web analytics

Geoengineers And Big Oil, The Dark Alliance

pic800
Share

The curtain of deception continues to be pulled back on the powers that are decimating the planet while at the same time doing everything they can to confuse and bewilder the public in regard to what is actually unfolding. Climate engineering has been an essential part of the fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign. Engineered winter storms have been completely hyped by the mainstream media. The "record snow" in Boston was a primary headline all winter long while little was said about the virtually nonexistent snow pack in the Sierras. While mainstream media was trumpeting "record cold",  that was consistently manipulated by the geoengineers in a few regions, global temperatures have continued to soar. Standing on solid conclusions in regard to the true state of the climate is imperative so that we do not mistakenly accept false information from those with an agenda. So who is paying to create the confusion and thus hide reality? The Union Of Concerned Scientists has shed much light on this issue in the article below. Scientists are not yet willing to face the climate engineering factor (which is making the warming worse, not better), but the biosphere destruction being caused by climate engineering will be impossible to hide for much longer. 
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org

 

pic508

Click to enlarge

The Climate Deception Dossiers

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change.

Their deceptive tactics are now highlighted in this set of seven "deception dossiers"—collections of internal company and trade association documents that have either been leaked to the public, come to light through lawsuits, or been disclosed through Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests.

pic509

Click to enlarge

Each collection provides an illuminating inside look at this coordinated campaign of deception, an effort underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of the fossil fuel industry.

Containing 85 internal memos totaling more than 330 pages, the seven dossiers reveal a range of deceptive tactics deployed by the fossil fuel industry. These include forged letters to Congress, secret funding of a supposedly independent scientist, the creation of fake grassroots organizations, multiple efforts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty about climate science, and more.

The documents clearly show that:

  • Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades. 
  • Fossil fuel company leaders knew that their products were harmful to people and the planet but still chose to actively deceive the public and deny this harm.
  • The campaign of deception continues today.

Download the full report for in-depth information on each of the seven dossiers. The complete collection of documents is available in the sources and resources section below. 

What fossil fuel companies knew and when they knew it

The fundamentals of global warming have been well established for generations. Fossil fuel companies have almost certainly been aware of the underlying climate science for decades.

As early as 1977, representatives from major fossil fuel companies attended dozens of congressional hearings in which the contribution of carbon emissions to the greenhouse effect was discussed. By 1981 at least one company (Exxon) was already considering the climate implications of a large fossil fuel extraction project.

Click to enlarge

page-1

By 1988, climate change was a well-established scientific fact and widely acknowledged in the public sphere, as exemplified by this front page story in the New York Times.

In 1988, the issue moved beyond the scientific community and onto the national stage. James Hansen, a leading NASA climate scientist, testified before Congress that scientific data had confirmed that industrial activities were causing climate change. It was also in 1988 that the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Congress introduced the National Energy Policy Act in an effort to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases.

It is difficult to imagine that executives, lobbyists, and scientists at major fossil companies were by this time unaware of the robust scientific evidence of the risks associated with the continued burning of their products.

Indeed, one of the key documents highlighted in the deception dossiers is a 1995 internal memo written by a team headed by a Mobil Corporation scientist and distributed to many major fossil fuel companies. The internal report warned unequivocally that burning the companies' products was causing climate change and that the relevant science "is well established and cannot be denied."

Click to enlarge

pic501

More than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988—after major fossil fuel companies knew about the harm their products were causing. 

How did fossil fuel companies respond? They embarked on a series of campaigns to deliberately deceive the public about the reality of climate change and block any actions that might curb carbon emissions.

The result? More than half of all industrial carbon emissions have been released since 1988 and there is still no comprehensive U.S. federal policy to address the problem.

Holding fossil fuel companies accountable

As the picture of fossil fuel companies' efforts to deceive the public comes into clear view, the time is ripe to hold these companies accountable for their actions and responsible for the harm they have caused.

So how should the American public expect fossil fuel companies to behave? At a minimum, society should expect them to:

  • Stop disseminating misinformation about climate change. It is unacceptable for fossil fuel companies to deny established climate science. It is also unacceptable for companies to publicly accept the science while funding climate contrarian scientists or front groups that distort or deny the science.
  • Support fair and cost-effective policies to reduce global warming emissions. It is time for the industry to identify and publicly support policies that will lead to the reduction of emissions at a scale needed to reduce the worst effects of global warming.
  • Reduce emissions from current operations and update their business models to prepare for future global limits on emissions. Companies should take immediate action to cut emissions from their current operations, update their business models to reflect the risks of unabated burning of fossil fuels, and map out the pathway they plan to take in the next 20 years to ensure we achieve a low-carbon energy future.
  • Pay for their share of the costs of climate damages and preparedness. Communities around the world are already facing and paying for damages from rising seas, extreme heat, more frequent droughts, and other climate-related impacts. Today and in the future, fossil fuel companies should pay a fair share of the costs.
  • Fully disclose the financial and physical risks of climate change to their business operations. As is required by law, fossil fuel companies are required to discuss risks—including climate change—that might materially affect their business in their annual SEC filings. Today, compliance with this requirement is not consistent.

UPDATE: A newly discovered email from a former Exxon employee revealed that the company was already factoring climate change into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981. Learn more.

Sources and resources

pic409

Source documents (PDFs) 

High-Resolution Graphics (JPGs) 

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

8 Responses to Geoengineers And Big Oil, The Dark Alliance

  1. Readers are advised to connect these dots: > Weather derivatives anyone?

    Chicago Mercantile Exchange – Wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Mercantile_Exchange

    West Coast wind patterns lead to below-normal wind generation capacity factors – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22452

    Control the wind. (own the weather). Control energy production. (own the utility companies). Own the people. >

    THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION COMPANY: the de facto government – YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VFyQb2kqO0

  2. Mark from oz says:

    Just wait for the lawsuits against these companies; not much shareholder 'value' left then!

  3. penny says:

    I love how the UCS tells its eminently reasonable members to "expect" certain behavior of the morally bankrupt criminals who are hell-bent on destroying the earth, as if that were going to change a thing.  Okay, I don't love it; in fact, their tepid approach to life-threatening problems is the reason I dropped my membership years ago.

    It's almost impossible, nowadays, to tell where the science ends and propaganda begins.  In Nature an article was published a month ago, predicting that the sun's activity is diminishing, which – all other things ignored – would cause global cooling.  They do state that the impact this phenomenon would have on global warming is virtually nil.  They don't bother pointing out that, although they see this decrease in the sun's output, the planet is nevertheless heating up and melting down.  Meaning that, once solar activity picks up, if we last that long, we will observe even more extreme heating. 

    The most annoying part of this report is that they seem to rely on UV measurements taken from space, without bothering to compare those to measurements taken on Earth's surface.  The difference between those two readings should be relevant to the study.  Perhaps surface UV readings are being discouraged, because they might cause panic?  Nowhere do the authors even mention UV-C.

    One can assume that this type of study will be used, or rather abused, to sow more confusion, with people snatching at the bits that support their own agenda (from denial of global warming to the calls for yet more "geoengineering" – that is to say, playing god with nature).  The Norwegian state-run press has presented it almost as a football match, with the Sun and CO2 on opposing sides.

    I have seen claims that global warming is due to an increase in the sun's output; if this study's claims are true (and here I am just talking about their observations of the sun, not about their interpretation or conclusions therefrom), such claims are pure fantasy.  Likewise, those who say we needn't worry about the CO2 increase caused by humans, because without it we would be experiencing an ice age, would do well to look at how hot it is now and consider what happens when, in a very few years, the sun gets active again.

    • penny says:

      I neglected to mention that, of course, all of these pseudoscientific models are utterly meaningless, insofar as they fail to incorporate the aerosol spraying and ionosphere manipulations which, almost certainly, have the most profound effect on whatever meteorological or atmospheric effect is being studied.

    • penny says:

      Sorry to keep adding to this long-winded post, but I just noticed an article in the Daily Mail titled "Is a mini-ICE AGE on the way?" which totally proves the point, about such studies being misrepresented.  It claims that scientists have "cracked predicting solar cycles" and that the sun will "go to sleep" around 2030 – utter BS.  The ice age prediction is based on claims that rely on observations from the 1600's for starters.   Furthermore, other articles (in scientific journals) admit openly that, even though scientists can measure and thus "predict" 11-year cycles in sun activity, they cannot predict, or find, any correlation between the 11-year cycles and climate on Earth.  And yet we are to believe they can do so for century-long cycles???

      I despair of the human race.  Sapiens?  If you believe that, I have an ice age I can sell you…

    • Bella_Fantasia says:

      Thank you, Penny.  You've got more sense and state the facts more pointedly than so many "scientists" we're confronted with.  "Tepid" is an excellent characterization.

      And, as we already can tell, the Sun is not the problem, so the hubris of "managing the Sun" is absurd and should be acknowledged as such.

  4. Sezer says:

    I think this article is great to answer the big " WHY would they do it to themselves" question for the climate engineering sceptics.Thank you for posting this Dane.

  5. mike ohlinger says:

    Keep after the Trail. TKS Dane Wigington 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers