Re: Vanguard is not worth 8 trillion

So having a "purpose" beyond short-term profit and eff everything else - including long-term survival - is "leftist" now?

Exxon sponsored a bunch of internal climate data. Even their own studies indicated their product was to Planet Earth what Joe Camel was to human lungs.

This is...maybe not the best business decision ever, if you're trying to avoid winding up like Big Tobacco did.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago - Inside Climate News

At a meeting in Exxon Corporation’s headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world’s use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity. “In […]

RememberTheDanny

110%er [7087]

TigerPulse: 96%

Posts: 9661

Joined: 10/6/21

Re: They did that during Q1 and disclosed in their Q1....

Apr 14, 2022, 9:41 PM [ in reply to Re: They did that during Q1 and disclosed in their Q1.... ]

Exxon has gone woke; the politics behind them coming up with a man-made global warming study justifies their 'study' to pander to the public and politicians by their poorly done "woke" climate change work.

Going to do this again ... but this time without the link (which is far too long for TNet site):

Man-made Climate Change - False Conclusion.

NOAA’s own data disputes their written conclusion that ‘man made’ CO2 is the main factor in global climate change. They don’t know, nor can they explain how the globe was so warm from ~ 925 AD through ~1075 AD (i.e., long before anthropogenic CO2 was possible).

NOAA Article: Climate Change - Incoming Sunlight (Oct. 7, 2021) - - - here is my summary:

The human-driven component is of climate change is unproven; NOAA’s attempts to devise a model to predict solar activity as a predictive indicator of climate change don’t hold up. NOAA’s failure to establish a solar activity vs. global temperature correlation proves that their solar model is wrong, and that solar activity is not predictable. Their recent years data (~ 300 years) is far too small of a data subset to be statistically meaningful when warming cycles of 400+ years are known to have happened since Jesus Christ’s time on earth.

Assertions that the recent ~ 100 year warming trend as being caused by anthropogenic CO2 are statistical B.S., based on the NOAA’s own (entire set of) data.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Refer to NOAA article’s section titled “Long-term changes in solar activity” which is found a little less than half-way through the paper.

The article asserts that solar “warm periods” … followed by solar “cool periods” … are ~ 100 years. The article’s solar data reflects a bumpy sine wave of ~ 100 years in duration. In other words, the sine wave starts at a “cool” climate minimum (at ‘year 0’), then rises to a “warm” climate maximum (at ‘year 50’), and then ends at a “cool” climate minimum again (at ‘year 100’). (*) Refer to the 2nd paragraph and the chart “Schwabe and Gleissberg Cycles since 1700.”

From ~ 925 AD through ~ 1075 AD, the temperatures in N.America were inexplicably warmer - - - as warm as they are now the 21st century. (*) This is seen in the 3rd graph in the “Long-term changes in solar activity” section.

The fascinating part of this section is the editors’ decision to barely mention the ~ 150 year warm period from ~ 925 AD through ~ 1075 AD, which is revealed by their own data. There is also the fact that the “sine wave” which encompasses this period is ~ 400 years in duration.

As such, there is also no attempt to explain that period’s high temperatures and no one mentioned that their ‘100 year per sine wave’ model is utterly destroyed by this 400 year sine wave from ~ 800 AD to ~ 1200 AD.

In other words, none of the NOAA editors touched on the near-certainty that anthropogenic driven increases in CO2 levels did not cause the temperature rise during this period, nor did they assert that their arduously composed ‘proof-of-minimal-impact’ solar-activity during that period model might also be wrong.

(*) NOAA’s failure to discuss how their ‘minimal solar activity / less solar warmth’ model during the period of 800 AD to 1200 AD was contradicted by the fact that global temperatures were high for so long. Their ‘100 year sine wave’ for fluctuations in solar activity are proven as untrue; solar activity can be warm … with long term warming trends … for periods that far exceed 100 year cycles.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Any assertion by the NOAA that the recent increase in global temperatures is caused by man-made CO2 cannot be proven as factual in light of the NOAA’s failed solar model (which asserts that the current solar activity is not in a cycle of increased activity). Just because they say it doesn’t mean its true … their own data fails to prove their own assertion.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up