
Exxon accurately predicted 2019's climate change and CO2 emission in 1982 - eric_khun
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/1187719206562910209
======
montalbano
_Exxon is currently pushing misleading ads embeded in @nytimes articles about
#ExxonKnew:_

[https://twitter.com/JoanieLemercier/status/11877355477600419...](https://twitter.com/JoanieLemercier/status/1187735547760041984)

From above thread.

~~~
Brakenshire
They're all over Twitter as well, the first thing that came up on opening
Twitter on the morning their trial started.

I'm slightly surprised it is legal, aren't there restrictions on prejudicing
the trial?

------
Merrill
In 1982 we had just emerged from the decade where the 1973 Yom Kippur War oil
crisis and the 1979 Iranian Revolution oil shock has us waiting in line for
gasoline and filling only on odd/even days depending on whether we had odd or
even license plates.

People were interested in producing more oil, not less. Even the Club of Rome
could not get much traction with its "Limits to Growth" reports. It was also
the middle of the Cold War and oil is a vital military supply - the Department
of Defense is a huge consumer of refined oil products.

~~~
mattacular
Hope it was worth it.

~~~
yostrovs
Did you take an airplane anywhere in the meantime? Hope it was worth it, cause
you knew about climate change when you got on it so many times you can't count
them all.

~~~
dmm
People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of
society. Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocricy!

~~~
microcolonel
> _People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of
> society._

There's a big difference between _refusing to burn massive amounts of oil_ and
_refusing to participate in any aspect of society_. If burning oil like this
is immoral for everyone, it is immoral for you; if it is not immoral for you,
it is not immoral for anyone with your resources.

> _Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocrisy!_

Yes, their arguments are silly because of hypocrisy; pricing the poor out of
energy is a hypocritical way for the world's rich to purport to make change.

~~~
madaxe_again
You burn massive amounts of oil by being alive. Here you are, using a
computer, using electricity, inside of a structure, eating food grown with
artificial fertilisers and machinery, wearing clothes that were manufactured
out of oil and then transported with oil.

Unless you are living naked in a forest, foraging for food, and shivering for
warmth, and have done so since birth, you’re as hypocritical as those you
would accuse.

~~~
microcolonel
> _you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse_

I'm not going around judging people for ordinary oil use, I fully accept the
costs of my actions, and I know that convenience is more important to me than
reducing my carbon footprint, at some threshold. The hypocrisy comes from
putting on an air of caring without putting in the work, as though it is
somehow a moral accomplishment to impose the costs of your own lifestyle on
others.

I also think it's pretty rich that this thread is nothing but name-calling,
antagonism, and flamebait, and dang is nowhere to be seen; but I avoid all of
this behaviour and somehow still get reprimanded because HNers can't help but
be nasty to eachother in my threads.

~~~
ForHackernews
What do you consider "putting in the work"?

What could an activist possibly do to convince you?

Plenty of climate activists have obstructed pipelines with direct action, have
blockaded roads and blocked oil derricks; they have sacrificed time, money and
in some cases their freedom when arrested. Meanwhile, you and others of your
ilk sniff about "antagonism" and go about your day feeling smug that you're
not a hypocrite because you "fully accept the costs of [your] actions"
(whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

You say you "accept" the cost of your actions, but you leave it up to the rest
of us to make sure you _pay_ those costs.

~~~
jfnixon
How to convince me there is an existential threat requiring huge changes? Stop
flying. Period. Stop eating meat. Period. Move into high density housing, and
forego cars and just take public transportation or bike. That'll work for
table stakes if you want to lecture me about the sacrifices I need to make.
Put up or shut up.

~~~
ForHackernews
Cool. Be sure to ask the next person who claims to be concerned about the
national debt why they aren't paying 95% of their income to the government and
living in a shoebox. I'd also suggest reading up on collective action
problems.

~~~
jfnixon
Let me see if I have your argument down... one can ignore hypocrisy in
personal behavior because collective actions are hard to do? Is that it? If
so, it isn't a very strong argument. If not, what is your claim about personal
hypocrisy?

~~~
ForHackernews
My claim is that one shouldn't have to personally be a saint to be taken
seriously when advocating for a policy position.

~~~
jfnixon
The original question was how climate activists could convince people, not
lobby for policy. Of course non-saints can advocate policy, but animal rights
activists who wear furs and leather should not expect to be taken all that
seriously. Same for jet-setting climate activists.

~~~
ForHackernews
Good news for you! Nobody with any power _is_ taking them seriously! The
activists have been ignored and derided for going on 25 years now, just like
you hoped.

I'm sure that future generations (well, the fraction that don't die from
climate-aggrivated famines, wars or diseases) will be pleased to know that
wealthy software devs from the Era of 24/7 Electricity didn't ever have to
feel uncomfortable about their choices.

------
Yuval_Halevi
loved this comment (saw it on twitter):

Well, the scientists seemed not very grilled at all, they seemed eager to
share their opinions. It's not the scientists fault executives tend to not
listen to what the data says in favor of profits.

Boeing is another company that comes to mind.

~~~
cameronbrown
Boeing CEO is an engineer (rightfully so). There's probably a more systemic
issue with that company than executives ignoring scientists.

~~~
freen
It’s like the “Aristocrats” joke, but instead the punchline is “capitalism!”

------
orf
You can see that they where successful in their mission to spread FUD about
climate change in these very comments.

Pretty scary for a supposedly educated crowd.

~~~
puranjay
The strange part is that even if all climate change scientists are completely
wrong, what do we really stand to lose by switching to renewable sources and
just polluting less?

If you could replace a coal guzzling, smoke spilling power plant with a silent
solar panel field, why wouldn't you?

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> what do we really stand to lose by switching to renewable sources and just
> polluting less?

Except that if we really knew about climate change in the 1980’s we should
have been building Nuclear Power Plants at a massive rate. However, a lot of
environmental groups were against that, and actively were anti-nuclear. In
fact, some countries and states are decommissioning active working nuclear
power plants. There is no room for anti-nuclear sentiment if you really
believe that climate change is the biggest threat to civilization.

~~~
beerandt
Or should we hold environmental groups accountable for being anti-nuclear when
_surely they knew that nuclear would have resulted in less CO2_ , yet they
openly opposed it.

~~~
puranjay
At this point, nuclear power needs to be rebranded to be viable. The tech is
fantastic but 50 years of apolcalypse porn has ensured people see mushroom
clouds as soon as they hear "nuclear". A name change should be the first
priority.

~~~
AstralStorm
Once there was a good association when it was called atomic power. That was
before 80s.

We could call it rock power, but the bad association will persist and get
boosted by alarmists anyway.

------
kerng
"We were excellent scientists" \- great quote!

~~~
kerng
Why is this downvoted? If you watch the video it's the outstanding quote from
the entire clip. They predicted everything accurately!

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
And precisely!

------
keymone
what if in 1982 there were a million such studies with predictions all over
the place and that one just happens to match what really happened?

what if Exxon uses this as an explanation for why this result wasn’t taken
into account? “It was not possible to predict which prediction would have
turned out correct, you can’t fault us for that!”

~~~
yostrovs
Didn't we get confirmation of global warming only in the 2000s with the IPCC
and all? Who would have trusted Exxon then? Who would trust it now? Would you
have changed your ways had you read that Exxon report? Have you really changed
your ways by now?

~~~
saalweachter
You don't think (one of) the largest oil companies in the world coming out and
saying "we've got to stop using so much oil" would be convincing?

~~~
yostrovs
They're evil. Nothing they do is convincing. Many people would think the
reality is opposite of what Exxon claims. Do you believe Exxon now?

------
m0zg
So she had a phrase there "you understood the consequences [of 1 degree of
temperature rise]". Am I missing something? What _are_ the consequences?
Record breaking prosperity worldwide? Best I can tell there's no tangible
negative impact on the homo sapiens so far, but there _is_ very much a
tangible positive impact. I'm not saying we're not on a dangerous trajectory,
don't get me wrong, but if you're honest, you have to also consider the
consequences of _not_ using all those fossil fuels, especially 20-30 years ago
when tech to replace them simply wasn't available.

~~~
gnosis89
False

------
gersh
Do you want to do something about this? I suggest joining the Sunrise
Movement. Go to
[https://www.sunrisemovement.org/](https://www.sunrisemovement.org/) to join.

------
carrozo
So... maybe we should find out what they’re predicting for 2056?

~~~
cagenut
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM1...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM1_figure-
final.png)

1.5 - 2C depending on how hard (if at all) we cut emissions going forward.

~~~
novaleaf
great link.

Though it seems to estimate 1.5 - 2C __ONLY IF __CO2 emissions reach net zero
by 2055. Take a look at graph (c) and guess how likely that would be. (Not
likely at all). Sad times.

------
lousken
old news?
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19986910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19986910)

~~~
xurias
I mean, until somebody does something about it, there's value in repeating it
over and over. Maybe at some point it'll sink in how criminal these companies
are.

~~~
VvR-Ox
Indeed! Let's just repeat it until nobody can forget it ever again and also
drop tax avoidance by these huge companies in the mix.

Maybe there is still hope for something we can call justice and probably the
money they stole from exploiting the commons can be used for something more
valuable than personal gains of some managers and stakeholders.

------
zczc
[video]

------
jdmoreira
We can blame Exxon and greedy capitalists as much as we want but this is the
textbook example of a system with perversive incentives. Human society, and I
would even argue human nature in itself, presents us with the wrong system of
incentives for self preservation at scale.

~~~
danharaj
So our incentive structure- capitalism- is to blame.

~~~
logicchains
Maybe it reflects human nature. Most scientists agree that being overweight is
harmful to our health, yet the majority of us can't even control how much food
we consume, in spite of the strong motivation of self-preservation. If we
can't even control ourselves to do that, how can we expect to control
ourselves to reduce carbon-emitting activities?

Humans aren't that far removed from animals. If you keep giving a cat food, it
may keep eating until it's sick. Communism or capitalism can't change human
nature.

~~~
danharaj
Attributing something to human nature is about as much an argument as
attributing it to God's plan.

~~~
logicchains
The point is that capitalism just allows people to realise their preferences,
and peoples' preferences as revealed by ther actions clearly show they don't
really care that much about preventing climate change. No economic system is
going to change this, unless it prevents people from doing what they want
(what they want is to enjoy a good standard of living, with pickup trucks,
SUVs, regular flights, large beef hamburgers...).

~~~
danharaj
> that capitalism just allows people to realise their preferences

That is by no means "just" what it does.

------
baltbalt
Here is something else that oil company know and keep secret.

The unexploited oil reserves in the world are at least twice as big as we
think.

~~~
beerandt
Not exactly- the term "provable reserves" has a technical meaning, and is
usually used with a modifier like "economically recoverable".

Because the public misunderstands that term to mean "absolute amount of supply
ever to become available" doesn't make it misleading or even a secret.

------
panny
That's astounding, because the IPCC did not accurately predict 2019's climate
change or CO2 in 1982. In fact, Exxon scientists must be time travelers to
have foreseen the rise of China at a time when all of the USA was afraid of
losing to the Japanese.

~~~
jfnixon
Hell, the IPCC did not accurately predict 2019 climate change back in 1998
when they had far better models with far more computing resources.

~~~
chmod775
It's pretty hard to predict since you need to guess how much more C02 humanity
will emit in that time period among other things. Your models could be
mathematically perfect and you'd still be off.

------
goatinaboat
This seems very hard to believe - mainstream science struggles to predict
accurately even 5 years out. In 1982 they were predicting the ice caps would
be gone by 2000, acid rain, holes in the ozone layer etc. But this one guy is
the Nostradamus of climate and everyone ignored him?

Note: I am not saying that climate change isn’t real. I’m just sceptical that
someone in 1982 made accurate predictions of 2019. And all points in between?
Without anyone noticing?

~~~
luc4sdreyer
> This seems very hard to believe - mainstream science struggles to predict
> accurately even 5 years out

In general, this might be true. Predicting the future is harder than it seems.
But it depends completely on the type of system (chaotic or not), and how well
we understand it. We can predict the position of the Earth thousands of years
into the future.

Regarding climate models, you might be underestimating how good they were in
the early 80's. Here are old models' projections compared with the actual
temperature records up to 2017 [1]. I'm not an expert so I don't know if they
excluded early bad models, but they included all the IPCC models.

The graph that AOC showed was pretty small and grainy. It's also compressed
along the x-axis (140 years), and has a high aspect ratio. It's possible that
she, or her aides, picked the best one for the presentation. But given the
performance of the models at the time, it's not unreasonably good. It actually
seems worse than the 1990 IPCC model, but that's just my opinion.

[1] [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-
climate-m...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-
models-projected-global-warming)

~~~
repolfx
The models used today have all predicted more warming than actually happened,
so I'm very skeptical models got progressively worse over the decades instead
of better.

Also note it's impossible for models in the 80's to have been accurate because
the temperature data for the past itself has been continuously adjusted by
climatologists since then, so any models calculated back then would be using
temperatures now considered wrong (and not by a small amount!). Either the old
models are wrong or the old temperature records are wrong, but they can't both
be true simultaneously.

~~~
Symmetry
Your information on is out of date. None of the models predicted the big lag
in temperature increase in the oughts but since 2015 air temperatures have
jumped up to right where the consensus predictions said they would be.

Yes, scientists have been busy trying to refine their models and understanding
of temperatures. But my understanding is that, quantitatively, the
inaccuracies in the old temperature data was pretty small compared year to
year variation. No prediction is ever perfect, even in QED you have one part
in a trillion error, but instead you look at whether the result is in the
error bars and whether the error bars are narrow enough to be useful.

~~~
learc83
If the models didn't predict the lag, it stands to reason that the models
weren't accurate, even if current temperatures align with them. That is to say
that the current alignment is just coincidental.

If I remember correctly, the lag was likely caused by not correctly accounting
for deep ocean heating. That's a huge missing piece of the simulation, so how
could the models from back then possibly have been accurate?

~~~
naasking
> If the models didn't predict the lag, it stands to reason that the models
> weren't accurate, even if current temperatures align with them. That is to
> say that the current alignment is just coincidental.

Or the lag was a minor factor that only briefly overrode the primary drivers
of climate change, which have since reasserted themselves. I think we both
know what the smart bet is.

~~~
learc83
The lag isn't a minor factor though. We are talking a decade plus of incorrect
predictions. Newer models that have taken deep ocean warming into account are
probably more accurate.

The oceans are now significantly warmer than earlier models predicted. There's
no way that doesn't impact the outcome.

~~~
repolfx
Actually newer models don't predict the lag / the pause at all.

Instead what happened is they decided the temperature records that showed a
pause were wrong, went back and adjusted them so there's no longer any real
pause if you look at the latest temperature datasets. The entire thing was
written off as a giant measurement error.

