<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<font size="+2"><i><b>January 13 , 2023</b></i></font><br>
<br>
<i>[ where the fox guards the hen house? ]</i><br>
<b>UAE names oil company boss as president of COP28 climate talks</b><b><br>
</b>By Rosie Frost • Jan 12, 2023 <br>
The United Arab Emirates has chosen the CEO of one of the world’s
biggest oil companies to lead climate talks at COP28 later this
year.<br>
<br>
Sultan Al Jaber is the country’s Minister of Industry and Advanced
Technology and the chief executive officer of the Abu Dhabi National
Oil Company (ADNOC). He has also served as the UAE’s climate envoy
and is the chairman of Masdar, a government-owned renewable energy
company...<br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/01/12/uae-names-oil-boss-as-cop28-president-critics-say-it-could-torpedo-climate-talks">https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/01/12/uae-names-oil-boss-as-cop28-president-critics-say-it-could-torpedo-climate-talks</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Exxon's deliberate malfeasance ] </i><br>
<b>Revealed: Exxon made ‘breathtakingly’ accurate climate
predictions in 1970s and 80s</b><br>
Oil company drove some of the leading science of the era only to
publicly dismiss global heating<br>
Oliver Milman in New York<br>
@olliemilman<br>
Thu 12 Jan 2023<br>
The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly
and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such
science in order to protect its core business, new research has
found.<br>
<br>
A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously
established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at
least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk
even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and
successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to
reduce fossil fuel use.<br>
<br>
A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were
uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards,
predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide
emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the
world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.<br>
<br>
Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about
0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the
burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis,
published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept
and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as
skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.<br>
<br>
Tugboats tow the oil tanker Exxon Valdez off Bligh Reef in Prince
William Sound 05 April 1989<br>
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded
deniers for 27 more years<br>
Read more<br>
Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry
documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew,
said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so
closely with what subsequently happened.<br>
<br>
“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us
were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by
researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that
they accurately predicted warming years before they started
attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what
Exxon knew and how they misled.”<br>
<br>
The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and
peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by
Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in
independent publications between 1977 and 2014.<br>
<br>
Exxon-modeled climate projections from 1982 with observed data
overlaid<br>
Photograph: Supran, et al., 2023, “Assessing ExxonMobil’s global
warming projections”<br>
The analysis found that Exxon correctly rejected the idea the world
was headed for an imminent ice age, which was a possibility mooted
in the 1970s, instead predicting that the planet was facing a
“carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”. Company scientists
also found that global heating was human-influenced and would be
detected around the year 2000, and they predicted the “carbon
budget” for holding the warming below 2C above pre-industrial times.<br>
<br>
Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to
downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As
recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil
company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that
“there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
“What they did was essentially remain silent while doing this work
and only when it became strategically necessary to manage the
existential threat to their business did they stand up and speak out
against the science,” said Supran.<br>
<br>
“They could have endorsed their science rather than deny it. It
would have been a much harder case to deny it if the king of big oil
was actually backing the science rather than attacking it.”<br>
<br>
Climate scientists said the new study highlighted an important
chapter in the struggle to address the climate crisis. “It is very
unfortunate that the company not only did not heed the implied risks
from this information, but rather chose to endorse non-scientific
ideas instead to delay action, likely in an effort to make more
money,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell
University.<br>
<br>
Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound
implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could
have averted current and future climate disasters. “If we include
impacts from air pollution and climate change, their actions likely
impacted thousands to millions of people adversely,” she added.<br>
<br>
Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, said the new
study was a “detailed, robust analysis” and that Exxon’s misleading
public comments about the climate crisis were “especially brazen”
given their scientists’ involvement in work with outside researchers
in assessing global heating. Shindell said it was hard to conclude
that Exxon’s scientists were any better at this than outside
scientists, however.<br>
<br>
The new work provided “further amplification” of Exxon’s
misinformation, said Robert Brulle, an environment policy expert at
Brown University who has researched climate disinformation spread by
the fossil fuel industry.<br>
<br>
“I’m sure that the ongoing efforts to hold Exxon accountable will
take note of this study,” Brulle said, a reference to the various
lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.<br>
<br>
Exxon was approached for comment.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research">https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research</a><br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ document is paywall free for a few weeks
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063</a> ]</i><br>
<b>Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections</b><br>
G. SUPRAN, S. RAHMSTORF, AND N. ORESKES<br>
SCIENCE<br>
13 Jan 2023<br>
<b>Insider knowledge</b><br>
For decades, some members of the fossil fuel industry tried to
convince the public that a causative link between fossil fuel use
and climate warming could not be made because the models used to
project warming were too uncertain. Supran et al. show that one of
those fossil fuel companies, ExxonMobil, had their own internal
models that projected warming trajectories consistent with those
forecast by the independent academic and government models. What
they understood about climate models thus contradicted what they led
the public to believe. —HJS<br>
<b>Structured Abstract</b><br>
<br>
<b>BACKGROUND</b><br>
<p>In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company
memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late
1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming
with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.”
Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas
industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at
least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the
1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford
motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists
have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing
qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of
climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we
demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as
peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp
scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is
real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and
ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the
matter.</p>
<b>ADVANCES</b><br>
Many of the uncovered fossil fuel industry documents include
explicit projections of the amount of warming expected to occur over
time in response to rising atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. Yet, these numerical and graphical data have
received little attention. Indeed, no one has systematically
reviewed climate modeling projections by any fossil fuel interest.
What exactly did oil and gas companies know, and how accurate did
their knowledge prove to be? Here, we address these questions by
reporting and analyzing all known global warming projections
documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp
scientists between 1977 and 2003.<br>
Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late
1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly
and skillfully. Using established statistical techniques, we find
that 63 to 83% of the climate projections reported by ExxonMobil
scientists were accurate in predicting subsequent global warming.
ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per
decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of
independent academic and government projections published between
1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of
ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were
also similar to those of the independent models.<br>
<p>Moreover, we show that ExxonMobil scientists correctly dismissed
the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a “carbon dioxide
induced ‘super-interglacial’”; accurately predicted that
human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year
2000 ± 5; and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to
dangerous warming.<b><br>
</b></p>
<b>OUTLOOK</b><br>
Today, dozens of cities, counties, and states are suing oil and gas
companies for their “longstanding internal scientific knowledge of
the causes and consequences of climate change and public deception
campaigns.” The European Parliament and the US Congress have held
hearings, US President Joe Biden has committed to holding fossil
fuel companies accountable, and a grassroots social movement has
arisen under the moniker #ExxonKnew. Our findings demonstrate that
ExxonMobil didn’t just know “something” about global warming decades
ago—they knew as much as academic and government scientists knew.
But whereas those scientists worked to communicate what they knew,
ExxonMobil worked to deny it—including overemphasizing
uncertainties, denigrating climate models, mythologizing global
cooling, feigning ignorance about the discernibility of human-caused
warming, and staying silent about the possibility of stranded fossil
fuel assets in a carbon-constrained world.<br>
--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063#.Y8CERWBVOko.mailto">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063#.Y8CERWBVOko.mailto</a><br>
Historically observed temperature change (red) and atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentration (blue) over time, compared against
global warming projections reported by ExxonMobil scientists.<br>
<p>(A) “Proprietary” 1982 Exxon-modeled projections. (B) Summary of
projections in seven internal company memos and five peer-reviewed
publications between 1977 and 2003 (gray lines). (C) A 1977
internally reported graph of the global warming “effect of CO2 on
an interglacial scale.” (A) and (B) display averaged historical
temperature observations, whereas the historical temperature
record in (C) is a smoothed Earth system model simulation of the
last 150,000 years.</p>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
<blockquote>Climate projections by the fossil fuel industry have
never been assessed. On the basis of company records, we
quantitatively evaluated all available global warming projections
documented by—and in many cases modeled by—Exxon and ExxonMobil
Corp scientists between 1977 and 2003. We find that most of their
projections accurately forecast warming that is consistent with
subsequent observations. Their projections were also consistent
with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic
and government models. Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp also correctly
rejected the prospect of a coming ice age, accurately predicted
when human-caused global warming would first be detected, and
reasonably estimated the “carbon budget” for holding warming below
2°C. On each of these points, however, the company’s public
statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific
data.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ VICE learned ]</i><br>
<b>Here Come the Gas Stove Culture Wars</b><br>
The debate over gas stoves is going the way of guns, cars, and
masks.<br>
By Aaron Gordon<br>
January 12, 2023<br>
<p>On Monday, Richard Trumka Jr., a commissioner with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, used the “B” word. “Any option
is on the table,” Trumka Jr. said in an interview with Bloomberg
News. “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.”</p>
<p>On its own, there is nothing objectionable about what Trumka Jr.
said. The CPSC is a government agency that enforces recalls while
also standardizing and banning the sale of products that are not
safe to use. <br>
<br>
The problem for Trumka Jr. is he was talking about gas stoves. And
some people get weird about cooking with gas.<br>
<br>
Although Trumka Jr. later clarified that CPSC doesn’t have the
power to take anything away from anyone, only to regulate the sale
of new products, the cat was out of the bag. Elected officials
came out of the woodwork to decry the government overreach of
unelected bureaucrats, a favorite talking point among Republicans
and honorary Republican spirit brother Joe Manchin. <br>
<br>
The most striking—and viral—reaction naturally came from Texas,
where Congressman Ronny Jackson seemingly took his thoughts on
guns and ran a mental find-and-replace command: “I’ll NEVER give
up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my
stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE
IT!!” ...</p>
<p>- -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/RonnyJacksonTX/status/1612839703018934274">https://twitter.com/RonnyJacksonTX/status/1612839703018934274</a> ...<br>
</p>
<p>Like most culture—and many actual—wars, the root of the conflict
is a fundamental misunderstanding about what we’re actually
arguing about. When most people think of “electric stoves,”
they’re thinking of the ones that develop a red hue from heating
coils. These have been around for a very long time and I
completely agree that they suck ass. It fundamentally works the
same way as gas, by having a heating mechanism get real hot
whereby some of that heat also heats the pot and food and also
anything else that happens to be close by. <br>
<br>
Fortunately, there is a far superior cooking method called
induction. It also uses electricity but works in a completely
different way. It uses magnetism to heat the cookware directly,
creating little heat around the surface. This is super efficient
and wastes very little energy heating things you don’t want to be
heated. It also heats the cookware instantly and precisely. I can
set the exact temperature I want the cookware to be set to. It
also boils a pot of pasta in about half the time as my gas range.
And when I’m done cooking, the surface is cool to the touch within
minutes. The cooking area remains close to a normal
temperature—unlike with gas where the flame will heat the
surrounding area as much as the cookware itself—making the cooking
experience much more pleasant, especially in the summer. And
because the surface never gets very hot, spills don’t burn onto
the cooking surface, making cleanup easier.<br>
<br>
Induction cooktops are far more efficient than gas. And any chef,
barbeque expert, or meat smoking professional worth a damn will
tell you that flavor doesn’t come from the flame. I blame Burger
King, which used “flame broiled” as an early marketing gimmick,
for this myth. I cannot repeat this enough: Chefs who actually try
induction cooking like it!<br>
<br>
I felt no particular way about induction cooking before I got the
portable cooktop. I bought it out of curiosity more than anything
else. The only thing I feel about it now is confusion over why
people love their gas stoves so much. Without fail, when I’m
talking to someone who says they will never give up gas, I find
they are completely unfamiliar with induction and are basing their
opinion solely on the comparison with coil-style electric ranges.
This is like declaring you will never buy an electric car because
you drove a 1980 Commuta-Car once and it sucked.<br>
<br>
Now, it is true that induction cooktops are more expensive than
gas or coil electric ranges for now. That is because they are
newer. The price will go down over time, especially now that the
federal government will subsidize a new one up to $840. <br>
<br>
But I am not naive. I know just because something is better
doesn’t mean it will be without controversy. Few Americans have
experience with induction cooktops. As gas hookup bans become more
popular, the culture war fight over gas stoves will intensify
because, if you squint hard enough and ignore as many salient
facts as possible, it’s a story of big government intruding on
people’s personal preferences. Nuanced differences like induction
versus coil or bans on new construction versus retroactive do not
resonate with the Cold Dead Hands crowd, who trade in slogans and
absolutes. And it is a lucrative trade. They do well for
themselves, because nobody likes being told what to do or even the
appearance of being told what to do. We’re going to be hearing
more concern trolling about how it is actually racist to ban gas
stoves because it will kill Korean BBQ restaurants. We’re going to
be hearing a lot more about how Democrats are coming for your gas
stoves and your fundamental freedom to cook however you like.<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gyv8/here-come-the-gas-stove-culture-wars">https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gyv8/here-come-the-gas-stove-culture-wars</a>
...<br>
</p>
<p>- -<br>
</p>
<i>[ Are we surprised? NYT reveals Matt Blashaw, an HGTV fixture, is
a paid influencer for a fossil fuel industry group that has become
one of the biggest opponents of government efforts to wean U.S.
homes and businesses off oil and gas in favor of cleaner
electricity ]</i><br>
<br>
<b>The New Soldiers in Propane’s Fight Against Climate Action:
Television Stars</b><br>
An industry group is spending millions of dollars to push back
against efforts to move heating away from oil and gas.<br>
By Hiroko Tabuchi<br>
Jan. 11, 2023<br>
<br>
For D.I.Y. enthusiasts, Matt Blashaw is a familiar face, judging
bathroom remodels or planning surprise home makeovers on popular
cable television shows.<br>
<br>
Mr. Blashaw also has an unusually strong opinion about how Americans
should heat their homes: by burning propane, or liquid petroleum
gas.<br>
<br>
“When I think of winter, I think of being inside. I think of cooking
with the family, of being by a roaring fire — and with propane, that
is all possible,” he said on a segment of the CBS affiliate WCIA,
calling in from his bright kitchen. “That’s why we call it an energy
source for everyone.”<br>
<br>
Less well known is the fact that Mr. Blashaw is paid by a fossil
fuel industry group that has been running a furtive campaign against
government efforts to move heating away from oil and gas toward
electricity made from wind, solar and other cleaner sources...<br>
The Propane Education and Research Council, or PERC, which is funded
by propane providers across the country, has spent millions of
dollars on “provocative anti-electrification messaging” for TV,
print and social media, using influencers like Mr. Blashaw,
according to the group’s internal documents viewed by The New York
Times.<br>
<br>
As a federally-sanctioned trade association, PERC is allowed to
collect fees on propane sales, which helps fund its marketing
campaigns. But according to the law that created this system, that
money is supposed to be used for things like research and safety.<br>
<br>
In 2023, the organization plans to spend $13 million on its
anti-electrification campaign, including $600,000 on “influencers”
like Mr. Blashaw, according to the documents, which were obtained
from PERC’s website as well as a public records request by the
Energy and Policy Institute, a pro-renewables group...<br>
The overwhelming majority of scientists around the globe agree that
the burning of coal, gas and oil produces greenhouse gases that are
dangerously heating the planet. Scientists commissioned by the
United Nations have warned that nations must deeply and quickly cut
those emissions to avoid a catastrophic escalation of deadly
flooding, heat waves, drought and species extinction.<br>
<br>
“The movement to electrify everything is rapidly gaining momentum,
and poses a substantial threat to the sustainability of our
industry,” he said, according to meeting minutes.<br>
<br>
Erin Hatcher, who heads communications at PERC, said its campaign
“asserts propane’s role in a clean energy future” and “promotes the
advantages of a wide path to decarbonization.” Influencers like Mr.
Blashaw, she said “use and specify propane in their construction
projects and are very familiar with propane’s advantages.” Ms.
Hatcher would not say how much her group has paid Mr. Blashaw.<br>
<br>
Mr. Weidie said that his fundamental belief in the importance of a
low-carbon future had been “lost in out-of-context conversation.” He
said he believed electrification was set to “play a big role but is
not the only answer,” and that propane was “a great energy for
generations to come.”<br>
<br>
Mr. Blashaw referred questions to PERC.<br>
<br>
Most American homes are heated by natural gas or oil. But in states
where the energy grid is increasingly powered by wind, solar and
other renewables, electric heat pumps are fast becoming a
lower-carbon alternative to gas and oil. They heat as well as cool.<br>
<br>
Researchers at Princeton University found that for the United States
to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2050, nearly
one-quarter of American homes would need to switch to heat pumps.
That’s double the number today.<br>
But such a shift would reduce demand for propane, which is used in
50 million American homes, in furnaces, stoves, fireplaces and a
range of appliances, according to the National Propane Gas
Association. Propane, like natural gas, doesn’t emit as much
planet-warming greenhouse gases as coal, gasoline or diesel. But
it’s still derived from fossil fuels.<br>
<br>
“If you’re burning gas to heat your house anywhere in a northern
climate, it’s a huge amount of emissions, probably the largest part
of your emissions,” said Forrest Meggers, an associate professor at
Princeton.<br>
<br>
The propane industry’s anti-electrification campaign has been
particularly well funded because of PERC’s status as a
federally-sanctioned trade association.<br>
<br>
A 1996 law authorized the creation of PERC and allowed it to collect
a half-cent fee on every gallon of propane it sells, an example of
what is known as a federal “checkoff program” designed to support
specific industry sectors, typically agricultural commodities. Those
fees are supposed to be used for safety and consumer education,
training, or research and development projects.<br>
<br>
But ambiguous language in the original bill, together with limited
oversight by the Department of Energy, has meant the group has
diverted millions of dollars from the fee toward marketing,
including its anti-electrification campaigns. The Government
Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has
repeatedly raised concerns that PERC has been misusing the funds it
raises from the fee, which comes to more than $40 million a year,
and criticized lax government oversight.<br>
<br>
PERC has also funded groups working on campaigns in response to
federal and state climate policies, possibly violating a provision
in the 1996 law that bans the organization from lobbying, the G.A.O.
has warned.<br>
- -<br>
Still, by the New York propane group’s own accounting, its social
media ads reached 2 million people, and its videos were shown more
than 2.8 million times. “PERC is running the largest national
anti-electrification campaign I’ve encountered anywhere in the
United States," said Charlie Spatz, a researcher at the Energy and
Policy Institute. “Propane customers, whether they’re buying fuel
for their home heating or for their grill, they’re unwittingly
funding PERC’s anti-climate agenda.”...<br>
- -<br>
“The good news is that there are now better alternatives for cleaner
school buses today, like propane school buses,” she said, which
could reduce tailpipe emissions for a far lower cost...<br>
Experts question that claim. For tailpipe emissions that could both
harm kids’ lungs and warm the planet, “electric buses are going to
change the game,” said Hailin Li, a professor at West Virginia
University. And with the federal government providing $5 billion
toward electric school buses, there is little reason to go with
propane, he said...<br>
- -<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html?unlocked_article_code=3j3igLiQDcJEQsfKnGxYcx2ZLvZbGHOTp1SRBqZ8yHcX1N-qE7pE5nDASt39WU3PgwfppsPy_cpXZYV0Q9H16GXzsGWX9JBONodq0-jJlIz5ySEOE0kDDESGT_Vhqu_c-qJyzQDPeQYtUcOERRkqGKWatk2Hc9noIYmMjm4SeM9Fgy2WLvnSn5mHU1SuPLf3PAXfc8q8xbWyt73ZKwf-g9VTJQR2UdxLdvJUDC8wPBHbQtq9i_xxS9Ag5FbxnxbJcKj5ZC8758iiKgzLCAO9aT2hmCTLz7XGbmJF8d_gu1lomiuqkU2AKe_k-PUFEbjl2GbcmiQMlQ8EgxOOYflR39NLeLaOt3bF1Q0zrQ&smid=share-url">https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/climate/climate-propane-influence-campaign.html?unlocked_article_code=3j3igLiQDcJEQsfKnGxYcx2ZLvZbGHOTp1SRBqZ8yHcX1N-qE7pE5nDASt39WU3PgwfppsPy_cpXZYV0Q9H16GXzsGWX9JBONodq0-jJlIz5ySEOE0kDDESGT_Vhqu_c-qJyzQDPeQYtUcOERRkqGKWatk2Hc9noIYmMjm4SeM9Fgy2WLvnSn5mHU1SuPLf3PAXfc8q8xbWyt73ZKwf-g9VTJQR2UdxLdvJUDC8wPBHbQtq9i_xxS9Ag5FbxnxbJcKj5ZC8758iiKgzLCAO9aT2hmCTLz7XGbmJF8d_gu1lomiuqkU2AKe_k-PUFEbjl2GbcmiQMlQ8EgxOOYflR39NLeLaOt3bF1Q0zrQ&smid=share-url</a><br>
- -<br>
<i>[ mentioned above - pro-methane propaganda - notice that comments
are disallowed ]</i><br>
<b>CI Living HGTV's Matt Blashaw</b><br>
WCIA News<br>
2,956 views Oct 7, 2022<br>
CI Living learns about propane heating your home from HGTV's Matt
Blashaw<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFEUxKzlwZk">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFEUxKzlwZk</a>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[ Knowing from the start ]</i><br>
<b>Goda lmighty, Exxon Knew Absolutely Everything</b><br>
Especially exactly how much they were going to heat the earth<br>
Bill McKibben<br>
Jan 12, 2023<br>
An important new study that came out a few minutes ago makes
painfully clear precisely how much (and precisely how precisely)
Exxon understood climate change, back in the days when it could have
made a huge difference if they’d simply been honest.<br>
<p>It’s not, of course, as if we didn’t know a lot of this story
already, and in some depth. In 2015, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
website Inside Climate News published a landmark series of reports
drawing on archives and whistleblowers to demonstrate that Exxon
had set its scientists to work studying what we then called the
greenhouse effect back in the 1970s, and that those scientists had
reached the same conclusion as researchers working at NASA and
elsewhere: the carbon dioxide coming from the fossil fuel industry
was about to heat the earth in dramatic fashion. That was huge
news—and it explains the picture above, when I staged a one-man
sit-in at an Exxon station near me till the police took me away in
handcuffs. I was desperate that this story not go away—and it
didn’t. It helped fuel the massive fossil fuel divestment
campaign, as well as a score of lawsuits aimed at making Exxon pay
up.<br>
<br>
But this new study—from Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey
Supran, and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research—actually looks at the specific results that
Exxon’s scientists predicted back in those years, and sees how
well they panned out. Remarkably well: their temperature
projections had an average “skill score” of roughly 75%, which is
higher than many government researchers.<br>
<br>
“These findings corroborate and and add quantitative precision to
assertions by scholars, journalists, lawyers, politicians and
others that ExxonMobil accurately foresaw the threat of
human-caused global warming, both prior to and parallel to
orchestrating lobbying and propaganda campaigns to delay climate
action action,” the authors write.<br>
<br>
As lead author Geoffery Supran (who has just taken up a new post
at the University of Miami) put it,<br>
<br>
“This is the nail-in-the-coffin of Exxon Mobil’s claims that it
has been fasely accused of climate malfeasance. Our analysis shows
that ExxonMobil’s own data contradicted its public statements,
which included exaggerating uncertainties, critizing climate
models, mythologizing global cooling, and feigning ignorance about
when—or if—human-caused global would be measurable.”<br>
<br>
What Supran is referring to is the decades-long effort, organized
by Exxon and others, to minimize and obfuscate the reality of
climate change; its high point may have come when then CEO Lee
Raymond went to the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing, just
weeks before the Kyoto climate talks, and insisted that the world
was cooling, and that even if it wasn’t it would make no
difference if people delayed action for a few decades. We now know
in greater detail just how precisely Exxon’s scientists had been
saying the opposite.<br>
<br>
It makes me think, once more, of what may be the greatest climate
counterfactual of all. What if, on the night in 1988 that NASA’s
Jim Hansen had told Congress about global warming, Exxon’s CEO had
gone on the nightly news (which was still a thing then) and said:
“That’s what our scientists have been telling us too. It’s a real
problem.” That seems the minimum any religious or ethical system
would require, and it would have had enormous impact—no one was
going to accuse Exxon of climate alarmism. We could have gotten
down to work as a society.<br>
<br>
They chose another course instead, and in certain ways it worked
for them: in some of the years that followed, Exxon set the record
for highest annual corporate profit. But that’s not what history
is going to remember about them.<br>
<br>
Professor Daniel Mills, professor of Veterinary Behaviour Medicine
at the University of Lincoln, said: 'Our results clearly show that
dogs seem to be more relaxed in electric vehicles, particularly
when looking at behavioural traits such as restlessness.'
Additionally, an interesting and somewhat unintended revelation
from the study came from the dogs that we identified as having
potential symptoms associated with travel sickness.<br>
<br>
'During their journeys in the electric vehicles, biometric
recordings of these dogs revealed their heart rates slowed
markedly more than when they were in diesel cars. This was of
particular interest to us given an increase in heart rate is
commonly associated with motion sickness. It's an intriguing
result.'<br>
<br>
+Dr. Rose Abramoff, a climate scientist at the federal
government’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, took part in a small
and nonviolent climate demonstration at last month’s AGU meeting.
So the federal government fired her.<br>
<br>
I used to be a well-behaved scientist. I stood quietly on melting
permafrost in Utqiagvik, Alaska, and measured how much greenhouse
gas was released into the atmosphere. I filled spreadsheets and
ran simulations about how warming temperatures would increase the
carbon emissions from soil.<br>
<br>
To do my job, I dissociated the data I was working with from the
terrifying future it represented. But in the field, smelling the
dense rot of New England hemlock trees that were being eaten by a
pest that now survives the warming winters, I felt loss and dread.
Only my peers read my articles, which didn’t seem to have any
tangible effects. Though I saw firsthand the oncoming catastrophe
of climate change, I felt powerless to help.<br>
<br>
+Pakistan continues to need international support to recover from
devastating flooding this autumn. Among other things, 23,000
schools and clinics were destroyed. As the country’s prime
minister wrote in the Guardian this week:<br>
<br>
Aid will reassure millions of imperilled people – who have already
lost everything – that they have not been forgotten; that the
international community will help them to rebuild their lives.<br>
<br>
It will also remind us that we are all – increasingly – at the
mercy of forces of nature that do not respect borders and can only
be tamed by joining hands. It is, therefore, my sincere hope that
our gathering in Geneva comes to symbolise our common humanity and
generosity of spirit – a source of hope for all people and
countries who may face natural adversity in the future.<br>
<br>
+The late Richard Trumka once led the coal miner’s union. Now his
son, Richard Trumka Jr., is on the Consumer Product Safety
Commission and is suggesting they may outlaw new gas stoves
because—as I wrote last week—the danger they pose to children in
households where they burn is becoming ever clearer. The reaction
to his proposal is clear: conservatives are determined to make gas
stoves the next focus of the culture wars, with Texas congressman
Ronny Jackson (chief medicial advisor to President Trump)
expressing his allegiance to the blue flame science be damaned,
and promising that his range will only be taken from his “COLD,
DEAD FINGERS.” Meanwhile, the propane industry is scared enough of
heat pumps and induction cooktops that they’re hiring actors to
spread their message. Great coverage in the NYTimes<br>
<br>
“When I think of winter, I think of being inside. I think of
cooking with the family, of being by a roaring fire — and with
propane, that is all possible,” Matt Blashaw said on a segment of
the CBS affiliate WCIA, calling in from his bright kitchen.
“That’s why we call it an energy source for everyone.”<br>
<br>
Less well known is the fact that Mr. Blashaw is paid by a fossil
fuel industry group that has been running a furtive campaign
against government efforts to move heating away from oil and gas
toward electricity made from wind, solar and other cleaner
sources.<br>
<br>
+Finally, for those of you who enjoyed The Other Cheek, our
serialized nonviolent epic, I wrote a short account of the
pleasures of publishing it.<br>
</p>
<p><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/godalmighty-exxon-knew-absolutely?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email">https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/godalmighty-exxon-knew-absolutely?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email</a><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<i>[ Oxford sources ]</i><br>
<b>Compound Extreme Heat and Drought Will Hit 90% of World
Population – Oxford Study</b><br>
Published 10 January 2023<br>
More than 90% of the world’s population is projected to face
increased risks from the compound impacts of extreme heat and
drought, potentially widening social inequalities as well as
undermining the natural world’s ability to reduce CO2 emissions in
the atmosphere - according to a study from Oxford’s School of
Geography.<br>
<br>
Warming is projected to intensify these hazards ten-fold globally
under the highest emission pathway, says the report, published in
Nature Sustainability.<br>
<br>
In the wake of record temperatures in 2022, from London to Shanghai,
continuing rising temperatures are projected around the world. When
assessed together, the linked threats of heat and drought represent
a significantly higher risk to society and ecosystems than when
either threat is considered independently, according to the paper by
Dr. Jiabo Yin, a visiting researcher from Wuhan University and
Oxford Professor Louise Slater.<br>
<br>
These joint threats may have severe socio-economic and ecological
impacts which could aggravate socio inequalities, as they are
projected to have more severe impacts on poorer people and rural
areas.<br>
<br>
According to the research, ‘The frequency of extreme compounding
hazards is projected to intensify tenfold globally due to the
combined effects of warming and decreases in terrestrial water
storage, under the highest emission scenario. Over 90% of the world
population and GDP is projected to be exposed to increasing
compounding risks in the future climate, even under the lowest
emission scenario.’<br>
<br>
Yin says, ‘By using simulations from a large model…and a new
machine-learning generated carbon budget dataset, we quantify the
response of ecosystem productivity to heat and water stressors at
the global scale.’<br>
<br>
He maintains this shows the devastating impact of the compound
threat on the natural world – and international economies. He says,
limited water availability will hit the ability of ‘carbon sinks’ –
natural biodiverse regions – to take in carbon emissions and emit
oxygen.<br>
<br>
Professor Slater says, ‘Understanding compounding hazards in a
warming Earth is essential for the implementation of the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG13 that aims
to combat climate change and its impacts. By combining atmospheric
dynamics and hydrology, we explore the role of water and energy
budgets in causing these extremes.’<br>
<br>
limited water availability will hit the ability of ‘carbon sinks’ –
natural biodiverse regions – to take in carbon emissions and emit
oxygen.<br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20230110-compound-extreme-heat-and-drought-will-hit-90-of-world-population-oxford-study">https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20230110-compound-extreme-heat-and-drought-will-hit-90-of-world-population-oxford-study</a><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-01-06-compound-extreme-heat-and-drought-will-hit-90-world-population-oxford-study#:~:text=Warming%20is%20projected%20to%20intensify,report%2C%20published%20in%20Nature%20Sustainability">https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-01-06-compound-extreme-heat-and-drought-will-hit-90-world-population-oxford-study#:~:text=Warming%20is%20projected%20to%20intensify,report%2C%20published%20in%20Nature%20Sustainability</a>.<br>
<br>
<p>- -</p>
<i>[ from the journal <u>nature sustainability</u> ]</i><br>
<b>Future socio-ecosystem productivity threatened by compound
drought–heatwave events</b><br>
Jiabo Yin, Pierre Gentine, Louise Slater, Lei Gu, Yadu Pokhrel,
Naota Hanasaki, Shenglian Guo, Lihua Xiong & Wolfram Schlenker <br>
Published: 05 January 2023<br>
<b>Abstract</b><br>
<blockquote>Compound drought–heatwave (CDHW) events are one of the
worst climatic stressors for global sustainable development.
However, the physical mechanisms behind CDHWs and their impacts on
socio-ecosystem productivity remain poorly understood. Here, using
simulations from a large climate–hydrology model ensemble of 111
members, we demonstrate that the frequency of extreme CDHWs is
projected to increase by tenfold globally under the highest
emissions scenario, along with a disproportionate negative impact
on vegetation and socio-economic productivity by the late
twenty-first century. By combining satellite observations, field
measurements and reanalysis, we show that terrestrial water
storage and temperature are negatively coupled, probably driven by
similar atmospheric conditions (for example, water vapour deficit
and energy demand). Limits on water availability are likely to
play a more important role in constraining the terrestrial carbon
sink than temperature extremes, and over 90% of the global
population and gross domestic product could be exposed to
increasing CDHW risks in the future, with more severe impacts in
poorer and more rural areas. Our results provide crucial insights
towards assessing and mitigating adverse effects of compound
hazards on ecosystems and human well-being.<br>
</blockquote>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01024-1">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01024-1</a><br>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<i>[The news archive - looking back at early insights]</i><br>
<font size="+2"><i><b>January 13, 1988 </b></i></font> <br>
December 13, 1988: The Boston Globe runs a front-page story
entitled,<br>
<b>"COASTAL REGIONS URGED TO PREPARE FOR RISING SEA LEVEL; PLANNERS
DECRY</b><b><br>
</b><b> APATHY TOWARD GREENHOUSE EFFECT'S THREAT."</b><br>
[ unable to confirm source ]<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>======================================= <br>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*Mass media is
lacking, many </span>daily summaries<span class="moz-txt-tag">
deliver global warming news - a few are email delivered*</span></b>
<br>
<br>
=========================================================<br>
<b>*Inside Climate News</b><br>
Newsletters<br>
We deliver climate news to your inbox like nobody else. Every day
or once a week, our original stories and digest of the web’s top
headlines deliver the full story, for free.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://insideclimatenews.org/">https://insideclimatenews.org/</a><br>
--------------------------------------- <br>
*<b>Climate Nexus</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*">https://climatenexus.org/hot-news/*</a>
<br>
Delivered straight to your inbox every morning, Hot News
summarizes the most important climate and energy news of the day,
delivering an unmatched aggregation of timely, relevant reporting.
It also provides original reporting and commentary on climate
denial and pro-polluter activity that would otherwise remain
largely unexposed. 5 weekday <br>
================================= <br>
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>Carbon
Brief Daily </b><span class="moz-txt-star"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up">https://www.carbonbrief.org/newsletter-sign-up</a></span><b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> <br>
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon
Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to
thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest
of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change
and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in
the peer-reviewed journals. <br>
more at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief">https://www.getrevue.co/publisher/carbon-brief</a>
<br>
================================== <br>
*T<b>he Daily Climate </b>Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*">https://ehsciences.activehosted.com/f/61*</a>
<br>
Get The Daily Climate in your inbox - FREE! Top news on climate
impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered week days. Better
than coffee. <br>
Other newsletters at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/">https://www.dailyclimate.org/originals/</a>
<br>
<br>
</p>
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
<br>
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/">https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request"><mailto:subscribe@theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request></a>
to news digest./<br>
<br>
Privacy and Security:*This mailing is text-only. It does not carry
images or attachments which may originate from remote servers. A
text-only message can provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender. This is a personal hobby production curated by Richard Pauli<br>
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain cannot be used for
commercial purposes. Messages have no tracking software.<br>
To subscribe, email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote">contact@theclimate.vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:contact@theclimate.vote"><mailto:contact@theclimate.vote></a>
with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe<br>
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote">https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote</a><br>
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://TheClimate.Vote">http://TheClimate.Vote</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://TheClimate.Vote/"><http://TheClimate.Vote/></a>
delivering succinct information for citizens and responsible
governments of all levels. List membership is confidential and
records are scrupulously restricted to this mailing list. <br>
</body>
</html>