeering laws may have backed them off? Seems like it did something. Their free speech rights must have gotten over powered by political forces.
How long is the USA going to keep pumping billions into climate research? The answer is most likely, as long as the CO2 is looked at as the main driving force. If it is decided that the sun is the main driving force, then the funds will be directed to the infrastructure to combat global warming. CO2 research papers that cost the taxpayers a hundred billion will be moved to the college library to sit on the shelf next to the papers proving the existence of aether winds.
Just how political is climate science today? Trump wants Sam Clovis to work in the U.S. Department of Agriculture who disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change. Now he has a battle to win. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/348931-dems-prep-for-major-fight-over-trump-usda-science-pick

Here Mike. Call this money science, please. This is the report by Exxon Mobil that was hidden from the public for 30 yrs. Their own scientists concluded co2 from fossil fuels would cause catastrophic climate change. This is directly in opposition to their own interests. Tell me they gave money to SRI to purposely make them look like assholes. This was Exxon, not influenced by other groups, and before climate change was a polotical issue,so I would consider that independent. Make sure you actually scroll down and read the actual excerpts. Then Google the American petroleum institute.
You can refute this to us if you choose, but if you read it, you and I will both know that deep down you that your only trying to justify yourself and not the truth.
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16

"
None of these items are the MAIN DRIVING FORCE that caused Harvey to form.
What is a hurricane? It is nature’s way of redistributing the energy on
earth. What is the driving force that put that energy on earth? The sun of
course. And when I say sun, it is understood that it is not the sun by
itself. "- Mike “The source of all Knowledge” Yohe.
Oh, wait now I get it. Even though it is the inability of the heat from the sun’s rays to escape the atmosphere that is heating up the planet, it’s the sun’s fault. Just like if someone runs someone down in a case of intoxicated manslaughter, it’s really the victims fault for existing in the first place. Wouldn’t have gotten killed if they hadn’t been alive…

Who are you kidding you joker. Donald trump is exactly who the Republican Party is! He'd have been impeached by now, if not for that sad fact. just for starters . . .
I don't know about "exactly", but he's not a progressive either. He's blatantly pro-business. Anyway, it seems to me we're in a transition phase, on the scale of the Southern Strategy. When it's over, "Republican" will mean something different than it does now. It's hard to imagine a three party system here, but there is a definite split going on and I don't think the party names mean much of anything right now. I don't know. Republican still means shit!
Here Mike. Call this money science, please. This is the report by Exxon Mobil that was hidden from the public for 30 yrs. Their own scientists concluded co2 from fossil fuels would cause catastrophic climate change. This is directly in opposition to their own interests. Tell me they gave money to SRI to purposely make them look like assholes. This was Exxon, not influenced by other groups, and before climate change was a polotical issue,so I would consider that independent. Make sure you actually scroll down and read the actual excerpts. Then Google the American petroleum institute. You can refute this to us if you choose, but if you read it, you and I will both know that deep down you that your only trying to justify yourself and not the truth. https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16
Please explain how Exxon Mobil hid this report? First, the report was written by Stanford Research Institute. Part of Stanford University. It was not written by Exxon Mobil. Second, the report went to the American Petroleum Institute and to its 650 company members. Third, Exxon Mobil didn’t even exist in 1968. Fourth, the report claims to be only a review of other theories. It was written by R.C. Robbins who main interests are combined heart-lung transplantation at Stanford University. And E. Robinson who’s expertise is in Pulmonology. Fifth, the report is claiming that Moller report in 1963 stated that the warming by the CO2 was overestimated. Next, they looked at Revelle’s report of 1966 and the world wide cooling effect of fine particles in the atmosphere, stating “Thus this effect would be the opposite of that caused by an increase in CO2. The argument has been made that the large-scale cooling trend observed in the northern hemisphere since about 1955 is due to the disturbance of the radiation balance by fine particles and that this effect has already reversed any warming trend due to CO2." A lot of cherry picking to mislead the facts. Are you part of the Smoke and Fumes org.? Or parent company the Center for International Environmental Law. They received $1,416,696.00 in grants last year. I would say they are part of that mountain of money. If I had to guess. I would say it was written by a couple of medical doctors to earn money for college. The easy money being given away was in global warming. There are tens of thousands of these written every year now.

The news has changed the game on fossil fuel companies and their role in climate denial. But Exxon’s track record on climate science denial and climate double talk has been growing for some time. Check the timeline below for a rundown. Along the way, note how global atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise past 350 parts per million (ppm), the level scientists say is safe for human civilization as we know it, while Exxon’s profits (in nominal dollars) continue to rise.


1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels"–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)
1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)
In a report produced for the American Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory." The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)
1970s
1978 (Global CO2 level: 335 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $2.4 billion)
James Black, working under Exxon’s Products Research Division, writes an internal briefing paper called “The Greenhouse Effect" following from a 1977 presentation to Exxon’s management committee. The paper warns that human-caused emissions could raise global temperatures and result in serious consequences. “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical," Black writes in his summary of the presentation. (Source:InsideClimate News)
1979
At the urging of an Exxon scientist, Henry Shaw, Exxon begins analyzing the absorption rate of carbon dioxide in the oceans, considered one of the key questions of climate science at the time. “Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation,“Shaw wrote in a letter to Exxon research executives. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1979-1983
Major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil (two companies that became Chevron) meet regularly as part of a task force to discuss the science and implications of climate change. The meetings are organized with the help of the American Petroleum Institute. A minutes document from one of the meetings suggests that oil companies knew that climate change was occurring, and that they would bear some responsibility for managing it. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1980s
1982 (Global CO2 level: 341 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.2 billion)
Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Programs manager M.B. Glaser sends Exxon management a primer on climate change. The primer is “restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.” It describes “potentially catastrophic events" if fossil fuel use is not reduced. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1982
Roger Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon, writes a memo summarizing Exxon’s climate modeling research. The memo states: “The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere." Cohen would later become a lead climate science denier at an Exxon-funded front group.
1983 (Global CO2 level: 343 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $5 billion)
Exxon cuts funding for climate research from $900,000 per year to $150,000. Exxon’s total research budget at the time was more than $600 million.
1984
An Exxon report on the Natuna gas field in Indonesia warns that the project would be “the world’s largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem."
1988
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is formed.
1989
Shell announces that it will redesign one of its natural gas platforms, raising it a meter or two to account for sea level rises resulting from climate change.
1989 (Global CO2 level: 353 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $3.5 billion)
Exxon and other fossil fuel companies create the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). The GCC is created to oppose mandatory reductions in carbon emissions by obscuring the scientific understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on the climate. The GCC created a scientific “backgrounder" for lawmakers and journalists that claimed “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood."
1990s
1990
Dr. Brian Flannery, “representing the International Petroleum Industries’ Environmental Conservation Association, but on the payroll of Exxon," argues strongly against wording in the IPCC’s first report, which states that global carbon emissions must be reduced 60 to 80 percent. Flannery argues that too much “scientific uncertainty" exists to recommend such reductions. IPCC scientists agree that enough certainty exists to justify the reductions, and the report moves forward. (The Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett, cited in 2002 Greenpeace report, “Denial and Deception").
1992 (Global CO2 level: 356 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.8 billion)
By 1992 Exxon has become a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which actively undermines action on climate change at the federal and state levels. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)
1993
Lee Raymond becomes CEO of Exxon.
1995 (Global CO2 level: 361 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $6.5 billion)
The Global Climate Coalition distributes an internal memo, organized by Mobil chemical engineer and climate expert Leonard Bernstein, warning that the “greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied." Members of the coalition included BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Shell. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)
1996
In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Lee Raymond denies the scientific consensus on climate change. Raymond claims that “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate."
1996
Mobil engineers, as a part of a project jointly owned by Mobil, Shell and a subsidiary of Exxon, note that “An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed" in their planning for exploration and production facilities along the coast of Nova Scotia.
October 1997 (Global CO2 level: 364 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $8.5 billion)
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond tells the 15th World Petroleum Congress in Beijing that the world’s climate isn’t changing, and that even if it was, fossil fuels would play no part.
April 1998
The New York Times, with documents leaked to the National Environmental Trust, reveals that the American Petroleum Institute is organizing a $5-million plan to challenge the science of climate change. Representatives of Exxon and Chevron are listed as participating in the plan. One line item of the plan is to “Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal" (p. 6 of Greenpeace report appendix).
1998
ExxonMobil-funded think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute, co-publishes the “Oregon petition," a petition challenging the consensus around climate change. The petition comes with a “research paper" made in the style of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confusing some legitimate scientists into signing the petition. Other petition signatories, suspiciously, include fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. and Spice Girl “Dr." Geri Halliwell.
1998
In its proxy statement to shareholders, Exxon reports that shareholders have requested the creation of an outside directors committee to independently review and publish “a full report about the impact on climate change on our company’s present policies and practices…[including] anticipated liabilities our company may incur from its possible contribution to the problem…" Exxon’s board recommends against the proposal, citing, among other things, that the science around climate change remains uncertain.
1999
Exxon and Mobil merge.
2000s
2000 (Global CO2 level: 370 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $17.7 billion)
ExxonMobil publishes an ad, titled “Unsettled science," highlighting a study showing a historical decrease in temperatures in the Sargasso Sea. CEO Lee Raymond presents the study at that year’s shareholder meeting as evidence that fossil fuels may not be causing global warming. The author of the study, Lloyd Keigwin, later complains that Exxon misused the data: “I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data. There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming…I think the sad thing is that a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes…"
January 2001
George W. Bush inaugurated as US president, with $100,000 in inaugural funding from ExxonMobil. Just days before Bush’s inauguration, Exxon’s publishes an advertisement titled “An energy policy for the new administration." The ad argues that “the unrealistic and economically damaging Kyoto process needs to be rethought."
February 2001
The Bush White House receives a letter from Exxon asking if the administration can oust climate scientist Robert Watson from his position as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under Watson’s chairmanship, the IPCC had released a number of reports linking climate change to human activity.
March 2001
Bush administration announces withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.
May 2001
The UK Stop Esso campaign is launched. The campaign is aimed at Exxon’s subsidy Esso, and is a coalition effort that includes Greenpeace UK, People and Planet, and Friends of the Earth.
2002 (Global CO2 level: 373 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $11.5 billion)
The GCC announces it is disbanding, explaining that the group “has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming. The Bush administration will soon announce a climate policy that is expected to rely on the development of new technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions, a concept strongly supported by the GCC."

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-change/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
May 2003
The Greenpeace Global Warming Crimes Unit converges on ExxonMobil’s compound in Irving, Texas, to charge the oil giant with crimes against the climate.
January 2004 (Global CO2 level: 377 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $25.3 billion)
ExxonMobil puts out a new ad titled, “Directions for climate research." The ad argues for “uncertainties that limit our current ability to know the extent to which humans are affecting climate and to predict future changes caused by both human and natural forces." The same month, Exxon’s “Weather and climate" ad takes a similar tack, arguing that “scientific uncertainties continue to limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change…"
June 2004
Greenpeace USA develops www.exxonsecrets.org, a website showing the links between Exxon money and some of the loudest climate deniers being quoted in the media. The website includes dossiers and fact sheets for each organization and person with a description, history, staff bios, quotes, deeds and hidden affiliations.
July 2005
Environmental and public interest groups launch the “Exxpose Exxon" campaign.
2006
Rex Tillerson becomes Chief Executive Officer of Exxon.
September 2006
The Royal Society, Britain’s preeminent scientific organization, writes a letter to Exxon, inquiring into the company’s promotion of uncertainty around climate change science. The letter comes after the Royal Society meets with Exxon to discuss its funding of climate-denying groups. Exxonpromised at a previous meeting with the Royal Society to stop the funding, but had not followed up after the meeting to explain how it would fulfill the pledge. Later that month, it is reported that Exxon has stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has actively undermined action on climate change.
2008 (Global CO2 level: 386 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $45.2 billion)
Exxon’s 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report announces that the company will “discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner." In other words, it will stop funding climate-denying groups. Funding is cut to some climate-denying groups. Funding to others continues.
2008
Greenpeace USA and other citizen groups launch the “Strike Out Exxon" campaign, aimed at stopping the company’s advertisements at Nationals Stadium in Washington.
2010s
June 2012
In response to questions following a speech delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations,ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson suggests that while climate change is real, the solution would be to “adapt": “[A]s a species, that’s why we’re all still here. We have spent our entire existence adapting, OK? So we will adapt to this. Changes to weather patterns that move crop production areas around — we’ll adapt to that. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions."
January 2013 (Global CO2 level: 396 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $32.6 billion)
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) pushes the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act" in Oklahoma, Colorado and Arizona. The model bill mandates teaching the “weaknesses" of the “global warming… theory." ALEC received consistent funding from Exxon since 1998, and continues to give to ALEC.
2014
Analysis of ExxonMobil Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments reports and ExxonMobil Foundation 990 tax forms reveals that Exxon continues to fund climate denier groups. Between 1998-2014, Exxon gave over $30 million to such groups (Source: Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists). Since 2007, ExxonMobil has also donated $1.87 million to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change.
September 2014
Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt announces that the company would not renew its membership to the American Legislative Exchange Council because ALEC is “literally lying" about the fact of climate change. As far as is known, Exxon remains a member of ALEC, serving on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Advisory Council as of August 2015.
February 2015
Research by Greenpeace exposes Willie Soon as having failed to disclose that Exxon and other fossil fuel interests funded his research. Soon had served as one of the few climate deniers with a science background referenced by climate-denying politicians. The news further debunks Exxon’s claim that the company had stopped funding climate deniers in 2007, as Exxon provided more than $300,000 in funding to Soon between 2005 and 2010.
September 16, 2015 (Global CO2 level: 401 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $16.2 billion)
InsideClimate News publishes the first exposé on Exxon’s knowledge of climate change risks and how it responded. The article describes how management at Exxon learned about the potential risk of climate change as early as 1977 and invested in climate change research.
October 9, 2015
The Los Angeles Times and Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism publish a story about Exxon’s knowledge of climate threats to the Arctic, including models to anticipate impacts on Arctic operations that Exxon executives such as Lee Raymond would publicly dismiss.
October 14, 2015
U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier request that the U.S. Department of Justice launch an investigation into whether Exxon violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as laws on consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, and shareholder protection.
November 4, 2015
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opens an investigation into Exxon over whether the company has lied about what it knew about climate change. The AG issues a subpoena to Exxon demanding in-house documents.
November 20, 2015
Exxon Vice President for Public and Government Affairs Kenneth P. Cohen sends a letter to Columbia University, accusing members of the Graduate School of Journalism of violating the school’s ethics policies regarding the recent articles regarding Exxon’s climate change-related research going back to the 1970s. The Dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, Steve Coll, issues a response defending the articles.
November 23 and 30, 2015
A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that organizations that received funding from corporations like Exxon were more likely to argue against climate change science than organizations that did not receive such funding. Another study in Nature Climate Change finds that climate-denying organizations funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers are the most successful at inserting climate denialism into media stories.
January 2016
The U.S. Department of Justice refers the case of Exxon’s advocacy around climate change to the FBI.
January 20, 2016
The Los Angeles Times reports that California’s Attorney General is investigating Exxon over whether the company committed securities fraud or violated environmental laws by lying about what it knew about climate change.
March 29, 2016
A coalition of 17 Attorneys General and AG officials announces their support for President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. As part of the event, the AGs of Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands announce that they are investigating Exxon’s actions regarding climate change. Top officials from Vermont, Maryland, Virginia and Connecticut say fossil fuel companies would be held accountable for illegal activities around climate change, although they do not announce investigations.
May 18, 2016
13 Representatives sitting on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee send letters to 17 state Attorneys General and 8 non-governmental organizations, including Greenpeace. The letters accuse the agencies and organizations of tampering with companies’, organizations’ and individuals’ rights to free speech. Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard responds that “America’s least-respected politicians have now courageously stepped up to defend one of America’s most-hated corporations from scrutiny." Data from Oil Change International shows that the 13 Representatives who sent the letter have received $2,848,418 in campaign contributions from coal, oil and gas companies since 1999.
May 25, 2016
Exxon holds its annual shareholders meeting in Dallas. The board confronts 14 proposed resolutions from shareholders, 10 of which are climate-related. All climate change resolutions are voted down. However, a resolution requiring Exxon to report on the impacts to its business from climate policy receives a substantial 38% vote of support, and a separate resolution passes allowing shareholders to vote in a portion of Exxon’s board of directors. This presents the possibility of getting a climate expert on Exxon’s board.
June 1
Greenpeace USA, other NGOs and the Maryland Attorney General reject the authority of Congressional representatives’ inquiry. Greenpeace notes the “‘irony’ that [the] committee, in the name of protecting ExxonMobil’s free speech, would ‘examine’ the free speech of environmental groups."
June 9
Nineteen members of California’s Congressional delegation send a letter of support to California Attorney General Kamala Harris, encouraging her investigation into Exxon despite pressure from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee to stop.
June 29
The Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands agrees to withdraw his subpoena of Exxon, after Exxon sues the U.S. territory for what the company claims are violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights. The agreement does not prevent the U.S. Virgin Islands from subpoenaing Exxon in the future. Exxon had also sued the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office based on similar arguments, but Massachusetts continues to fight the lawsuit.
July 6
Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), implies he will subpoena the 17 Attorneys General and 8 NGOs if they do not reply to the Committee’s earlier request for their communication records. Greenpeace and 350.org respond by demanding that Congressman Smith and the involved Committee members reveal their connections to the fossil fuel industry, which has given Smith and the other members $2,848,418 in campaign contributions since 1999.

July 11
19 Senate democrats use the chamber floor to highlight the fossil fuel industry’s–including ExxonMobil’s–“web of denial" around climate change. The same day Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) introduce a resolution arguing that fossil fuel companies created a “misinformation campaign to mislead the public and cast doubt in order to protect their financial interest."
July 13
Congressman Smith subpoenas the offices of the New York and Massachusetts AGs and 8 NGOs, including Greenpeace, with a deadline to respond by July 27.
July 27
Attorneys General Schneiderman and Healey, as well as Greenpeace and other NGOs, refuse to respond to the subpoena. “The American people know this Congressional subpoena is Rep. Smith’s signature move to turn attention away from the real issue at stake, which is the investigations into Exxon’s climate denial," says Greenpeace Executive director Annie Leonard.
August 20
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says in an interview with the New York Times that his office’s investigation into Exxon is focused less on what the company knew about climate change years ago, and more on whether the company in recent years failed to report the potential impact of climate change regulations on its future business. In other words, the AG’s office is conducting “a straightforward fraud investigation."
September 20
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating whether Exxon failed to publicly report the potential impact of climate regulations on its future business–the type of investigation also being conducted by the New York Attorney General. The Wall Street Journal reports that the SEC is also investigating whether Exxon failed to “de-book" some of its oil and gas reserves in the face of low oil prices–in other words, that Exxon has been claiming valuable assets that it does not actually have, given the poor state of the oil and gas industry.

The how http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

Excellent. I didn’t have the energy and doubted Mike’s capability to comprehend. But I am glad someone did it.

Excellent. I didn't have the energy and doubted Mike's capability to comprehend. But I am glad someone did it.
Walylon you are CC patsy. I would bet CC is being paid for her work here. I would have to say that neither one of you care about the future of the earth or mankind. It is all about money for you, if it is not, boy are you being played. When big law firms, like the ones that took on the tobacco industry prepare for a legal fight. They pick the area to file in. They must win the first court battles so that they can get to the higher courts. It will most likely be the 9th or 11th district for this type of case. It is not about right or wrong. It is about them getting their hands on the money. They research who has the most funds. That would-be Shell, Chevron or Exxon. All about the same. Then they research company structure. Shell is part of Royal Dutch Shell and has the backing of England’s Oxford attorneys. So, stay away from Shell. Chevron this year just won the Ecuador pollution case. And BP who is also about the size of Exxon had the legal battle in the gulf. They are hot with attorneys right now. By default, it is Exxon you are going after. If I am wrong, please tell me why you picked Exxon? Were they doing something different than the rest of the industry? The first battle is nothing more than public opinion. Pick the district, get articles into the newspapers. Figure out the routes the judges drive to work and get the billboards up. Provide speakers for the local talk radio stations. Next, they hire all the top experts in the field so they will not be available to Exxon. As pointed in previous paragraph, Chevron and BP have those experts onboard already. And this is where CC come in. Cover the internet. And where Walylon comes in, sway the public opinion. Walylon, you told us about Exxon being this unethical company that was hiding data. I ask you to prove it. And you went running with your tail between your legs and CC come and did a data dump of BS to bury the problem. Nothing new. She has been doing this all along. What you are doing is not science. You are twisting the science for political and economic goals. Try answering my questions for a change. This pathway you are going down will take two decades at the least and maybe as long as five or six. And do nothing to help Global Warming.