Exxon Mobil’s Electric Car And Energy Usage Outlook: Not So Good For EVs – Surprised?

2 years ago by Mark Kane 62

Volvo V60 Plug-in Hybrid

Volvo V60 Plug-in Hybrid

Light-duty vehicle fleet by type - projections (source: ExxonMobil)

Light-duty vehicle fleet by type – projections (source: ExxonMobil)

ExxonMobil recently released its energy forecast for the world – The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040.

They expect that between 2014 and 2040 global energy demand will increase by 25%, driven by population (up by about 2 billion people) and economic growth.

Oil… oil will remain the largest source of energy. Go figure:

“In 2040, oil and natural gas are expected to make up nearly 60 percent of global supplies, while nuclear and renewables will be approaching 25 percent. Oil will provide one third of the world’s energy in 2040, remaining the No. 1 source of fuel, and natural gas will move into second place. “

ExxonMobil shared its vision of the light-duty vehicle fleet by type. It will not supprise anyone that they still believe in gasoline and diesel. If you really need to be environment friendly – buy a conventional hybrid and just consume less fuel right? ExxonMobil forecasts that in 2040 over 40% of market share will belong to hybrid cars, whose share in the total fleet will increase to over one quarter.

“Sales of new hybrids are expected to jump from about 2 percent of new-car sales in 2014 to more than 40 percent by 2040, when one in four cars in the world will be a hybrid. Average fuel economy will rise from 25 to about 45 miles per gallon. “

…but look, there are electric and plug-in hybrid cars on the graph too (gathered with hydrogen fuel cell cars). That’s us!

ExxonMobil saw that plug-ins exist, but they value share of plug-ins in the total fleet at maybe 4% in 2040 (market share across new cars probably will be higher, like 10% in the ExxonMobil forecast…we guess).

Well… 1/25 cars on the road to be a plug-in in 2040 is obviously much less than what we expect, as that number is just passing 1% for this year’s sales(up an impressive 72% globally from a year ago) and there is also a lot of significant improvements soon to arrive in the tech.

Source: ExxonMobil via Green Car Congress

Tags: , , ,

62 responses to "Exxon Mobil’s Electric Car And Energy Usage Outlook: Not So Good For EVs – Surprised?"

  1. Paul says:

    If they truly believe this, they are Kodaking themselves.

    Or maybe they have already prepared a coup d’état for the case when the US people won’t elect Exxon-buddies Cruz or Trump.

    1. SparkEV says:

      There’s stuff they publish outside to keep investors happy, and what they internally share. Call it water cooler talk. Every time there’s article of cheaper energy source (like plummeting solar and efficiency) or BEV, they have to have some serious concerns. I mean, they are humans after all.

      In a related note, I wonder how much they were quaking in their boots with the recent news about fusion reactor being turned on.

      1. SJC says:

        Exxon and Chevron made large acquisition purchases of natural gas companies a while back. They are considering the consequences.

      2. super390 says:

        You mean like when they told their investors that global warming wasn’t happening, while at the same time they were preparing to drill for oil in an ice-free Arctic? That’s more than just pumping up one’s stock price.

    2. Alpha777 says:

      Exactly. These are the same right wing nuts who don’t know what a hockey stick is…Geometric Growth for all tech products in the last 50 years.

      Geometric Growth, Not Linear Growth.

  2. evcarnut says:

    Pretty Biased I’d say. I hope they are DEAD wrong & these polluters never get into office..maybe voting won’t be enough to keep them 0ut!…..Hope I’m wrong..

    1. jerryd says:

      Seriously wrong. Just where is all the oil in 2045 going to come from.
      All the monster old oil fields are dying as been pumped out since the 30’s and we are only finding 1bbl for every 3.5bbls we
      use.
      By 2045 oil use will be 10% of present output as out the cost effective will be gone and replaced by EV’s, bio/waste/syn fuels that cost a fraction of what oil will then.
      Interesting Shell just said the opposite of Exxon’s that EV’s and other techs are gaining fast.

      1. super390 says:

        The trend line seems to be that they will just keep surprising us by coming up with ever more horrible, toxic ways to extract oil. First tar sands, then fracking. But we now see that this causes a bubble and crash cycle that bankrupts most of the small players – which also happened in Pennsylvania before 1900 and then in Texas in the ’30s.

        The ultimate stupidity, shale conversion, has always been lurking in the shadows waiting for cheaper processing, which ironically would require a vast new supply of energy. But if that were to be natural gas, it might be easier to convert the gas into liquid fuel as Shell has already demonstrated. Likewise if it’s solar or wind, then why not just use those directly to power our cars? So the ultimate grotesque plan for Exxon would be for alternative energy to be confiscated and diverted to produce monopoly-priced oil so as to save “the American way of life.”

  3. Ash09 says:

    Of course they’d say that gas will still be heavily used by that time.

    Just like how Blockbuster said Netflix would never catch on.

    And various brick and mortar stores saying online shopping isn’t a threat to them.

  4. JeffP says:

    I spoke with one of the lead authors of last year’s ExxonMobil Outlook for Energy report and specifically asked him why they were predicting so few electric vehicles. He said their calculations showed that when you look at “total cost of ownership” plug-ins are always more expensive. I told him that other organizations were looking at the same data and coming to exactly the opposite conclusion, but it did not seem to register.

    1. super390 says:

      They don’t see the potential of lower maintenance costs for EVs, of course. Or the synergy between EV powertrains and automated driving and car sharing services, and what that will do to the culture of cars as personal property.

    2. Nix says:

      I’ve never known consumers of ICE vehicles to purchase based only on Total Cost to Own.

      If that were true, everybody would be driving the stripped down ICE version of the 2016 Chevrolet Spark LS, which has a 5-year TCO of $25,525 (lowest of all ICE cars according to Edmunds).

      I looked around, and noticed that not everybody was driving a stripped down ICE version of the Spark. Heck, even Spark buyers don’t seem to be choosing the trim level with the best TCO. LS trim Sparks are less than a quarter of Spark sales.

      But that stripped ICE spark is only $2,000 dollars behind the better equipped 2015 Chevrolet Spark EV 1LT, with 5-year TCO of $27,230. (The ICE Spark in 1LT trim with auto is actually higher in TCO).

      TCO is important. But judging Mass Market sales based only on TCO is a mistake.

  5. Eric says:

    They have to say this, just like Ben van Beurden, Shell’s CEO, had to say this a few days ago. If these people were to accept that their business will in the short to medium term be declining sharply and if they were honest about that, their shareholders would leave in droves and they would have to close up shop even sooner.

    Personally, I wish it happened tomorrow. But they’re powerful and persistent opportunists that’ll keep refusing to die for a while.

    1. Anon says:

      +1

      There are public reports, and internal reports… They don’t always say the same things.

  6. leptoquark says:

    Interesting that XOM sees the explosive growth of hybrids. It must believe that hybrids (note that specifically distinguish between hybrids and PHEV’s) will be used to satisfy ever-increasing CAFE mileage standards.

    Their plug-in proportion might be right too, with the currently available mass market (i.e. not Model S) 100 mi PEV’s. What they are leaving out is the rise of the $30k 200 mi. car, like the Model 3 or the Bolt. Of course, cars have nothing to do with Moore’s Law, but I’m pretty confident we will see more affordable plug-ins with longer and longer ranges, maybe even to the degree that the blue and purple sections can be swapped.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      I think they are very wrong on their hybrid vs plug-in hybrid ratio. I think plug-in hybrids will begin to dominate since they will only cost marginally more and they will provide a HUGE value in 20 to 50 gas free miles.

    2. Alpha777 says:

      Exactly. The VOLT is Great.
      But, the Bolt will be out in 1 year, then most of America won’t need a Volt.

      This is a research report from 10 years ago.

  7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Whistling past the graveyard.

  8. ffbj says:

    These sorts of studies are virtually worthless. I saw a story on TV recently about accurately predicting the future. The contention was that 100 years ago it was much easier to predict what would happen in the next few decades. 50 years later you would be less likely to make accurate predictions, and nowadays it is much harder even to predict the next 5 years accurately, in regards to technological advances and where they will lead.

    Secondly the contention that population increases alone drive energy demand is just a false premise. The population will certainly increase but will all those people be driving ice or even cars at all? No.
    Since most of the increase will be in underdeveloped countries, to extrapolate demand merely based on population is inadequate. Demand is actually falling even with gas prices dropping precipitously. Of course if you go back a few years you will see Exxon made no such prediction concerning oversupply and falling demand whereas the oil patch is in a heap of trouble do to those trends, along with less driving by older retiring Americans, and young people eschewing car ownership.

    Of course we will still be using oil and gas in 2040, but hardly what Exxon predicts.

    I predict they will fewer oil companies in 2040.

  9. Boilingpoint says:

    A worthless self interest report to drive their own agenda. I bet they filed this report right beside their report on Global Warming is a hoax. If you havent done so already watch the documentary Merchants of Doubt and see the evil we are dealing with.

  10. protomech says:

    “Well… 1/25 cars on the road to be a plug-in in 2040 is obviously much less than what we expect, as that number is just passing 1% for this year’s sales(up an impressive 72% globally from a year ago) and there is also a lot of significant improvements soon to arrive in the tech.”

    No. Read it again.

    Exxon predicts 10% of current car sales to be plugins in 2040, and 4% of on-road vehicles to be plugin. On-road registration will always lag current car sales.

    Current plug-in sales in the US are around 1% of all new car sales, 100k/year vs ~10M/year.

    Cumulative plug-in sales in the US are around 400k, 250M registered vehicles in the US so around 0.16%.

    (Numbers from memory so will be off a little, take as illustration)

    1. Jay Cole says:

      The on-road mix today (plug-in or otherwise) is pretty immaterial, as that number is jejune to 2040 numbers. Only the current plug-in and ICE vehicle selling base established today could even slightly have an impact.

      As we just started 2016, that means 2040 is essential 25 years from now. In the US only 14 million vehicles are that age today (25 yrs +) out of the 258 million on the roads, or put another way 5.5% of the total.

      Somewhere around 2028, all the vehicles sold from that point to 2040 will comprise 50% of the fleet. The “average” car on the road making up today’s (11.8 years old), would be close to 37 by then and long retired.

      1. The average EV on the road in the U.S. Is under 2 years old.

        ie: ~240,000 of 400,000, or ~60% of EVs delivered in last 24 months. (average is likely in 18-20 months range) The odds are significant that an EV on the road to day will still be in use in 2025! (still charging forward when 10 years old)

        1. Jay Cole says:

          Sure, I’d completely agree with that. Perhaps even longer, hard to say what the average longevity for plug-ins will be.

  11. MikeM says:

    One thing that strikes me about the graph is the huge ratio of plain old hybrids to plug-ins of any type in 2040.
    And how this seems to be reflected in the auto industry’s present day 2015-16 wishful thinking (Slap a hybrid label on it and problem solved).
    Plus gas-only ICE vehicle numbers being more or less flat for 20 years.

    I have the feeling that if this stuff comes anywhere near to panning out, then we really will be doomed.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      Yeah, it is weird how they hybrids suddenly explode between 2035 and 2040.

      I think plug-in hybrids are going to start dominating over conventional hybrids. They don’t cost that much more than conventional hybrids and value of being able to drive the first 20 to 50 miles of any trip is HUGE.

      What is the cost difference? Just adding a charger, a slightly larger electric motor, and a larger battery. The charger & motor are not very expensive. And the larger battery is covered by the tax-credit right now. And the battery prices are dropping. So I think plug-in hybrids will eventually overtake conventional hybrids.

      1. Alpha777 says:

        Exactly. There will be NO HYBRIDS FOR SALE in 2035.
        It will only be fast charge EV’s.

  12. Texas FFE says:

    Each of us has the power to change the world with the choices we make. If you want cleaner air and energy security then buy a zero emission vehicle. If you are complacent and don’t care about the future of the world then keep buying gas guzzling pickups and SUVs.

    The oil companies are not going to give us a better world, they are going to keep selling us what we want to buy. Don’t blame the oil companies if their predictions hold true, blame ourselves for making bad choices. If the consumers and their politicians work together we can wean ourselves from oil once and for all.

  13. Texas FFE says:

    There are non-Tesla DCFC stations up and down the east and west coast and they are sprouting up throughout mid America. The range of non-Tesla BEVs is on the verge of almost tripling while the purchase costs plummet. BEVs are rapidly reaching near parity with gasoline vehicles.

    The only thing preventing us from abandoning oil now is the choices we make. Most people still have never heard of the Chevrolet Bolt or have no idea what DCFC is. The people who read these articles are evangelist, we have heard the word, but somehow we need to get the word out to the general population that there are choices other than oil.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      Well, the problem with the non Tesla DCFCs is that they are only 50KW at best and the haphazardly located. I think this will be one of problems with the Chevy Bolt . . . an inadequate DCFC network.

      1. Texas FFE says:

        Faster is better of course but most people I talk to think that a one hour charge after three hours of driving is acceptable. And the 200 mile range of the next generation EVs will make the underdeveloped DCFC network far more usable. Resistance to change is now the biggest obstacle to EV adoption.

        1. Rebel44 says:

          One of big problems with chargers is, that many are 1-2 plugs per site and not reliable.

    2. Sunsetsam says:

      Not so fast, Texas wise guy – I do know about DCFC. It’s Derby County Football Club.

  14. Speculawyer says:

    It is an arbitrary guess. They might not be far off. Or they might be really far off.

    No one really knows. It is heavily dependent on the price of oil, climate change regulations, who gets elected, whether battery prices really come down to around $100/KWH, world events, etc. Anyone that makes such predictions is just really putting their head on the guillotine because they are pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

    I’ll just post a few comments on scenarios:
    -Climate change effects may become even more noticeable than they already are. And this might marginalize the loopy climate change deniers into irrelevance such that nations adopt stricter climate change regulations that will put the squeeze on conventional ICE.
    -If battery prices are pushed down to $100/KWH, that could really make EVs with big batteries cost effective. And when people realize the advantages of EVs, they may move to EVs just because of their nice qualities such as: completely silent, fewer repairs, can refuel at home, no lurching transmission, no oil changes, no smog checks, can ‘grow’ your own fuel on your roof with solar PV, no vibration, less maintenance, nonvolatile fuel price, no stinky toxic exhaust, etc.
    -If a Republican wins the White House, that Republican might gut as many EV incentives as possible and kill as many climate change initiatives as possible.
    -Oil is cheap but some world event could cause them to shoot up. The tepid proxy war between Saudi Arabia & Iran could flare up into a hot war. Nigeria could collapse into anarchy. The Venezuelan nation could collapse.

    1. super390 says:

      Climate change denialism is uniquely an American political force, just like Christian fundamentalism and gun ownership. I think it will not let go of its grip on power for a long time, because it feeds on the anger of tens of millions who feel that they’ve been cheated out of goodies that they deserve as “good” Americans/Christians/entrepreneurs, etc. This automatically frames the enemy as anyone opposed to their culture and privileges (environmentalists, etc.), NEVER their bosses and the investor class who are actually sucking up all the wealth. Climate change will be denied until it can be declared God’s punishment on America for not persecuting gays or Moslems.

      The world will have to work around these yahoos, as it increasingly has to in all matters.

      1. G2 says:

        ‘Think you nailed that one 390.

  15. scott franco says:

    I’m sure they are correct.. about the world, not the usa. Just like tobacco, the oil industry will find overseas clients as more and more of their business with whatever happens.

    This is why it was so important for the restriction on exporting oil to be removed. In the future there will be far more oil exported than used domestically.

    If you have been to anywhere in south america you would see that hybrid cars and electrics are virtually nowhere.

    Harder to explain, Europe is also going to be a huge importer of oil long after the USA declines in oil use. They refuse to use fracking, are slow to electrify, and are decommissioning nuclear.

    1. Speculawyer says:

      “Just like tobacco, the oil industry will find overseas clients as more and more of their business with whatever happens.”

      Oh, they already have. These days, refining for export markets is big business in the USA. We import crude, refine it, then send the refined fuel to central America, South America, etc.

      “This is why it was so important for the restriction on exporting oil to be removed. In the future there will be far more oil exported than used domestically.”

      I don’t see this happening. We still consume MUCH more than we produce. And our production is now crashing due to the low prices so we’ll go back to being dependent on cheap imported oil.

      “Europe is also going to be a huge importer of oil long after the USA declines in oil use. They refuse to use fracking, are slow to electrify, and are decommissioning nuclear.”

      Europe doesn’t really have any shale formations to frack. But they are electrifying faster than us. At least several of the countries. Their high oil prices and climate change rules still make electrics pretty attractive over there. Our purchasing of plug-ins has slowed due to the cheap gasoline. 🙁

    2. Alpha777 says:

      The world is switching to solar power. Geometric growth globally.

      1. super390 says:

        Go to cleantechnica.com and every week you’ll see announcements of several gigantic wind or solar utility projects in Latin America and India. It is precisely because they were so underserved before that renewables can compete on a level field. Whereas the US is too committed to the infrastructure – and lobbying and bribery – already in place to write it off and start over. In Europe and Australia, on the other hand, people are affluent enough to buy their own solar panels and sick of the bribed-up politicians. It’s ridiculous that Germans should be trying to put PV panels on their homes, but it’s having an effect.

  16. Just_chris says:

    I bet this report looks at GDP of India and china says by 2040 it will be similar to the usa now so car ownership in those nations will be at similar levels to the USA by 2040. It probably completely ignores Singapore and Hong Kong both of which are affluent and both of which have low car ownership. Almost all of these reports are also full of graphs that show trends from the 80’s and 90’s extending into the future with a blip around 2005 – 2010 the reality is the gradient of the graph changed at the point which is becoming increasingly hard to hide. I can almost see the oil usage graph for the EU and USA in my head you’ll have strong growth upto around 2005-2008 then a sharp drop at the gfc. It will then drop constantly for a few years before levelling out as the oil price drops by 75%. Magically from around next year growth will then pick up and we’ll see strong growth similar to historic levels to 2040. I haven’t looked at any of these graphs for a while but I reckon that will be what they show.

  17. If you want cars to be electric, you will need some electric “roads”. We have some already… subway lines. All the cars that ride them are electric.
    Don’t think this is to suggest electrifying regular roads. That wouldn’t work. What will work is building new “roads”… unlike current ones. The first new “roads” should be… just do a web search for CargoFish Physical Internet to see. I’m typing on my mobile right now, and it’s easiest just to refer you to what has already been posted. See the LinkedIn publication, “A New Perspective on Freight Distribution”, or “A Network is a Bridge to Everywhere”, or any of several other conference abstracts, papers, or competition entries.

  18. Jeff Songster says:

    Self delusion is a sad state. Big oil seems to live in it these days. More wind, solar, hydro, nat gas and EVs. Straight to hell with big oil I say. I can’t remember the last time they did any favors for the rest of us. Stop burning old dinos and polluting the earth. The price of oil will be back up by July…. the Saudis are tired of losing money and going into debt… it will take our frackers and shale guys a few years to get their mojo back after this recent shut down.. so prices will stay high for a while.

    1. JustLiberty says:

      Do you mean favors like producing the fuels and lubricants that most of us use to get to work and to visit families and friends? The fuels that power the ambulances that take us to the hospital? The plastics that are used in the sterile equipment that are used in those ambulances and hosptitals? The molecular building blocks of the medicines dispensed in those hospitals? The fuels that are used to provide the food we eat? Or how about the financial favors of divdends that milions use to support their lives during retirment?

      1. Aaron says:

        There are other sources for ALL of those things. Soy and potato-based plastics are now mainstream. There are few petroleum-based medicines. There is no reason an ambulance can’t be electrically-powered. Same with OTR trucks.

        In short, there will always be a small market for petroleum-based products in the future, but gasoline/diesel is on its way out.

        1. jmac says:

          Aaron,

          I don’t come from an electric car background. I came to alternate technology through solar power and used to hang out on energy blogs. One thing that came up sometimes in discussion was the question of how to make plastics if we don’t or can’t make them from oil.

          It turns out many early plastics were made from cellulose. Early movie film was called celluloid since it was made from cellulose or plant fiber. Just about any plastic that is made from crude oil can be made from cellulose (plants and trees)

          Back around the time when oil shot up to $180/bbl, Dupont and some of the other plastics companies started using cellulose as a feed-stock in plastics production instead of oil.

          Trust me, the big plastics companies can easily make plastic out of renewable trees, plants or even certain agricultural wastes. Fertilizers can be made out of things other than natural gas. It’s just that in the past fossil fuels have been cheap and handy and decades ago we did not realize that their use caused numerous problems.

  19. The references to fosil fuels aside, like how the graph predictive “linear growth” in the number of vehicle over a 50 year period. {sarcasm}

    Just as interesting is the doubling of fleet total from 0.75 Billlion in 2010 to 1.5 Billion vehicles in 2030. (ie: just as many vehicles will be sold in next ~15 years as the last 100 years)

  20. Someone out there says:

    A report by a company that needs to defend their business model to their shareholders…
    No I think these numbers are way off. Sure, we will be using some oil for a long time as it is needed in industrial processes but for transportation, heating and electricity generation it will play a very small part.
    Electric vehicles are developing very rapidly, by 2030 it will be very difficult to sell a gasoline car to the public. Sure there will be gas car left on the road still but they will diminish quickly.
    Electricity will come from nuclear and renewable sources with solar+storage playing a significant part.

  21. Speculawyer says:

    There 2015 number seems to be wrong . . . well I guess it depends on if that is a international or domestic. In the USA, sales of CNG & LNG vehicles is pretty near nil, plug-ins sell much better.

  22. Speculawyer says:

    “Oil will provide one third of the world’s energy in 2040, remaining the No. 1 source of fuel, and natural gas will move into second place.”

    That seems to contradict their graph.

    1. mr. M says:

      The graph is for vehicle usage only. Oil is also used to produce plastic, to heat, for medicine, …

      Therefore vehicle usage of oil might reduce, but other usages could increase or stay the same.

  23. super390 says:

    According to recent news, population growth is leveling off all over the world – except for Africa, which is expected to add another 2 billion people by mid-century.

    So the report is misleading. It’s not the growth in population that will create new car buyers, but the growth in income among populations whose birthrate is low or declining, meaning presumably India and China.

    Western capitalism has given up on Africa except for quick-profit resource extraction. China might have a longer view, but it will have to be wildly successful to turn African satellites into car-driving societies.

    Central Asia might be a growth market, because China is transferring its population eastward and making many deals with the ‘Stans. I’m still skeptical about India because the investors going in there are the same bastards who destroyed the middle class in America. They think they can pay off a few technicians and leave everyone else in the sweatshops. And the ruling Hindu-fundamentalist government is corporate at the top, but bigoted and violent at the bottom. If wages don’t go up, they’ll just riot and butcher some Moslems like they have before. Investors happy.

  24. jmac says:

    Never tell the patient he’s dying. He will become angry, deny it and dream up 10,000 reasons why he will not die. This death defying report from Exxon-Mobil is from an industry that is terminally ill.

  25. Bill Howland says:

    Exxon is one of the few companies that can still produce at $20/bbl, seemingly where we are headed for the short term. As many years ago, Oil is so versatile it is the swing fuel – other technologies will have to be very compelling to supplant it.

    Russia started running its first fast breeder reactor (I think the first practical application of this technology in the world, by ROSATOM) at 25% of its 800 MWe rating. Technologically, they seem to have left the west behind in the Nuclear Field. It will be interesting to see if this plant has any advantages besides the obvious 50 X reduction in Uranium use, and its concurent reduction in waste. I’m unsure as to the amount of ‘routine releases’ from this plant, the current bugaboo with even faultless operation of the states’ current 98-99 Nuclear Generating Units.

    As far as Fusion goes, the former head of the gov’ts program has some cold water to dump on the likelihood of Fusion Power in our lifetime in the Feb issue of POWER.

    Mark Hovis was giving me the business lately about me stating human-caused Global Warming is junk science and a scam (AGW). So, I’ll give it here also, and see what apples and tomatoes get thrown at me:

    ‘….· Bill Howland · 2 years ago

    @Benjamin Nead

    I suppose after mentioning it, sooner or later I’m going to have to do it, so here’s a list of 13 Climatologists and/or IPCC Lead Authors:

    Prof Dr. Nir Shaviv – University of Tel Aviv “Three to Ten times CO2 in the past as currently”.

    Prof Dr. Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, Winnipeg, “Most important Greenhouse Gas is Water, 95%”.

    Prof Dr. Ian Clark, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa “Co2 lags temperature changes by 800 years, Co2 never drove climate change in the past”.

    Prof Dr. John Christy, IPCC Lead Author, Given award for developing new method for measuring temperatures in the atmosphere; “Water is the most important Greenhouse Gas”.

    Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action. Bet money against England’s prestigious Met office and Won cash, several times. “No changes in climate due to Co2 in the past 1000 years”.

    Prof Dr Philip Stott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London, “London was much warmer in the middle age warm period, confirmed by Chaucer, than now”.

    Prof Dr. Paul Rieter, IPCC and Pasteur Institute, Paris : ” Malaria not a tropical disese, biggest outbreak reaching Arcangelsk at the Arctic Circle killed 600,000 in the early 20th century”. Also, ‘2500 of the world’s top scientists are bogus once you look at bibliographies, since the climatology scientific field is small. Plus if you disagree with the conclusions, it dosesn’t matter since they won’t take your name off the list”.

    Prof Dr. Richard Lindzen, IPCC & MIT ” Whenever you hear that all scientists agree and therefore you should too, in Science that is Pure Propaganda”. And, “The one thing you Shouldn’t say, is ‘this may not be a problem’.” (!!!)

    Patrick Moore, Cofounder of Greenpeace, AGW nonsense is killing Africa, preventing life saving development.

    Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satelite Team Leader, NASA ” If it can be indicated that a catastrophe is near, then all kinds of money will flow to your research project”.

    Prof Dr. Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Services, University of Virginia, “Anyone who goes around saying AGW is responsible for the 20th century warming, hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.” , and, “Tens of thousands of jobs depend on AGW now, its a BIG BUSINESS”

    Nigel Calder, Ex Editor, “New Scientist”, “AGW is a religion”, and “the whole thing stinks”, and “its a Looney Idea”.

    Dr. Frederick Singer, Ex-Director US National Weather Service, “Computer Models of increased AGW are disproved by the temperature evidence”.

    Prof Dr. Syun-ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Resource Centre; “Co2 greatly increased between 1940 and 1975, temperature went way down”, and “Arctic Ice Extent is seasonal and will cause no problems”.

    This is a pretty good cross section of people, many with impeccable credentials (such as John Christy, the very TOP of his field). who stated the “Inconvenient Truths”

    1. Speculawyer says:

      So climate change is fake but Chemtrails are real?

      OK, Sure.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        I notice you don’t argue the point but just try to be cute. Ok, laugh it up, since there’s more of that kind of thing out west than where I live.
        I suppose there is only 5% unemployment also. SO when the ‘house of cards’ economy fails, and the 23% unemployment goes to 40%, you’ll say ‘UH.. What happened?’, since you were told that it was only 5%.

      2. Someone out there says:

        Those two usually go together with the “truthers”.

    2. Bill Howland says:

      Just so someone doesn’t think I’m trying to make a brief for Nuclear Power, the ongoing troubles at Entergy’s Indian Point Bucchannan, NY (35 miles north of NYC); this 2/6/2016 article from Tyler Durden (ZeroHedge) is illuminating:

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-06/65000-spike-reported-radioactivity-after-tritium-leaks-indian-point-nuclear-power-pl

  26. Nix says:

    Exxon Mobil hasn’t been doing so well on predicting the future. Less than 2 years ago, Exxon was operating on the prediction that oil would be $110/barrel in 2017. It doesn’t look like that is going to come true at all.

    “The international oil companies (IOCs) have been unable to hold liquids production levels even in the face of soaring capital expenditures and rapidly increasing operating costs. Some, like ExxonMobil and Chevron, are budgeting with $110 oil in 2017 and are expecting that consumers will accept the cost increases necessary to permit the IOCs to sanction new projects.

    By contrast, Citi sees cheap oil everywhere, implying either that Chevron and ExxonMobil do not have a solid handle on their cost outlook, or that the IOCs will see the oil side of their business quite literally gutted in the next three years. There is no middle ground here. At least one of these views is radically incorrect.”

    http://blogs.platts.com/2014/04/09/citi-chevron-oil-price/

    1. jmac says:

      It’s an open secret that the Saudis raised production a while back to maintain market share and put U.S. frackers (e.g. the North Dakota oil fields) out of production.

      The lesson is that we cannot just mindlessly drill for more oil in order to “become oil independent”. The only path to energy independence is to get off oil altogether, e.g. electric cars.

      Fracking raised U.S. oil production to about 9 million/bbl a day but we still use about 20 million+plus barrels a day, most of it in the transportation sector. So, fracking did not make us energy self-sufficient. It just made the oil companies money.

      There’s no reason to invoke global warming as a reason to get off oil. There are dozens of better reasons. The fact that OPEC always has the last say in the world oil market is just one good reason to say adios to oil. There dozens of much better reasons for quitting oil that are obvious and straight forward, unlike global warming which is still being debated in some quarters.

      The electric car will make us independent and self sufficient, not more fracking. The largest historical U.S. oil production was just a hair over 11 million/bbl a day in the very late 60s and very early 70s not nearly enough to satisfy our current 20 million/bbl per day oil habit.

  27. Surya says:

    No way, I don’t buy this for a second!

  28. Scramjett says:

    Allow me to play devil’s advocate by saying that they’re probably right. Maybe the market share will be a little higher, maybe 6-8% rather than 4%, but that’s still not much. The reason is this: we all live in our own little EV bubble, read stuff about how awesome the Volt, Bolt, Tesla, Leaf, insert existing/pending PHEV, is and we think “oh yeah, this is a game changer! The Bolt is a game changer, the Model III is a game changer!” etc. Even where I work, on energy efficiency research, we get into a similar bubble here.

    But here is what happens, to me at least, at the end of the day, every day. I leave my bubbles of clean energy and transportation and walk five traffic snarled city blocks to pick up my youngest. What do I see? Solo drivers sitting in traffic, idling their engines, creeping along those five blocks. I look into their faces sometimes, and regardless of age, gender and ethnicity, I see a kind of complacency that tells me one stark truth: “these people want nothing to do with plugs, fuel cells, saving gas, saving energy, energy efficiency, or any of that.” I don’t think any amount of hand waving, foot stomping, sky-is-falling screaming is going to shake them from that complacency. The only thing that has been historically shown to shake that level of complacency is this: deprivation.

    I hate to say it, and maybe I’m just a pessimist, but this country will have to fall hard and fast and the vast majority of the population will have to suffer greatly long before we’ll see any kind of significant change in lifestyle and BAU.