EXXON’s failure in climate affairs
[h/t Dave; Ref.: http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/21/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/ ] Excerpt

EXXON’s fault is not strongly opposing a meaningless language with regard what ‘climate’ is, but accepting that. WMO/IPCC regard that
Climate as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.” (IPCC, AR5, 2013, Glossary, p. 1450) What are “relevant qualities …from months to millions of years”.

How can science work and communicate with the general public, politics, and skeptics with such nonsense?
According the Glossary of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), the “weather” depend on what you are looking for:
____The “present weather” table consists of 100 possible conditions,
____the “past weather” comprise 10 aspects, while
____”layman weather”, covers merely temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind.
Even if the AMS-Glossary is silent on “future weather”, the nonsense gets a face. Who is making the selection? Who decides over the period of time, and the length of a data series.
It should not be such a surprise that discussing ‘climate’ has been so unproductive over the last 30 years. EXXON is acting globally, has top lawyers, scientists, engineers and enough money to require and support a clear and indubitable terminology in an area of paramount importance.

EXXON could have done better.