Well, this should be interesting.
Congressional investigators say they’ve found ‘very concerning’ new documents about ExxonMobil’s campaign to discredit climate science. Yesterday, they summoned the CEOs of Chevron, Exxon, She’ll, and BP to testify on October 28th.
I wonder what they found?
I ain’t going nowhere! No DC, no nothing.
Well put! I do not think many remember or were ever taught about those days in the past. Quality of life has jumped leaps and bounds. I constantly hear complaining about life, not just on this site but everywhere. We have a easy, comfortable life compared to my parents and grandparents…no social programs at all, you stood in soup lines, bread line if you were poor. Desperate? Out of work? Men and boys shoveled coal in the city and delivered to homes. We need to be grateful for what we have now. We can change from oil use, but our quality, conveniences and cost for the life we have now will change. Are the American people ready for that? Wishing everyone well.
Note that “climate change” is already a thing of the past. Now it’s called “climate crisis” or “climate emergency”. The problem is that they’re running out of scary words; what are they going to call it two years from now ?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/sep/16/exxon-bp-congress-climate-crisis
gonna be fun - get your CSPAN channel number programmed.
Late October.
Cheap troll.
What would those “very concerning” documents about discrediting climate science be ? Maybe the “scientific consensus” from the ‘70s that we’re heading towards a new Ice Age ? No, that didn’t discredit climate science, because fanatics remember only what’s convenient for their cult.
Or maybe it’s again the red herring that Exxon new about global warming since the ‘60s or the ‘70s, when computers to run climate models were a joke ? Today we’re supposed to trust climate forward models because in the last 20 years computers are able to run highly complex models; if so, where did Exxon get those high-power computers in the ‘60s ? Besides, if Exxon scientists knew about global warming in the ‘70s, that would have been climate cooling “denial”, going against the scientific consensus of the day. Just a bunch of BS.
Like tobacco?
If it weren’t for cheap power fueling the industrial revolution, you would be on this forum complaining. You wouldn’t have gone to college. You certainly wouldn’t have free time or a phone. You would be on a farm helping mommy and daddy harvest the crops. You would have started working full time at 12 on the farm (if you were lucky and your parents wanted to teach you to read.)
Call CO2 a problem we need to solve now, that we have made the leap to a higher level of education and comfort. Don’t make up perceived conspiracy theories from a time where coal, oil, and gas paved the way for greater education and prosperity. Every one of those people back in the 1900s to 1960s would have made the same choices, even if they knew burning fossil fuels could impact the climate in 50-100 years.
Oil products are a commodity. Supply and demand. If demand goes away, so does supply.
….just a little ‘food for thought’ from that ‘better than though’ poster. I’m sure he lives within walking distance of work, doesn’t use electricity, lives without heat/AC, and finds away to buy his food without any plastic packaging. If he can answer in the affirmative, than I owe him an apology. If he cannot, than he is just a hypocrite who struggles to understand anything beyond ‘oil is bad.’
I think they have found their common sense
Maybe the congressman on the committee can put their states on a “do not sell fossil fuels to us” list, and all the fossil fuel companies can cease selling to those states without running into antitrust issues? You know, because there isn’t any benefits to using them. Ask Europe how things are going with their $200 MWhr power prices.
This might be the most exciting Congressional grilling of CEOs of the past few months.
The hi-tek social media boys walked away recently with only rug-burns.
Those little skinny innocents are not comparable to the scarred feral porkers of XOM, CVX, BP, what have you.
O&G is where the money used to be at, but there is too much fat dripping in the fire for this one. Expect a blaze, if not a blevee.
Leave the oil companies alone, keystone shut down really ? where is Hunter. Del Rio Texas , take your country back!
I can testify it is not so hard being raked over the coals when you are a billionaire (or close enough). Beyond that, I take the fifth!
I, too, was in O&G & Coal - 9 years ago at a hearing - and Lil Joe (Manchin) actually complemented my tie and hankie. It was softballs then. The Fifth!
(Actually, I did bring fifths of KY best bourbon for each Senator to my hearing. But that was the Senate, not the piranha House.)
DW - CEO of the former biggest company in the world - did not get phone calls returned from the POTUS since mid-2019. That could have been a sign.
Now - even getting a call back from Gov Abbottoir is difficult. Have we cut down on contributions?
There apparently is new evidence - described as quite juicy.
In summary, I've lowered my sell score to 60 (from 65).
If not for Gen. Milley's blockage, I'd have sold out early this year.
They should call DW and Keith Mc together. Now THAT would be a show.
They should call DW and Keith Mc together. Now THAT would be a show.
They should call DW and Keith Mc together. Now THAT would be a show.
The deceit has always been in plain sight actually. It’s not even in comparison with Tobacco which is relatively more nuanced. High school chemistry first and foremost - CO2 makes water more acidic. So CO2 would have been a factor in making investment decision over 30 year horizon because acidic oceans will corrode away oil platforms. Won’t be surprised if Exxon thought of CO2 levels being 800 ppm in 2040 for the Sakhalin Project. However, for the rest of us, all of the science behind burning oil products is of course will be unproven, and consequences for the environment should be up for debate.