5/31/2024
ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/opinion-exxon-beats-the-esg-activists/ar-BB1nlT1m?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=72766204f8d34ec88ad4c57ac34e1b52&ei=28
5/28/2024
For your information:
ttps://kommonsentsjane.com/2022/12/01/kommonsentsjane-the-truth-about-climate-change-and-carbon-dioxide-the-climate-change-argument-is-about-control-2/
KOMMONSENTSJANE – THE TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND CARBON DIOXIDE – THE CLIMATE CHANGE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT CONTROL -2
Posted on December 1, 2022 by kommonsentsjane
Bible Verse: Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God – Colossians 316
******
Google is hiding the earlier article that I published.because they are afraid of the truth. They probably will do the same for this one.
November 29, 2022
Data is available to support column’s claim on climate change
On Nov. 5, The Kerrville Daily Times published my article, “The truth about climate change and carbon dioxide,” that included a summary of the facts. Since then, there have been several letters to the editor presenting opposite views, which I appreciate. But as I said in the article “In God we trust; everyone else bring data.”
If you are interested in the data that support the claims I made (repeated below), please see the details at https://www.therightclimatestuff.com/Truth-Climate-and-CO2.pdf
- Global temperatures are caused by the sun.
- Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a minor greenhouse gas.
- The majority of scientists do not agree that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing climate change.
- Carbon dioxide is not causing major weather events to increase.
- Carbon dioxide is safe, good and is not a pollutant.
Tom Moser, Kerrville
*******
The truth about climate change and carbon dioxide
Tom Moser Nov 4, 2022
Climate change (aka global warming) is caused primarily by natural processes driven by the sun and not human produced carbon dioxide. As a matter of a fact, carbon dioxide is good, and an increase in carbon dioxide is beneficial to people and plants. These claims are substantiated by facts (empirical data).
I will present the facts.
First, it is important to recognize that the facts were established and/or endorsed by a group of former NASA scientists and engineers known as “The Right Climate Stuff,” which I founded 12 years ago. Our guiding principle has been “In God we trust, everyone else bring data.”
Global temperatures are caused by the sun. The earth is heated by radiation from the sun. The amount of radiated heat reaching the earth is determined by solar activity, including flares, the proximity of the earth to the sun and the tilt of the earth to the sun.
The radiated heat has varied between hot and cold extremes for millions of years. The time between extremes is approximately 150 million years, with smaller variations ranging from 500 to 11 years in the case of sunspot cycles. These facts are based on scientific measurements of the atmosphere that were captured in the Arctic and Greenland ice.
There are two things that happen to the sun’s energy when it reaches the earth: It is either reflected or absorbed. That which is absorbed heats the earth, including the oceans, land and atmosphere. This absorbed heat is radiated back to space. That which is captured by greenhouse gases is minute and is discussed next.
The global temperature has increased 1.1 degree centigrade over the past 150 years, and the rate of increase has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a minor greenhouse gas. Gases in the atmosphere trap some heat, i.e., greenhouse effect. The greenhouse gases are comprised of water vapor (95%), carbon dioxide (3.6%) and all other gases (1.4%). Humans produce only 0.12% of the carbon dioxide, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. It is not reasonable to believe that this minute amount of carbon dioxide could have a significant effect as a greenhouse gas.
The majority of scientists do not agree that human-produced carbon dioxide is causing climate change. It has been stated that 97% of scientists agree that human produced carbon dioxide is causing climate change. This claim was based on a review of approximately 12,000 technical papers in 2013 by Dr. John Cook, assistant professor at George Mason University. In 2015, the same 12,000 technical papers were objectively reviewed by a group of scientists. The conclusion was 0.3% (41) of the authors actually stating that human produced carbon dioxide was causing the climate change.
Complex engineering analyses by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change has incorrectly predicted significant increases in the global temperature. The IPCC analyses have been proven to be wrong when compared to measured temperatures.
It is interesting to note that, in 1971, a German scientist predicted the earth was entering a period of severe cooling, and “Europe would be covered with the glaciers of a new ice age by the turn of the century.”
The bottom line regarding analytical, scientific predictions is they have been incorrect.
Carbon dioxide is not causing major weather events to increase. Based on data from federal agencies’ — NOAA, USDA Forest Service, etc. — actual data, the number and magnitude of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods and wildfires are not increasing.
Carbon dioxide is safe, good and is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is necessary for plants to exist. The atmosphere contains approximately 420 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Is carbon dioxide increasing? The answer is yes, but it was many times this amount millions of years ago.
What would be the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 900 ppm? Agricultural tests have demonstrated that the production of trees would increase by 70%, grains by 36%, vegetables by 46% and fruits by 33%. The world would benefit with increased crop production.
Are greater concentrations of carbon dioxide levels safe for humans? The answer is yes. Remember, we all breathe in 420 ppm of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Sailors in submarines can safely breathe 8,000 ppm, astronauts on the space station can safely breathe 5,000 ppm and CPR recipients can safely receive 40,000 ppm.
Additional details supporting the above facts can be seen at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com.
Why is it being claimed that an increase in human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a climate crisis?
Opinion:
- Progressives – Advocate one world society and redistribution of wealth.
- Foreign countries – Desire financial aid in order to reduce carbon dioxide.
- Wall Street – Billions of dollars in commissions can be made with carbon credits and huge potential investments in green energy.
- Green industries – Billions of dollars can be made, especially with government subsidies.
- Academia – Funded with grants to prove increasing carbon dioxide is harmful.
- Environmental extremists groups – For some, it’s like a religion.
- Media – The public buys catastrophic stories.
An attack on carbon dioxide is an attack on fossil fuels, energy, on thousands of everyday products and the U.S. economy.
******
I am writing in response to the guest column in the weekend, Nov. 5-6 edition of The Kerrville Daily Times, “The Truth About Climate Change and CO2.”
Mr. Tom Moser makes several statements in his editorial that I believe are totally incorrect and not backed up by science. He states that natural processes, not humans, cause global warming. They both do.
Currently, humans discharged about 90 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide per year into the atmosphere. (The USA contributes about 15% and China 30%.) If this total amount of CO2 were compressed and cooled, it would have about the same density as water and be equivalent to a flow of about 20 million gallons per minute (45,000 cfs). It would require a pipe about 85 feet in diameter and storage tank 2.3 miles in diameter and 2.3 miles high to store this liquid for one year. It is a staggering amount of CO2.
About 50% of the CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere. The rest is absorbed by the oceans and land. Currently, the atmosphere contains about 420 parts per million (ppm) of CO2.
Sounds like a small amount, but every breath a person takes they inhale about 6.2 quintillion molecules of CO2. That’s 6.2 followed by 18 zeros. The atmosphere contains about 7.2 quadrillion pounds of CO2. Therefore, each year’s CO2 emissions amount to about 1.2% of the total.
In 1900, the atmosphere contained about 290 ppm CO2. Since then, humans have added 2.2 quadrillion pounds.
Mr. Moser states water is the major greenhouse gas, but it varies considerably depending on elevation and latitude.
On the Texas Gulf coast, it can reach 3% by volume. On hot days, the relative humidity stays below 50%, but at night, it can be much higher, even 100%.
The humidity and the heat index are determined by the “wet and dry bulb” temperatures. Along the gulf coast during late summer, the wet bulb temperature is usually around 80 to 82 degrees and is influenced mainly by the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico. Both temperatures are increasing; for every degree they both increase, the heat index increases 3 degrees.
In the Middle East and parts of Asia they regularly have heat indexes over 140 degrees, and the frequency is increasing. It kills a lot of people.
Mr. Moser states that the sun, not CO2, is responsible for global warming. But based on NASA data, the radiation from the sun has decreased since 1960 about 0.06% and has varied only +/- 0.07% since 1600. Since 1960, the Earth’s temperature has increased 1.6 degrees. This proves that the sun has not caused the recent warming.
He goes on to say that the temperature has stopped increasing over the last eight years. Six of the yearly temperatures lie above the longterm trend line, and two lie slightly below. You can prove anything with a small enough set of “cherry picked” data.
He goes on to say that the computer models have predicted temperatures higher than what has occurred. That’s not exactly good news. It means we should be hotter but aren’t, and we’re not sure why.
He also states that CO2 was many times higher in the past. It was — during the Cretaceous period about 100 million years ago (the age of dinosaurs). It was also very hot. Why? The aforementioned CO2.
The warming from CO2 allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, particularly in the polar regions. As a result, those regions are warming three to four times faster than Earth as a whole. This has increased the melting of the Arctic sea ice and permafrost.
The sea ice has decreased almost 50% since 1979. This decreases Earth’s albedo (ability to reflect sunlight), increasing the sun’s radiation and the melting. The melting permafrost releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. If the melting continues its linear trend, the ice will be gone in 50 years or fewer. This will not be good.
Mr. Moser, through a convoluted statement, said that a re-review of 12,000 technical papers concluded that only 0.3% of the scientists writing papers claim humans are causing climate change. This is not correct. Many other reviews concluded the opposite, that 99% agree that humans “are causing” the warming.
“As expertise in climate science increases so too does agreement with human caused global warming,” wrote John Cook, co-author of a paper on the consensus of scientists on the climate.
And finally, Mr. Moser offered the red herring that sailors on submarines breath air containing 8,000 ppm CO2. What this has to do with global warming is a mystery, but for the record, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends an exposure limit of 5,000 ppm.
Stopping global warming will be a tremendous undertaking requiring diplomacy, huge sums of money and effort. It is a very difficult technical problem. It will require people with skill, knowledge, experience and common sense. That’s not what we have directing our effort; we have politicians and Hollywood celebrities. Recent events give us little confidence that anything useful will be accomplished.
Much of the work being done is to develop schemes to make renewable energy a useful source of electricity. I suppose Rube Goldberg is having a good laugh. We can thank groups like the Sierra Club for this; they have spent the last 40 years opposing nuclear energy.
I reject Mr. Moser’s damn-the-torpedoes approach to global warming, because I think we are on the clock.
Richard Hahn is a resident of Kerrville and a retired chemical engineer from the University of Missouri.
Nov 26, 2022
The climate change argument is about control
Comparing the (editorials) on climate change. First off, where did this come from? When the (United Soviet Socialist Republic) collapsed, something had to take its place so the new world order could prosper. The term climate change has changed over the years, and Earth was suppose to freeze, flood and cease to exist.
To date, none of the consensus predictions have borne any fruit predictably.
All that climate change is about is to control the people. Look around you: Are we so arrogant as a people to think we could destroy what God has created.
If you look at the two articles, Tom Moser’s is based on scientific method. Mr. Richard Hahn’s article is based on consensus. This is based on his quoting John Cook.
Look up both terms and you all can decide for yourself.
******
NASA ties human activities directly to climate change
Tom Moser’s comments from his Nov. 4 (column in The Kerrville Daily Times), “The truth about climate change,” is not what NASA is putting forth today but selectively cherry-picking information for his own pro Big Oil perspective.
He conveniently leaves out NASA directly tying human activity to global warming. Taken from NASA’s own website, climate.nasa.gov/cause, it says, “Human activities are driving the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century,” along with, “Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the ‘greenhouse effect’ — warming those results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”
And also, “The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth, but human-made emissions in the atmosphere are trapping and slowing heat loss to space. While the Sun has played a role in past climate changes, the evidence shows the current warming cannot be explained by the Sun.”
And there is no mention by NASA today of his “The Right Climate Stuff” committee or their conclusions.
Seems to me Mr. Moser is trying to sell his own politicized agenda. Why wouldn’t an open minded individual/scientist be open to alternative sources of energy, unless kneeling at that altar of fossil fuels is just too enriching and rewarding?
*******
Nov 26, 2022
The climate change argument is about control
Comparing the (editorials) on climate change. First off, where did this come from? When the (United Soviet Socialist Republic) collapsed, something had to take its place so the new world order could prosper. The term climate change has changed over the years, and Earth was suppose to freeze, flood and cease to exist.
To date, none of the consensus predictions have borne any fruit predictably.
All that climate change is about is to control the people. Look around you: Are we so arrogant as a people to think we could destroy what God has created.
If you look at the two articles, Tom Moser’s is based on scientific method. Mr. Richard Hahn’s article is based on consensus. This is based on his quoting John Cook.
Look up both terms and you all can decide for yourself.
******
NASA ties human activities directly to climate change
Tom Moser’s comments from his Nov. 4 (column in The Kerrville Daily Times), “The truth about climate change,” is not what NASA is putting forth today but selectively cherry-picking information for his own pro Big Oil perspective.
He conveniently leaves out NASA directly tying human activity to global warming. Taken from NASA’s own website, climate.nasa.gov/cause, it says, “Human activities are driving the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century,” along with, “Scientists attribute the global warming trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the ‘greenhouse effect’ — warming those results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”
And also, “The greenhouse effect is essential to life on Earth, but human-made emissions in the atmosphere are trapping and slowing heat loss to space. While the Sun has played a role in past climate changes, the evidence shows the current warming cannot be explained by the Sun.”
And there is no mention by NASA today of his “The Right Climate Stuff” committee or their conclusions.
Seems to me Mr. Moser is trying to sell his own politicized agenda. Why wouldn’t an open minded individual/scientist be open to alternative sources of energy, unless kneeling at that altar of fossil fuels is just too enriching and rewarding?
*****
Google won’t allow the copying or printing of the above info.
kommonsentsjane
******
The Blue pension managers and ESG-focused advisors and activists don’t appear to care if pensioners lose out and clients’ investments lose value. All they care about is Net Zero, a goal which cannot be achieved by badgering Exxon.
This group is not looking out for the pensioners welfare – they are only trying to hurt the company who is conducting the business in the manner which a company is structured to operate.
All stock holders should rebel against these people who are trying to destroy the world’s economy in the name of climate change NET ZERO which is a hoax and these stock holders need to wake up and hire some new managers who have their best interest which is THEIR JOB instead of focusing on trying to lose their clients investments by trying to destroy their investments.
Are the BLUE PENSION MANAGERS/ESG-FOCUSED ADVISORS working for the people who hired them or using their accounts to work against the stock owners and do the stock owners agree with them is the question?
These managers should be asked to prove, scientifically, that climate change really exists.
****
ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/esg-madness-as-investors-attack-the-exxonmobil-board-delivering-record-results/ar-BB1nbN6y?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=981663f250bf4f7baefba5843f962450&ei=72
ESG madness, as investors attack the ExxonMobil board delivering record results (msn.com)
Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobil. Despite overseeing record results, Woods is under fire from ESG-focused shareholders – Brendan McDermid/Reuters© Provided by The Telegraph
As a general rule, nothing positive can come from the mixing of corporate management priorities with crass political considerations. But that toxic mix appears to be at the center of a looming proxy fight mounted by activist investors, led by pension funds in a handful of big population “blue” states, which will come to a head at ExxonMobil’s annual meeting tomorrow.
By any measure, ExxonMobil has experienced extraordinary financial success in recent years. Under its current management and Board, the company has recorded record profits over the past two years. Its stock price hit an all-time high in April, and the company’s market capitalisation is also at a record high following the closing of its $60 billion takeover of Permian Basin giant Pioneer Natural Resources.
Despite the current Board’s focus on carrying out its fiduciary duty to maximize returns to investors, it now finds itself under attack by public pension fund managers in the Blue states of California, New York, and Illinois, along with several other activist investors. These shareholders are not concerned with stock price or market cap: they want to see Exxon reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
The activist investors include Arjuna Capital and Follow This, who have sponsored a proposal which would compel Exxon to accelerate its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions so as to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Exxon management filed suit in federal court in January to quash what it regards as nuisance resolutions.
Related video: Investing In ESG Funds: Are ESG Funds A Good Investment Avenue? |
Investing In ESG Funds: Are ESG Funds A Good Investment Avenue? | CNBC TV18
Arjuna and Follow This are allied with the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), a self-described “coalition of faith- and values-based investors” which contends that “corporations must look beyond the next earnings report to account for the full impact of their businesses on society, and must view the well-being of all of their stakeholders – including their workers and the communities where they operate – as integral to their long-term value”.
Exxon CEO and Chairman Darren Woods, along with lead independent Board member Joseph Hooley, are especially coming under fire from the activists. The assault intensified recently when proxy advisory firm Glass Lewis waded into the battle, advising its clients to oppose the re-election of Mr. Hooley.
Glass Lewis made its recommendation based on its view that Exxon’s decision to file suit in federal court against the activist resolutions amounts to “unusual and aggressive tactics” against what Glass Lewis calls “resource-constrained parties.”
Exxon, which has a long history of aggressively defending its legal rights, shot back in a May 15 letter to Glass Lewis, requesting it withdraw the recommendation, and citing Glass Lewis’s conflict of interest in the matter. Specifically, Exxon points to Glass Lewis’s relationship with the ICCR. The Glass Lewis recommendation extensively cites ICCR material but doesn’t appear to disclose the firm’s conflict, it has been alleged.
While Blue state treasurers have lined up to oppose the Exxon Board, one Red state treasurer, Louisiana’s John Fleming, MD, published a letter in which he chastised the activist investors and his Blue state counterparts for plotting to “[destroy] the company for political purposes.” Fleming adds, “If CalPERS [the California public employees’ pension] and other activists are successful in disrupting Exxon’s shareholder meeting, it will set a dangerous precedent that will threaten the stability of our financial markets and the very sources of revenue that fund state government directly impacting future retirees.”
What it all boils down to is a battle over competing, highly politicised priorities. Although they’ve invested billions in ESG-friendly projects to lower emissions in recent years, Exxon’s board and management team led by Woods have remained focused on maximizing investor returns by prioritising the company’s highly-profitable core oil and gas enterprise.
Ironically, the company’s record success in carrying out its duties has provided great benefit to the pensioners and clients whose interests are supposedly being served by the managers of the Blue state pension funds and ESG-focused investor groups.
The Blue pension managers and ESG-focused advisors and activists don’t appear to care if pensioners lose out and clients’ investments lose value. All they care about is Net Zero, a goal which cannot be achieved by badgering Exxon. The human race – led by China and India – is now consuming more coal and oil than it ever has before, and the trend is only going up.
David Blackmon had a 40 year career in the US energy industry, the last 23 years of which were spent in the public policy arena, managing regulatory and legislative issues for various companies. He continues to write and podcast on energy matters
****
kommonsentsjane
kommonsentsjane 