Short🧵
I'm taking a look at the new paper by @GeoffreySupran and colleagues on Exxon's climate researchhttps://t.co/EAJLDtfs17
There is a lot to unpack so these are just some preliminary comments
Also, their data is not available (I assume a mistake) so I have requested it
— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 12, 2023
Let me preface that I don't really have much of a view on whether Exxon should be driven out of business or whatever the aim is, I don't have a dog in that fight
I mean sure, go for it, then you gonna do Saudi Aramaco next?
But as a matter of science & policy, it is interesting
— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 12, 2023
My first reaction is that the selection of "ExxonMobil’s global warming projections" is kind of ridiculous
For instance, it includes IPCC projections (because an Exxon employee was a contributing author, along with 100s of others) & US DOE publications
Exxon's work?
Come on pic.twitter.com/XVA0WuR6XL— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 12, 2023
I can say that the forecast that gets the highest skill score "was a 1985 peer-reviewed publication [Hoffert and Flannery (1985, nominal CO2 scenario)], with a skill score of 99%"
That is shown below, the middle line is judged the most accurate
It is not
Source: My eyeballs pic.twitter.com/PCw3HM6Sd2— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 12, 2023
Further the most accurate "Exxon forecast" (of the US DOE) is based a 2023 CO2 concentration of ~450ppm (nominal scenario)
It is actually ~425ppm
That is … far off
Check for yourself: https://t.co/iXggU0ONGM pic.twitter.com/2qrM1YdfPJ
— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 12, 2023
Not sure I'll follow this up further, but there is sufficient "play" and complexity in the methods that anyone getting expertise is this work probably stands to make some bank in the court cases for which this research is designed
That won't be me
Climate "science" is a trip🙏
— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) January 12, 2023
#
Background:
Mike Shellenberger, the President Breakthrough Institute, and a man who Time Magazine called ‘Hero of the Environment’: ‘The picture painted of Exxon seeking out & funding “climate change deniers” to mislead public & prevent climate policy is false.’
‘The picture painted by @insideclimate is that Exxon was paying people to lie about climate while acknowledging it privately…In reality, Exxon funded conservative think tanks that were mostly *not* “climate deniers” — & in many cases advocate climate policy!’
But it was always obvious from looking at who Exxon funded that vanishingly few people were “climate change deniers.” A vast Exxon conspiracy to deceive public about climate turns out to be… a lukewarmish NYT ad & sunspots research.’
‘EXXON-KNEW ACTIVIST’ NAOMI ORESKES ON RETAINER WITH PLAINTIFFS’ LAW FIRM
Oreskes has gone from planning the litigation campaign to becoming a full-on participant in these lawsuits, as CNN reports:
“The company said Naomi Oreskes, one of the main authors of the study, is on retainer with a law firm that is leading lawsuits against Exxon and others in the industry. Exxon called this a ‘blatant conflict of interest.’ Oreskes was not immediately available for comment.”