| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies; Journalists discover (and misrepresent) what the oil giant has been trying to tell them for years. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 10 2015, 06:58 AM (38 Views) | |
| Berton | Nov 10 2015, 06:58 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In Exxon War, Bamboozled by Greenies Journalists discover (and misrepresent) what the oil giant has been trying to tell them for years. Scurry on board the Exxon prosecution express. Lest they be left behind and called “deniers,” Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, the attorney general of New York and Al Gore this week all demanded criminal investigation of Exxon Mobil as a result of recent media “exposés.” Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Thursday agreed, saying, “There’s a lot of evidence that they misled people.” Not one of these worthies likely examined the evidence, which tells a story quite different from the claim that Exxon somehow concealed its understanding of the climate debate. But the hurdle rate for “investigative” journalism has apparently become low. The allegedly damning documents that the Los Angeles Times and the website Inside Climate News (ICN) claim to have unearthed were published by Exxon itself, in peer-reviewed journals, on its website, and in archives created by Exxon for public use. Technically, the reporters wallow in the equivocation fallacy. Uncertainty about whether X=2 is not the same as uncertainty about whether 2+2=4. Acknowledging and even studying man’s impact on the climate, as Exxon has done and continues to do, is not tantamount to endorsing a green policy agenda of highly questionable value. And that’s the real problem. Read closely and the accusation isn’t really that Exxon misled the public by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science, which are real. It’s that Exxon refused to sign up for a vision of climate doom that would justify large and immediate costs to reduce fossil fuel use. This fantasy is summed up in the ICN series by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, who is quoted as saying, “All it would’ve taken is for one prominent fossil fuel CEO to know this was about more than just shareholder profits.” But wait, hasn’t this experiment been run? In the early 2000s, BP CEO John Browne began sounding a climate alarm. Ron Oxburgh, the chairman of Shell, gave a speech warning of planetary doom. In 2007, Alcoa, GE, Duke Energy, Ford, DuPont and others endorsed a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. Yet all this failed to move the ball in two successive congresses because Senate Democrats (the second time joined by President Obama) didn’t want to be blamed for jacking up gasoline prices. The same experiment has also been run globally. Out of 196 countries, 196 have concluded that there is no way, with current technology, to take a big enough whack out of carbon-dioxide emissions at a cost their societies would be prepared to bear. Even Mr. Obama’s decision on Friday to nix the Keystone XL pipeline came at a time of low gas prices when he will never face voters again, and in full knowledge that his decision won’t impede Canada’s development of its oil sands. The narrative of Exxon’s supposedly criminal deceit may be loopy, but save your real contempt for the climate lawyers now rubbing their hands over a Big Tobacco-style lawsuit. In effect, their cynical reasoning is that Exxon can be punished for failing to conceal its awareness of the climate debate. But why stop at Exxon? President Obama is aware of the threat of climate change—he talks about it all the time—yet has presided over an expansion of oil and gas leasing. Vice President Al Gore endlessly harped on climate change—yet when confronted with a modest uptick in gasoline prices during his presidential run, insisted that President Clinton open the strategic reserve to keep gas prices low. Maybe the tobacco analogy is apt after all. Recall that the result of government lawsuits wasn’t to ban tobacco use but to make government (and organized crime) the main beneficiary of tobacco revenues. The U.S. government controls 31% of America’s mineral rights, and has 42,000 drilling leases in effect covering 80 million acres. Federal lands produce 41% of America’s coal output. Elsewhere, governments control 100% of mineral rights. Wherever it operates these days, Exxon is mainly an agent for governments determined to realize oil revenues regardless of any climate fears. But the biggest lie here is that any Exxon spectacle would be aimed at advancing the cause of climate policy anyway. Especially sad is the decision by Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund to sign a group letter calling for a criminal inquiry, though he mealy-mouthed his participation by saying “We don’t have all the facts. We’re not prejudging what happened.” Mr. Krupp was last seen blaming the “shrillness that has permeated our advocacy” for the Senate defeats, and calling for a “more reasoned” and “calmer discussion” that is diametrically the opposite of the Exxon witch trial now being whipped up. At least until this week, Mr. Krupp was an outlier, devoting himself to the coalition-building that is indispensable for real policy progress (and Exxon for the past six years has been a public supporter of a carbon tax). But Mr. Krupp’s fellow climate campaigners clearly have other priorities. http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-exxon-war-bamboozled-by-greenies-1446852517 I think of one looks closely they would find that someone on this board has been spreading that very misrepresentation. |
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Nov 10 2015, 07:09 AM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That person is scrambling to his left-wing blogs to find out how to respond. |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Nov 10 2015, 08:55 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not scrambling. it is not necessary. I told the truth. The evidence is irrefutable, and available all over the Internet You, the Denialsphere, and your article are flat out lying, and that is also all over the Internet. No point in even debating this one, it's a done deal. The only discussion is how huge the punishment should be. Goodbye. Edited by Brewster, Nov 10 2015, 08:55 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Nov 10 2015, 08:58 AM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Are you going home to the America hating site? If so, how wonderful. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Nov 10 2015, 08:58 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Jim Miller | Nov 10 2015, 09:00 AM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Let him go home, Berton. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Nov 10 2015, 09:02 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
He is like a bad penny Jim. I just will not happen. |
![]() |
|
| Neutral | Nov 10 2015, 09:04 AM Post #8 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
According to Brew, anyone who disagrees with his views is a liar. LOL I'm sure he hates all those oil companies so understandable. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




9:02 AM Jul 11
