Oil Industry Knew Effects Of Fossil Fuels On Climate Change In 1950s

[mentalfloss]

Oil Industry Knew Effects Of Fossil Fuels On Climate Change In 1950s

A new report reveals that Big Oil companies have been covering up the detrimental effects of climate change around 20 years earlier than previously thought.

Although researchers are now aware that Amoco, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, Shell, Sunoco and Texaco all shared climate research between 1979 and 1983, the newly leaked documents revealed by the Washington-based Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) point to research as far back as 1957.

"This story is older and it is bigger than I think has been appreciated before," said Carroll Muffett, president of CIEL.

Muffett says that the documents reveal that the industry was taking note of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change by 1957. Furthermore, he says that they shaped science and research in order to alter public opinion in a way that benefited them as far back as the 1940s.

CIEL has created a website that contains all of the documents it has uncovered, including scientific articles, oral testimonies and patents that cover more than 50 years of research and activities in the oil industry.

"They offer compelling evidence that oil executives were actively debating climate science in the 1950s, and were explicitly warned about climate risks a decade later," CIEL said. "Just as importantly, they offer glimpses into why the industry undertook this research, and how it used the results to sow scientific uncertainty and public skepticism."

Oil Industry Knew Effects Of Fossil Fuels On Climate Change In 1950s: Report : Science/Health : Headlines & Global News

 

[Walter]

Utter drivel. Biggest Clingon to date.

 

[Nick Danger]

Makes sense to me. Hell, the tobacco industry is still trying to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer to save a few bucks in court, why would an industry with the amount of money at stake as big oil be shy about telling a few fibs?

 

[taxslave]

Makes sense to me. Hell, the tobacco industry is still trying to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer to save a few bucks in court, why would an industry with the amount of money at stake as big oil be shy about telling a few fibs?

WHy would big oil have to lie? They know they are supplying an essential product and people are going to continue to use their product regardless of the effects. Contrary to what the ecotards think oil is used for so much more than just gas for their cars. Even your computer would not exist if not for oil.

 

[mentalfloss]

Are we really defending oil companies here?

This forum sometimes lol

 

[Jinentonix]

Makes sense to me. Hell, the tobacco industry is still trying to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer to save a few bucks in court, why would an industry with the amount of money at stake as big oil be shy about telling a few fibs?

Again with the cigarette comparison? Cigarettes are a useless product designed to slowly kill you when used as intended. Oil isn't just a commodity, it doesn't just run the global economy. It IS the global economy. Never mind the obvious products like gasoline and motor oil, how about toothpaste and the tube it comes in? There's dish soap and the bottle it comes in. Pantyhose, band-aids, surgical gowns and gloves, paint, make-up, house building materials, TVs, computers, handhelds, gaming consoles and games. The list goes on, to the tune of at least 6,000 different products, many of which are everyday consumer goods.

 

[Nick Danger]

Again with the cigarette comparison?

Again you miss the point entirely. The tobacco comparison was strictly from the point of corporate manipulation of public information, obscuring the downside of a potentially harmful product, any potentially harmful product, to shelter profits. Is it that you can't see that, or that you don't want to?

 

[gerryh]

Again you miss the point entirely. The tobacco comparison was strictly from the point of corporate manipulation of public information, obscuring the downside of a potentially harmful product, any potentially harmful product, to shelter profits. Is it that you can't see that, or that you don't want to?

Can you list any product that is NOT potentially harmful?

 

[Nick Danger]

Can you list any product that is NOT potentially harmful?

I suppose you could suffocate from stuffing dried kumquats up your nose, but I'm not going to argue semantics.

 

[gerryh]

I suppose you could suffocate from stuffing dried kumquats up your nose, but I'm not going to argue semantics.

All I'm saying is, "harmful" is subjective. Pretty much anything in high enough quantities is "harmful".


You do realize that if you drink enough water you could drown. Do the bottled water companies make this public knowledge? I'm sure they have been aware of this for a very long time. OMG, have they been holding out on us? Hiding this from us?

 

[Curious Cdn]

I know that the leading statement is likely not true because the "greenhouse effect" (and the "nuclear winter" effect) were happened upon by planetary astronomers to explain why Venus is so incredibly hot and Mars is so incredibly cold. Their atmospheric makeups were guessed at and their surface temperatures approximate only before orbiters and landers checked them out. This information originated in the Sixties, Seventies, for the most part.

 

[Nick Danger]

All I'm saying is, "harmful" is subjective. Pretty much anything in high enough quantities is "harmful".


You do realize that if you drink enough water you could drown. Do the bottled water companies make this public knowledge? I'm sure they have been aware of this for a very long time. OMG, have they been holding out on us? Hiding this from us?

Maybe "potential" wasn't the right term to use. There is no doubt in my mind the tobacco industry was well aware of the health risks involved in smoking, but they choose to deliberately dispute the science motivated only by their desire to keep selling cigarettes and avoid any responsibility for the damage their product caused. There is also no doubt in my mind that big oil is well aware of the risks involved in burning fossil fuels, and that their chief motivation in continuing to support "scientific" findings to the contrary is to continue business as usual.

 

[Ludlow]

Well the first thang ya know ole Jed's a millionaire. The kin folks said, Jed, move away from there. They said californy is the place ye orta be so they loaded up they truck and moved to Beverly.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Hills, that is.

Swimming pools and movie stars.

 

[gerryh]

Maybe "potential" wasn't the right term to use. There is no doubt in my mind the tobacco industry was well aware of the health risks involved in smoking, but they choose to deliberately dispute the science motivated only by their desire to keep selling cigarettes and avoid any responsibility for the damage their product caused. There is also no doubt in my mind that big oil is well aware of the risks involved in burning fossil fuels, and that their chief motivation in continuing to support "scientific" findings to the contrary is to continue business as usual.

Sorry, the global warmists haven't "proven" any long term "risks". All of their predictions and projections have not come true.

Back in the 60's and 70's we had acid rain back east, dumping into the Great lakes. We managed to clean that up with minimal effort and without having to shut down all industry. Since the first big "warnings", back in the 60's, we have increased production and usage and increased CO2 output. Now, the doom sayers from back then had said that if we did what we did, we would ALL be dead now. The air would be unbreathable, the temps would have gone through the roof because of the "greenhouse effect". None of it has come to pass. So, with that being said, the "oil industry" really doesn't have to do squat, and with having only spent 115 million a year to counter the billions the warmists and their supporters spend, I don't really think they are too concerned with science proving the warmists "theories".

 

[taxslave]

Are we really defending oil companies here?

This forum sometimes lol

You defend ecotards. Which is dumber?

 

[Ludlow]

All I'm saying is, "harmful" is subjective. Pretty much anything in high enough quantities is "harmful".


You do realize that if you drink enough water you could drown. Do the bottled water companies make this public knowledge? I'm sure they have been aware of this for a very long time. OMG, have they been holding out on us? Hiding this from us?

Just about the most ignorant analogy I've heard from a grown person who is not full on retarded, but,,wait,,I forgot who posted this. Never mind.

 

[MHz]

Well the first thang ya know ole Jed's a millionaire. The kin folks said, Jed, move away from there. They said californy is the place ye orta be so they loaded up they truck and moved to Beverly.

Now fade back to the ones that didn't leave with a hint that the 'birth defects attributed to incest' were actually caused by environmental damage instead.

 

[petros]

It's no secret that "Big Oil" has known about and have been responding to SO2's impact on climate. They made a fortune on SO2 cap and trade.

 

[mentalfloss]

You defend ecotards. Which is dumber?

Patrick Brown is an ecotard?