Congressmen Defending ExxonMobil Against Investigation Received Almost $100,000 From Company

[KILL KILL]

In November, the New York Attorney General, launched an investigation into whether or not Exxon had deliberately misled the public about the realities of climate change (similarly to how cigarette companies lied in the 80's / early 90's).

In March, the Attorney Generals of 5 other states (plus the AG from the Virgin Islands) have joined the investigation as well.

Of course, the investigation is being stalled by the Republican members of the House Science Committee, 13 of which have been paid approximately $100,000 from ExxonMobil, and $2,680,383 in contributions from the oil and gas industry.

Schneiderman’s investigation was intended to look at whether Exxon had made claims about climate change that were belied by its own scientific research. He opened the inquiry just a few months after the Union of Concerned Scientists said it had obtained documents showing Exxon has been aware of the danger posed by man-made climate change for more than 30 years.

The company has denied misleading either investors or the public.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...-against-investigation-received-almost-100000

The corruption is insane.

Between 1998-2005 ExxonMobil reportedly spent $16 million formed over 40 front groups to try and "muddy the waters" by attempting to discredit climate change science.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...ion/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html#.V1Z3j5ErLIV

Much like big tobacco, oil companies have been spending big dollars to mislead investors and the public.

Despite their outsized role, ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers are just a part of a much bigger story, according to a new UCS report, “The Climate Deception Dossiers.” After spending nearly a year reviewing a wide range of internal corporate and trade association documents pried loose by leaks, lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, UCS researchers have compiled a broader tale of deceit.

Drawing on evidence culled from 85 documents, the report reveals that ExxonMobil and five other top carbon polluters — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, coal giant Peabody Energy and Royal Dutch Shell — were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong. Taken together, the documents show that these six companies—in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s premier trade association, and a host of front groups — have known for at least two decades that their products are harmful and have intentionally deceived the public about the climate change threat.

The report is pretty damning

The collected documents reveal the fossil fuel industry campaign has relied on a variety of deceptive practices, including creating phony grassroots groups, secretly funding purportedly independent scientists, and even forging letters from nonprofit advocacy groups to lobby members of Congress.

ExxonMobil’s duplicity is perhaps the most remarkable. Internal documents and public statements stretching back decades show that ExxonMobil’s corporate forerunners Exxon and Mobil, which merged in 1999, acknowledged the threat posed by global warming as far back as the early 1980s.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html

ExxonMobil has known about climate change since 1981.

Former Exxon and Mobil chemical engineer Leonard S. Bernstein sent last October in reply to a request for comment by an Ohio University ethics professor about how corporations often fail to account for “externalities” such as pollution. Bernstein stated in his email that Exxon was factoring climate change into its resource development decisions more than 30 years ago.

Here are a few excerpts...

"Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia....

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue...

Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system."
https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

In 1988, Mobil's president, Richard Tucker gave a speech at at an American Institute of Chemical Engineers national conference, where he cited the "greenhouse effect" as serious environmental challenge.

“Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever generated — to prevent problems at the source,” he said. “That will involve working at the edge of scientific knowledge and developing new technology at every scale on the engineering spectrum. ...Prevention on a global scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels — and a shift toward solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible — just possible — that the energy industry will transform itself so completely that observers will declare it a new industry.”

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754074119482;view=1up;seq=522


I could go on and on as this is only the tip of the iceberg. Within the next decade, I smell a huge lawsuit coming, similar to the 2006 ruling that will cost big tobacco $206 billion over 25 years.

Hopefully it comes sooner.

 

[PEB]

One upside is the oil industry is starting to lose the war. Texas house and Senate just over ruled the Governor to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers. Texas is seeing thousands of jobs moving to Nevada for building battery plants.

If they had not been so stubborn Tesla would have built the plant in Texas as well as Faraday Future. The County is changing thousands and thousands of green energy jobs in Ohio, Iowa, Mississippi and New York many could have gone to Texas.

Many received tax breaks in these States where Texas at the time refused or seriously limited the offers not to upset the oil industry.

Biggest blunder could be the battery business could bring 10 to 20 billion direct business investment to Nevada in the next decade.

 

[Makani]

It always baffled me that you could see how much money big oil was throwing at the issue and still think it's a conspiracy by 99% of the world's scientists.

 

[KILL KILL]

One upside is the oil industry is starting to lose the war. Texas house and Senate just over ruled the Governor to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers. Texas is seeing thousands of jobs moving to Nevada for building battery plants.

If they had not been so stubborn Tesla would have built the plant in Texas as well as Faraday Future. The County is changing thousands and thousands of green energy jobs in Ohio, Iowa, Mississippi and New York many could have gone to Texas.

Many received tax breaks in these States where Texas at the time refused or seriously limited the offers not to upset the oil industry.

Biggest blunder could be the battery business could bring 10 to 20 billion direct business investment to Nevada in the next decade.

Hopefully they go the route of Total Oil. Total is the 4th largest oil company in the world, from France. They announced a few days ago that they were not only investing more resources into renewable energy, but planned to be 20% low carbon by 2035. With $130 in assets, 20% is HUGE.

Of course, it's unsure if they're doing it for moral reasons or they are simply anticipating the market. Either way, it works for everyone else.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/04985ba4-21c8-11e6-aa98-db1e01fabc0c.html#axzz4AsHfhBig

 

[7437]

It always baffled me that you could see how much money big oil was throwing at the issue and still think it's a conspiracy by 99% of the world's scientists.

Shut up you communist cuck sjw

 

[AgonyandIrony]

I've always wondered...At what point do we consider this treason?

 

[KILL KILL]

Shut up you communist cuck sjw

That guy is a trip. Here's a quote straight from his Wikipedia page...

It's plant food ... So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? ... So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying

 

[7437]

That guy is a trip. Here's a quote straight from his Wikipedia page...

wikipedia? just more cuck bullshit. in fact all technology is. if you believe in science, fuck you.

 

[gigantalor]

Takes tons of money for political favors, eh? Sounds familiar.

 

[Dayman1984]

What's funny is that people will still come into this thread and deny it's an issue.

 

[Jesus Freak]

In November, the New York Attorney General, launched an investigation into whether or not Exxon had deliberately misled the public about the realities of climate change (similarly to how cigarette companies lied in the 80's / early 90's).

In March, the Attorney Generals of 5 other states (plus the AG from the Virgin Islands) have joined the investigation as well.

Of course, the investigation is being stalled by the Republican members of the House Science Committee, 13 of which have been paid approximately $100,000 from ExxonMobil, and $2,680,383 in contributions from the oil and gas industry.


http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...-against-investigation-received-almost-100000

The corruption is insane.

Between 1998-2005 ExxonMobil reportedly spent $16 million formed over 40 front groups to try and "muddy the waters" by attempting to discredit climate change science.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...ion/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html#.V1Z3j5ErLIV

Much like big tobacco, oil companies have been spending big dollars to mislead investors and the public.


The report is pretty damning

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html

ExxonMobil has known about climate change since 1981.



Here are a few excerpts...

"Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia....

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue...

Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system."
https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

In 1988, Mobil's president, Richard Tucker gave a speech at at an American Institute of Chemical Engineers national conference, where he cited the "greenhouse effect" as serious environmental challenge.


https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754074119482;view=1up;seq=522


I could go on and on as this is only the tip of the iceberg. Within the next decade, I smell a huge lawsuit coming, similar to the 2006 ruling that will cost big tobacco $206 billion over 25 years.

Hopefully it comes sooner.

You should do something about this...I mean, besides yammering about it online.

 

[Deleted member 491001]

In November, the New York Attorney General, launched an investigation into whether or not Exxon had deliberately misled the public about the realities of climate change (similarly to how cigarette companies lied in the 80's / early 90's).

In March, the Attorney Generals of 5 other states (plus the AG from the Virgin Islands) have joined the investigation as well.

Of course, the investigation is being stalled by the Republican members of the House Science Committee, 13 of which have been paid approximately $100,000 from ExxonMobil, and $2,680,383 in contributions from the oil and gas industry.


http://www.ibtimes.com/political-ca...-against-investigation-received-almost-100000

The corruption is insane.

Between 1998-2005 ExxonMobil reportedly spent $16 million formed over 40 front groups to try and "muddy the waters" by attempting to discredit climate change science.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...ion/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html#.V1Z3j5ErLIV

Much like big tobacco, oil companies have been spending big dollars to mislead investors and the public.


The report is pretty damning

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/internal-documents-show-f_b_7749988.html

ExxonMobil has known about climate change since 1981.



Here are a few excerpts...

"Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia....

In the 1980s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation that would affect Natuna and other potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of industry in this awareness. Other companies, such as Mobil, only became aware of the issue in 1988, when it first became a political issue...

Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system."
https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

In 1988, Mobil's president, Richard Tucker gave a speech at at an American Institute of Chemical Engineers national conference, where he cited the "greenhouse effect" as serious environmental challenge.


https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754074119482;view=1up;seq=522


I could go on and on as this is only the tip of the iceberg. Within the next decade, I smell a huge lawsuit coming, similar to the 2006 ruling that will cost big tobacco $206 billion over 25 years.

Hopefully it comes sooner.

Great post, thanks for putting this all together in one place

 

[bad seed]

What's funny is that people will still come into this thread and deny it's an issue.

even the staunchest anti-environmentalists no longer deny the reality of climate change. But their new line of argument is claiming humans aren't causing it.

 

[bad seed]

You should do something about this...I mean, besides yammering about it online.

let's pray about it.

 

[Fawlty]

It's a scandal that dwarfs the cigarette scandal, but in the end I think we're going to make it out of this as renewables replace fossils. We're getting close to an economic tipping point right at the time we're at an environmental tipping point. It doesn't matter what the oil companies do- I think we're going to scrape by this one, barely. We're very fucking lucky that necessity is an attentive parent to invention.

 

[SleepyBoy]

deliberately misled the public about the realities of climate change

You mean like telling the public in the 70's that their would be an ice age in the very near future, there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, sea-levels would rise by x year to devastating effects (x year passed by a long time ago)...etc

Seems like both sides are being fairly disingenuous, but only one side almost sees it has a religion and feels like they have crucify all the heretics. They actually want to jail people that disagree with them, which is beyond scary and pathetic.


*I believe in global warming.

 

[klnOmega]

investigation into whether or not Exxon had deliberately misled the public about the realities of climate change

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ummer-ice-cap-as-early-as-2014/1#.V1bzH0YriLU

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...olar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#79680bac32da

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Thread reminded me of this clip. Still one of the most pathetic displays I've ever seen in congress.

 

[klnOmega]

You mean like telling the public in the 70's that their would be an ice age in the very near future, there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, sea-levels would rise by x year to devastating effects (x year passed by a long time ago)...etc

Seems like both sides are being fairly disingenuous, but only one side almost sees it has a religion and feels like they have crucify all the heretics. They actually want to jail people that disagree with them, which is beyond scary and pathetic.


*I believe in global warming.

Don't forget the hurricanes!!!

A: Like any debate, the argument on whether global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes has two distinct sides: those who believe it is happening, and those who don't. The scientists who support the link between global warming and hurricanes believe that a warming world has caused the oceans to heat up over the past several years, which is causing an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes. The other "side" believes that hurricane occurrence is guided by a natural, multi-decadal cycle of high and low tropical cyclone activity.

Kerry Emanuel, an ocean climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published an article in the journal Nature in July 2005 in which he stated that "storms are lasting longer at high intensity than they were 30 years ago." Hurricane reported durations have increased by about 60% since 1949, and average peak storm wind speeds have increased about 50% since the 1970s, he found. Emanuel has an FAQ on his website about global warming and hurricanes.

Meanwhile, in reality, 2005 was just an incredibly active year. In the 10 years since, we have seen the least amount of category 3 Hurricanes since they started tracking them almost 200 years ago...

 

[klnOmega]

She's just trying to follow in Hilary's footsteps.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...icrosoft-lobbyists-are-bundling-funds-hillary