Shell warned of catastrophic global warming in 1991 video but has fought climate change action ever since

The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.

However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action, leading to accusations that Shell knew the grave risks of global warming but did not act accordingly.

Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990”, the film noted.

“If the weather machine were to be wound up to such new levels of energy, no country would remain unaffected,” it says. “Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that to wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”

A separate 1986 report, marked “confidential” and also seen by the Guardian, notes the large uncertainties in climate science at the time but nonetheless states: “The changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”

The predictions in the 1991 film for temperature and sea level rises and their impacts were remarkably accurate, according to scientists, and Shell was one of the first major oil companies to accept the reality and dangers of climate change.

But, despite this early and clear-eyed view of the risks of global warming, Shell invested many billions of dollars in highly polluting tar sand operations and on exploration in the Arctic. It also cited fracking as a “future opportunity” in 2016, despite its own 1998 data showing exploitation of unconventional oil and gas was incompatible with climate goals.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

Of course, Exxon knew as well: http://www.newsfixboard.com/t16862-does-the-u-s-constitution-grant-a-right-to-lie-that-s-what-exxon-is-arguing-in-court

Firstly:

Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990”, the film noted.

This is exactly the sort of film that needs to be shown in schools - and a simpler version for younger children! Why hasn't this been shown?

Secondly:

The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.
However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action, leading to accusations that Shell knew the grave risks of global warming but did not act accordingly.

This hardly surprises me at all.

Fake news.
Tommy thinks it is, anyway.

Angry Andy wrote:
Fake news.
Tommy thinks it is, anyway.

I reckon poor little Tommykins himself is the 'fake news' on here...

Invented by Fake_Lord Christopher Monckton, nurtured by Nigel Farage, fed (i.e. financed..) by the Koch Bros..

I find it very hard to accept 'Tommy Monk' as a real person these days.        

IT ONLY takes a big enough change in the board of directors from one year to the next, to see entire about-turns in a company's attitudes to either full disclosure over what they know and how to fix it --  or alternatively to deny, deflect or disguise, and switch their onus from long-term sustainability to short-term year-by-year profit taking...

Seen it all before --  with oil and mining companies, asbestos, lead, tobacco, radioactive fallout, LSD, plastics, DDT, hormones and antibiotics in the food chain, overfishing the oceans, GMOs, m/e and nicotinoid pesticides, clear-felling of forests --  bloody-minded greed-fuelled corporations who do know better, 'playing dice' with the future of our planet..        

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Angry Andy wrote:
Fake news.
Tommy thinks it is, anyway.

I reckon poor little Tommykins himself is the 'fake news' on here...

Invented by Fake_Lord Christopher Monckton, nurtured by Nigel Farage, fed (i.e. financed..) by the Koch Bros..

I find it very hard to accept 'Tommy Monk' as a real person these days.        

Weren't you ranting about someone "attacking" you on two other threads when you weren't even here? Tommy hasn't posted in this thread, and yet you've attacked him for no reason. You're also tag-teaming with Andy.

The real question is WHY ISN'T Tommy all over this thread like a rash?
It's about his pet subject , climate change, of which about 95% of mankind and posters on NF agrees is a real and present threat. Except for Tom, who predictably sides with the freaking cretin Trump in denying it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I reckon poor little Tommykins himself is the 'fake news' on here...

Invented by Fake_Lord Christopher Monckton, nurtured by Nigel Farage, fed (i.e. financed..) by the Koch Bros..

I find it very hard to accept 'Tommy Monk' as a real person these days.        

Weren't you ranting about someone "attacking" you on two other threads when you weren't even here? Tommy hasn't posted in this thread, and yet you've attacked him for no reason. You're also tag-teaming with Andy.

One small difference here though -- we still managed to actually stay on topic in doing so !!!

Something that your deluded chums Tommy and nicko will often fail to do..

Back on topic:

Isn't this the sort of video that we should be showing our younger generation?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Weren't you ranting about someone "attacking" you on two other threads when you weren't even here? Tommy hasn't posted in this thread, and yet you've attacked him for no reason. You're also tag-teaming with Andy.

One small difference here though --  we still managed to actually stay on topic in doing so !!!

Something that your deluded chums Tommy and nicko will often fail to do..

So the obvious question is: Why did you and Andy make damn certain that the discussion was going to go off topic by dragging in two posters who are not here for no other purpose than to parade your dislike of their opinions?

Because Tom is the classic climate change denyer

He frequently posts ignorant lies and falsehoods about manmade climate change -yet when one of the Companies he had come to rely on as a denyer posts something against his beliefs-nothing, nil, nix.
Just curious why.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Weren't you ranting about someone "attacking" you on two other threads when you weren't even here? Tommy hasn't posted in this thread, and yet you've attacked him for no reason. You're also tag-teaming with Andy.

One small difference here though --  we still managed to actually stay on topic in doing so !!!

Something that your deluded chums Tommy and nicko will often fail to do..

You weren't on topic - you didn't even mention the topic, you just ranted and bitched about Tommy.

He's just a wanker, period.

Angry Andy wrote:Because Tom is the classic climate change denyer

He frequently posts ignorant lies and falsehoods about manmade climate change -yet when one of the Companies he had come to rely on as a denyer posts something against his beliefs-nothing, nil, nix.
Just curious why.

Why? Does one have to respond to every thread? This is not, from my point of view, any Left/Right argument, but it is just that Ben had posted a very thought-provoking piece about Shell which was taken up seriously by Eddie and then virtually degenerated into a "lets hammer a Right winger" by you two.

Far more important than your opinion on whether Tom or Nicko post "ignorant lies" (one man's lie is another man's truth, after all) are the issues raised by the OP, surely. Why not address them?

Now, in case you want to have a go at me, too, here's what I think: I believe that there is most definitely climate change and that the potential consequences are serious so far as mankind in concerned. But I am most certainly not convinced that the man-made element is anything like so extensive as is being politically advanced.

The concept of "global warming" has presented governments with exciting new ways of raising heavy taxes. It has also presented certain academics and their universities with the tempting prospect of financial sponsorship and support. And many "climate change" charities and businesses can, I suspect, see the prospect of rich pickings. Just think solar water heating panels, for a start.

My personal opinion, based on a very limited knowledge of climatology culled from my 30 years' professional experience in a land-based industry which relies heavily on the weather and natural (notably water) resources is that we are in one of many historical and cyclical eras of climate change, and that more and more so-called "green" taxes and more and more of the restrictions and controls over people's lives that governments so desperately crave are simply not going to reverse, or even materially slow down, the process of increasing global temperatures.

After all, when the earth has previously experienced increased temperatures, there were no diesel engines, coal mines or oil wells to demonize and tax...just a lot of flatulent dinosaurs!

As I said, I'm just an amateur and climatology is not my specialism...but I do find some comfort in that the lady in my life is broadly in agreement with me, and she is a true academic with three degrees, including a Doctorate, in such relevant subjects as geology, earth sciences and environmental policy (which means she's a damn site brainier than I am, so I listen to her!)

We agree 100 on manmade climate change Nick. After 40 + years in the maritime trade with a degree in Earth Science, a module of which is meteorology, there is NO DOUBT, that manmade climate change is here, and is of real concern.
What confuses the issue is where it effects and interacts with natural cyclic climate change , which run through varying length cyckes of 200k years, 20k years and even 2k years. Scientists are still debating the recurring factor of 2. A lot of people confuse climate ( over a long period of time) with weather, which is regarded in terms of days and weeks.

Fred, if you look at past, pre-human climate change events, they happened (and I say this over and over again) over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Current climate change is much faster and, I'm sure you know, scientists conclude we're already in a mass extinction event.

eddie wrote:Back on topic:

Isn't this the sort of video that we should be showing our younger generation?

plus teach them some climate science

the position of the denier can only be held through fraud (like the 2% of climate scientist that are funded by carbon intensive industry bodies)  or ignorance (the hillshepherds, again)

the carbon blanket is well documented phenomena, originally documented around cities as early as the late 1800's, it is only logical that as more of the world becomes industrialized and the size and number of cities increase that so does the blankets coverage.

I'd also point out the idea that we need to 'pull them all out of poverty' is really false when used in by these high polluting multinationals as they are NOT focused on fixing the slums of existing cities, but raping the traditional lands of native peoples that have not been raped so far. cause technically peoples following their traditional lifestyles are in poverty since they traditionally don't use money

Ben Reilly wrote:Fred, if you look at past, pre-human climate change events, they happened (and I say this over and over again) over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Current climate change is much faster and, I'm sure you know, scientists conclude we're already in a mass extinction event.  

I appreciate that, but personally I think that we are just at the beginning of a new cyclical epoch. And let's face it, just one so far undetected comet or asteroid that just happens to have a certain trajectory, and we're all facing a mass extinction event within the next decade or two.

It's funny how I am called 'right wing' when it is all the 'lefties' here who support the uk democracy being curtailed by being completely controlled by the eu dictatorship, and subject to eu rules that dictate that all of our public services must be opened up to being run by private companies/corporations (privatised)...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It's funny how I am called 'right wing' when it is all the 'lefties' here who support the uk democracy being curtailed by being completely controlled by the eu dictatorship, and subject to eu rules that dictate that all of our public services must be opened up to being run by private companies/corporations (privatised)...!!!

Perhaps the fact is that "Lefties" have done pretty well out of the European Union...Blair, who desperately wanted to be President; Kinnock a rather stupid and failed poilitician, and Peter "Lord" Mandelson - one of the shiftiest UK politicians of recent times (the latter two of whom were installed , not elected you will note, as EU Commissioners, all being enthusiastic remainers.

I wonder why there is such a large number of politically involved pro eu people who have also profited hugely from their involvements in outsourcing companies and other private companies that have taken over uk govt/taxpayer funded public services through subservience to eu rules... who keep telling us how great the eu is...!!!???

it's because despite the rhetoric that Right wing is 'good with the economy' it is the 'Lefties' that are actually pro a strong open global economy, while Hill shepherds want it dead or controlled by a few cartoonish villains like Trump.

nicko wrote:
He's just a wanker,  period.

Piss off, dumbfuck...

You're no use to anyone around here, anymore ...

You have been lying through your fucking teeth about me, and other "lefties" on here, for the past few months...

STFU with your outright floptard lies, you useless little fraudulent moron ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


One small difference here though --  we still managed to actually stay on topic in doing so !!!

Something that your deluded chums Tommy and nicko will often fail to do..

You weren't on topic - you didn't even mention the topic, you just ranted and bitched about Tommy.

STOP your lying interference, you ignorent oxygen-thieving wastrel...

The topic here is "climate change denial"..

That is exactly what I was discussing..

You and nicko are the two dumbfuck interlopers here -- parachuting into this thread with the single-minded intent of attacking others on here.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:
Fred, if you look at past, pre-human climate change events, they happened (and I say this over and over again) over hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

Current climate change is much faster and, I'm sure you know, scientists conclude we're already in a mass extinction event.  

I appreciate that, but personally I think that we are just at the beginning of a new cyclical epoch. And let's face it, just one so far undetected comet or asteroid that just happens to have a certain trajectory, and we're all facing a mass extinction event within the next decade or two.

Afraid not,  Fred...

In 'geological terms' we are still at the end of the last genuine and true "Ice age" --  still on the upwards warming trend --  where it will be another 2000 years or so, before the next downwards cooling trend begins..

Sure that is only a blink in the grand scheme of things --  but it also equates to more than eighty generations of human 'civilisation'.    And human activity has grossly accelerated the rate of change in only the last few hundred years..      

If oil, mining amd industrial concerns --  and their supplicant governments and greedy financiers --  are allowed to continue along their destructive ways, then humans simply won't be around in another two millenia to welcome the next cooling changes...        

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's funny how I am called 'right wing' when it is all the 'lefties' here who support the uk democracy being curtailed by being completely controlled by the eu dictatorship, and subject to eu rules that dictate that all of our public services must be opened up to being run by private companies/corporations (privatised)...!!!

Perhaps the fact is that "Lefties" have done pretty well out of the European Union...Blair, who desperately wanted to be President; Kinnock a rather stupid and failed poilitician,  and Peter "Lord" Mandelson - one of the shiftiest UK politicians of recent times  (the latter two of whom were installed , not elected you will note, as EU Commissioners, all being enthusiastic remainers.

And yet Margaret Thatcher still proved to be the most destructive PM that Britain has encountered over the past half century...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You weren't on topic - you didn't even mention the topic, you just ranted and bitched about Tommy.

STOP your lying interference, you ignorent oxygen-thieving wastrel...

The topic here is "climate change denial"..

That is exactly what I was discussing..

You and nicko are the two dumbfuck interlopers here --  parachuting into this thread with the single-minded intent of attacking others on here.

Please tell me which bit of this post mentioned climate change denial.

I reckon poor little Tommykins himself is the 'fake news' on here...

Invented by Fake_Lord Christopher Monckton, nurtured by Nigel Farage, fed (i.e. financed..) by the Koch Bros..

I find it very hard to accept 'Tommy Monk' as a real person these days.  

That was your first post in this thread - I guess you "parachuted" in to attack another member. That makes you the liar, doesn't it?

We don't live 'with'  Mother Earth anymore.   We just use and abuse her.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Perhaps the fact is that "Lefties" have done pretty well out of the European Union...Blair, who desperately wanted to be President; Kinnock a rather stupid and failed poilitician,  and Peter "Lord" Mandelson - one of the shiftiest UK politicians of recent times  (the latter two of whom were installed , not elected you will note, as EU Commissioners, all being enthusiastic remainers.

And yet Margaret Thatcher still proved to be the most destructive PM that Britain has encountered over the past half century...

Really? Well, in your opinion maybe....

Blair was charismatic and an election winner, but he was also a proven - and devastating - liar and his  sheer obsession with wealth and personal gain could teach many a Tory bloated plutocrat a trick or two.

The Welsh Windbag was so lacking in true political nous that he couldn't motivate the centre in politics to back  Labour in replacing a thoroughly discredited and tired administration. He also very publicly put the "ass" into assumption by strutting around a stage in the Labour heartland of Sheffield on election night like a conquering Roman general riding to his tribute by the Senate yelling "We're awright! We're awright"...at the same time as  minions were desperately trying to draw his attention to his, er, humiliating defeat.

And Mandelson...was it twice or thrice he was forced to resign from government in disgrace? I can't remember.

Thatcher wasn't perfect by a long way, but she was a strong and resourceful PM when the country - and her party - most needed one, particularly at the time of The Falklands crisis.

Don't mention the Falklands, the lefty's on here say we should have give in to the Argie's

veya_victaous wrote:it's because despite the rhetoric that Right wing is 'good with the economy' it is the 'Lefties' that are actually pro a strong open global economy, while Hill shepherds want it dead or controlled by a few cartoonish villains like Trump.

Well, I want taxpayer funded public services to be run by the people in govt and in councils and by public sector/civil service employees, that we pay our taxes for and for them to run these things!!!


What a typically 'right wing' view I have on this...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:it's because despite the rhetoric that Right wing is 'good with the economy' it is the 'Lefties' that are actually pro a strong open global economy, while Hill shepherds want it dead or controlled by a few cartoonish villains like Trump.

Well, I want taxpayer funded public services to be run by the people in govt and in councils and by public sector/civil service employees, that we pay our taxes for and for them to run these things!!!


What a typically 'right wing' view I have on this...!?

I admit you are not atypical of the Right, even if you allow your mind to be enslaved by right wing media
you have some socialist tendency, I think the UK labour party is shit because it cant convince people like you to vote for it. it shows it has failed to have a socialist turn away and fall into the simple mental short hand of blaming the easiest target.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Well, I want taxpayer funded public services to be run by the people in govt and in councils and by public sector/civil service employees, that we pay our taxes for and for them to run these things!!!


What a typically 'right wing' view I have on this...!?

I admit you are not atypical of the Right, even if you allow your mind to be enslaved by right wing media
you have some socialist tendency, I think the UK labour party is shit because it cant convince people like you to vote for it. it shows it has failed to have a socialist turn away and fall into the simple mental short hand of blaming the easiest target.

Indeed...

Tommy might find it easier to relate to some of our more moderate/"centre right" politicians, from both major parties -- like Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison (?) -- rather than his own homegrown malcontents..

he'd have voted for Rudd

Despite abbot moronic assertion that the Liberal party should embrace Abbotts hate filled xenophobic policies for fear of losing the racist vote to one nation, it is good to see that most of the liberal party have clearly rejected the notion.
Really Abbott should join One Nation, it more accurately reflects his opinions and concern for the Racists opinion.

When will you people get it...!?


It's not about 'racism' or 'blaming the easiest target'... it is about giving my honest opinions based on my own observations and my assessment of the available independent facts!

"I admit you are not atypical of the Right, even if you allow your mind to be enslaved by right wing media
you have some socialist tendency, I think the UK labour party is shit because it cant convince people like you to vote for it. it shows it has failed to have a socialist turn away and fall into the simple mental short hand of blaming the easiest target."


Our media is largely and quite heavily "progressive left wing" biased, which means pro labour as well as providing eu which also means anti uk democracy/self rule and pro eu dictatorship running the uk and means pro privatisation of uk taxpayer funded public services...

Labour cannot convince people like me to vote for them because they are shit... and they have shit all over British working class people for 13 years in govt.

Labour = pro eu = anti democracy and = privatising public services plus = pro ruinous mass immigration.