I am not arguing that with you beyond a point. If you believe it's an IPCC/UN scam without any kind of credible evidence, that is very sad.
So, let's not use any IPCC/UN data at all.
Here is what the largest crude oil producer in the USA has been doing on climate change issues since the 1970s:
Full paper analyzing this with lots of data: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063
A problem, of course, was that EM did not see a good reason to present these results properly to external stakeholders over 2-3 decades. This was not "illegal" (as ruled recently by a NY court) but exposed the company to "climate change denial" accusations.Our results show that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully. .....ExxonMobil’s average projected warming was 0.20° ± 0.04°C per decade, which is, within uncertainty, the same as that of independent academic and government projections published between 1970 and 2007. The average “skill score” and level of uncertainty of ExxonMobil’s climate models (67 to 75% and ±21%, respectively) were also similar to those of the independent models.
Having partnered with oil companies for more than 2 decades (and still ongoing) and directly knowing many senior people, I can fully confirm such companies with a long and deep history of high quality R&D - such as EM, Chevron, ConocoPhillips etc - are not "anthropogenic climate change deniers". Especially since they believe their own results, and not relying on IPCC predictions.
Today, companies like EM have an extensive climate change mitigation strategy based on their own results:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustai ... ethereport
You may argue about how good/bad their strategy is, but to deny #1 in my previous post as an IPCC scam is really nonsense.
The companies that pulled out all that carbon from the ground have also come to the same conclusion using their own independent research - which, as it turns out, had remarkably predicted the same results a decade before the IPCC.
Please try and look at this scientifically and objectively, even if nothing more than for the good of your own descendants/next generations of relatives who will have to deal with this.
