Exxon called hateful for producing value

How do we know that Solyndra and First Solar and Fisker Automotive and thirty other failed Obama-subsidized green energy ventures are (or were) highly moral enterprises? Because they are all going bankrupt. They all produce less value for consumers than they cost in resources. That’s good because producing net value—making money—is the criterion of immorality.

Such, at least, is the message from ExxonHatesYourChildren.com, where an actor pretending to speak for Exxon smugly plays the Grinch:

Here at Exxon we hate your children. We all know the climate crisis will rip their world apart but we don’t care, because it’s making us rich.

Wait a minute. If they are getting rich, doesn’t that mean they have to be creating quite a bit of value? Doesn’t it mean that people need the gasoline that Exxon is producing and find it’s price inexpensive compared to the value they get out of it? Indeed, if gasoline producers stopped producing, wouldn’t everyone, including the children, die practically on the spot?

Condemning energy suppliers is just as perverse as condemning food suppliers. Unfortunately we have to take these people seriously because the country just re-elected a president who thinks much the same way, so witness the dripping hatred for mankind, made palatable (to some) by a sugar coating of anti-capitalism and class warfare. Here’s the video:

Here at Exxon we hate your children. We all know the climate crisis will rip their world apart but we don’t care, because it’s making us rich. That’s right, every year Congress gives the fossil fuel industry over ten billion dollars in subsidies. That’s your tax dollars lining our pockets, making a fortune destroying your kids’ future. At Exxon, that’s what we call ‘good business’.

The ExxonHatesYourChildren.com website was created by Andrew Boyd, an eco-leftist activist who was an originator of the class-war demagoguery of the Occupy movement. That’s why Boyd’s group is called “The Other 98%.” Boyd got in early, before his Occupy comrades decided that 98 to 2 was not enough advantage and changed their slogan to “the 99%.” These people have backing all the way to the top of the Democratic Party. New Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren claims to have laid the intellectual foundation for the Occupy movement and Obama himself endorses it (“we are on their side“).

Where are the REAL subsidies going?

Of course Boyd’s demagoguery goes beyond his explicit appeal to class warfare. His group is also fabulously dishonest. When they (and Obama) claim that oil companies are getting billions in subsidies what they mean is that Exxon gets to take advantage of the same tax breaks that other businesses do in order to keep a bit more of the money they earned. Keeping your own money is not a subsidy.

Want to see some real subsidies? Check out Obama’s bankrupt 33 (from The Heritage Foundation), with the amounts of direct taxpayer funding each received from the Obama Administration. The 19 asterisked companies have already filed for bankruptcy. The others are near bankruptcy:

1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*

2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*

3.Solyndra ($535 million)*

4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*

5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)

6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)

7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)

8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)

9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*

10.Amonix ($5.9 million)

11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)

12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*

13.A123 Systems ($279 million)*

14.Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*

15.Johnson Controls ($299 million)

16.Brightsource ($1.6 billion)

17.ECOtality ($126.2 million)

18.Raser Technologies ($33 million)*

19.Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*

20.Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*

21.Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*

22.Range Fuels ($80 million)*

23.Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*

24.Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*

25.Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*

26.GreenVolts ($500,000)

27.Vestas ($50 million)

28.LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)

29.Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*

30.Navistar ($39 million)

31.Satcon ($3 million)*

32.Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*

33.Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

As for “tax subsidies” (letting earners keep their money), the vast majority of those also go to “green” energy. From the Congressional Budget Office:

Since green energy is tiny compared to brown energy, the subsidy as a percentage of the industry is vastly larger for green energy than even this graph indicates. Heritage has run the numbers:

…wind energy companies, for instance, get about 1000 times the subsidies that oil companies do, per kilowatt-hour of energy produced.

Just for fun, somebody should ask some actual children what they would think of a character who tried to turn off the electricity and take away gasoline. It’s like the villain in a superhero movie. And that “climate crisis” that is supposedly going to “rip their world apart”? Notice that Boyd et al. lack the conviction to even call it “global warming.” Apparently they know full well that global temperature has not risen significantly in over a decade but are unwilling to relinquish the demagogic power that comes from blaming natural phenomena on their capitalist enemy.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

121 Responses to Exxon called hateful for producing value

  1. Jeff Alberts says:

    “We all know the climate ideology crisis will rip their world apart”

    There, fixed it for them.

  2. A.D. Everard says:

    They really do hit low. They really must be desperate. People everywhere must be sick of the emotional blackmail. I am. I hope there are a lot of complaints to that campaign.

  3. Gary Pearse says:

    The child with the plastic oxygen mask is being saved by a petroleum industry product. Imagine the oxygen mask made of ox leather – hmm too much GHG from oxen, or wood, hmm killing trees causes more CO2 in the atmosphere,…okay stone, a little neo-neolithic industry anyone?

  4. albertalad says:

    Tell that to the folks in New York and New Jersey without gas, light, homes, food, and all the other amenities those fools take for granted everyday. I didn’t see any of those morons rushing in to build windmills, or solar panels promising those people all the heat, light, and power they would ever need. I’m so sick and tired of those idiotic degenerates preaching pure crap they make me puke. Not one of those deadbeats ever got me a job, put food on my table, put a roof over my head, fed my family, bought me transportation, or any of the other things in life MY job in the oil sands does for me right now! To me the eco freaks are pond scum. To believe any of them are nature’s benefactors is a joke! WE planted 30 million trees! They never planted a single tree for us! WE, oil companies up my way, do more for nature then they ever did and they ever will do. To me it’s about time the rest of society smartened up and learned basic math. That is why CO2 is referred to as parts per million. What morons can’t understand that?

  5. Tsk Tsk says:

    Their children will be breathing just fine in the future. They’ll be getting lots of fresh air. Unfortunately they won’t have a choice because they’ll be so broke they’ll be living in tents.

  6. TImothy Sorenson says:

    I suspect a major lawsuit and these bozo’s will pay. At least I hope so. Slander and defamation at a minimum, me thinks.

  7. Max Hugoson says:

    Alas – Having been in the “corporate enviroment” for most of my life, let me tell you the problem is NOT that companies as Westinghouse, Exxon, B.P., Commonwealth Edison, etc. are IMMORAL and plotting to “kill” people with emissions, the problem is their MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVES are COWARDS.

    They can, and do (on occassion, actually fairly RARELY..mostly it’s uncontrolled managers who are given TOO MUCH POWER and TOO LITTLE OVERSIGHT) abuse their employees. That is relatively easy to do when you have POWER over their INCOME.

    BUT, put up ANY of the “Top Level” management of ANY large corporation against the “Enviromental Lobby”, or the “Protect this or that..” Or ACORN, etc, etc… whether it be emissions or the great BUG-GA-BOO “Diversity”…and what you get is meek little sheep who run around bleating, “Baaaaadddd! We are Baaaaaaadddd… We are sorry…WHATEVER YOU WANT US TO DO!”.

    Now, let me tell you about the Koch Brothers! Their FATHER developed a coal/peat to oil process during the 50′s, which DID NOT TAKE COMMERCIALLY in the USA. BUT outside of the USA it found a GOOD market. He came back to the USA “wealthy” during the ’70′s, started buying poorly run refinerys. HE “fixed” them, made they run right (which in general, ALWAYS LOWERED EMISSIONS on an ECONOMIC basis. He had two sons, the “evil” Koch brothers. BOTH OF THEM GOT CHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEGREES. (Do you have any idea how RUGGED that ciriculum is compared to all other Engineering degrees?) They took over the family business.

    BOTH OF THEM ARE PERSONALITY LIONS! They don’t back down. THEY DO go on the talk shows and they DO run counter ADS, and they DO fight back!

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW WHY THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE REALLY HATED?

    Exxon, and the others…take it in the shorts, because they are Public Relations Pacifists! But the Koch brothers can take it and dish it out. Yet, it is fascinating to note that the PIDDLING $70K they
    gave to Heartland Inst. was for some “social issue” and not anything to do with AWG.

    But look how the “lie machine” works on that. The lesson from this is: YES, we NEED the Exxons of this world, the BP’s, the Comm Ed’s, etc. BUT don’t every expect them to defend themselves!

    And the PERIL is thus THIS – When the RADICALS, the “destoyers” get power…they will FIRST OFF destroy those they have villified. No matter HOW obsequious they have been.

    ONLY IF THEY THEMSELVES ARE COMPLETELY IN CONTROL (this is the statist versus freedom of association and private property arguement) will they abate their distructive tendancy!

    So that is meant to give an overview of this MINOR attack on a major giant, but to help to understand why there WILL BE THUNDEROUS SILENCE from Exxon as a response.

    Some day, RIP Exxon as you are dissected and buried.

  8. Owen in Ga says:

    @TImothy Sorenson: There will be no defamation suit in this case for fear of invoking the Streisand principle. Maybe 200 people knew about this video before WUWT put this article up. If they file suit the hit counter will go through the roof and the message will be spread much farther than the (self-snip) group could have ever dreamt. They will likely leave this one alone and hope for it to die in obscurity.

  9. Bill Illis says:

    These people need to adopt the lifestyle of the Amish, for example, before we take them seriously.

    Cut them off from gasoline, natural gas heating and airplane fuel. They blame Exxon for their use of gasoline, natural gas and airplane fuel? It is more than ridiculous. They are the reason Exxon exists in the first place.

    Profit is not a dirty word. In fact, it is a measure of an organization’s contribution to our standard of living. They take inputs worth $100 and make a product worth $120. That is what value-added is all about. That is what differentiates us from our hunter gatherer past, our pick fruits from a tree even farther back past. Profit is actually a measure of how much an organization is adding to society.

    We should outlaw profit? That would really help things wouldn’t it. Live in trees and pick fruit is really what they are promoting.

  10. taxed says:

    l don’t think they will be many haters of oil and gas when very low temps hit large area’s across the NH this winter.

  11. Bob Shapiro says:

    I just sent an email, with this post’s link, to Exxon, suggesting that they protect their good name from this libelous attack.

  12. John F. Hultquist says:

    Solyndra is listed as $535 M and having filed for bankruptcy. I haven’t tried to keep up with such things but because “Reorganizing the parent would allow it to exit bankruptcy with as much as $975 million in net operating loss carryforwards intact. The carryforwards may generate more than $300 million in tax breaks, . . .
    This was such a mess that even the IRS objected to it.
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-10/solyndra-bankruptcy-plan-has-objections-from-irs-energy

    Further there are connections between backers of Solyndra, and who makes off with the tax loses, and the current US Administration.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Solar-Investigation-solyndra-obama/2011/11/09/id/417493

    As with most things like this we might learn the truth in about 10 years, or never.

  13. A-Funny-Thing-Happened-On-The-Way-Away-From-Doha says:

    Though many media outlets are desperately trying to spin anything out of Doha COP18, the hangover and vomiting are just now hitting the esteemed delegates, i.e. parties, of COP18 ZombiLand.

    And as we see on display the Enemy-Mine had contingency plans to go … and go they are.

    XD

  14. beesaman says:

    The idiot might want to think on the fact that the feedstocks for most of the medicines, clothing, fertilisers etc comes from the oil industry or the petro-chemical industry as it should be properly known. Of course most of these eco nuts are middle class leeches who have never had any real responsibility or who have been well off enough because of mommy and daddy’s hard work (sounds like Obama a bit)…

  15. Juan Slayton says:

    Fortunately Mr. Boyd never taught real children in California, or he would be biting the hand that feeds him. CALSTRS, the California teacher’s retirement fund, holds $1,242,687,000 worth of Exxon-Mobile stock. (As of 30 June 2012. See
    http://www.calstrs.com/Investments/portfolio/usStock.asp#E )

    And what happens if Exxon-Mobile and the other large corporations don’t make enough profit to hold their value and pay dividends? Well, in California, the taxpayers get to make up the difference between CALSTRS obligations and investment income. Perhaps Mr. Boyd and his kind would be willing to show their concern for children by making a donation….?

  16. Bullshit!

    I know Exxon. I was living in Valdez when the Exxon Valdez piled on the rocks of Bligh Reef. I know how Exxon thinks and how it acts.

    At their first press conference an Exxon spokesman said, “You don’t know how lucky you are. You have Exxon and Exxon does things straight.”

    That was the first of their lies.

  17. This kind of junk should not come as a surprise to anyone. The right wing as been as strident as the left when it comes to class war and this subsidy foolishness it just that think Wall Street, Banks and so on. They spend far more money doing it too. The mythology of free enterprise is just a bankrupt as socilism. What is needed is not more divisiveness but some sanity to find a sound middle of the pack solution to what ever politial problem we encounter.

  18. Ed Brown says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    December 9, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Appreciate your comment, Max. Unfortunately your name link doesn’t work for me.

  19. Sean says:

    A more appropriate web site would be “Exxonlovegreendupesdotcom”. Think about it. Environmentalism limits supply and resource development, chases out small, low cost producers with mountains of regulation, and expands the market for things like natural gas (which Exxon has substantial reserves) by shutting down coal. Bigger markets and fewer competitors, what company would not like that pricing advantage. I wonder how many greens know just how important they are to Exxon’s high profitability.

  20. D Böehm says:

    Michael A. Lewis,

    Your emotional response is fact-free. The Exxon Valdez spill was every bit as political as global warming is now. But eventually the Supreme Court had the $5 billion damages award reduced to about $500 million, a 90% reduction.

    Note that the recent Deepwater Horizon blowout spilled much more oil over a much longer time frame and a larger area. But today there is little evidence of any damage from that blowout.

    This article reports on a scurrilous advertising campaign by anti-fossil fuel groups. As usual, they use fossil fuel products while hating on the providers. If they had any integrity they would stop using fossil fuel products.

    Accidents happen; they can never be completely avoided. But American companies have done an outstanding job of providing safety. There are literally thousands of undersea oil pipelines and oil tankers in the Gulf of Mexico alone. Occasionally there is bound to be an accident. The only alternative is to give up fossil fuel use. Are you willing to do that?

  21. John F. Hultquist says:

    Max Hugoson @ 5:54 says . . . some “social issue”

    Healthcare would seem to fall into this category.

    . . . the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, . . .
    http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.org/2012/02/foundation-statement-on-heartland-institute/

    However, including ‘Westinghouse’ in your opening list of corporates is a can of worms. The components, name, and brand live on:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_(1886)#1980s
    and, see also the following 1990s to 2000s.
    Asea Brown Boveri,
    Eaton Corp.
    CBS
    Infinity Broadcasting
    Northrop Grumman
    Toshiba
    Viacom

    [Siemens (German international company) bought Westinghouse Electric generators and turbine divisions.) Westinghouse (the Nuclear Div) is still a separate company because of USN nuclear security concerns. Mod]

  22. 4thTech aka Dave Dodd says:

    Well, knowing these idiots are on the loose and now in charge, everytime I have occasion to leave the plantation, I make it a point, before returning, to stop past the sporting goods section and add a few “necessary items” to my shopping cart! Lead is heavy if carried in large quantities, but a little prepping never hurts…

    The guy in the pictures looks like he could play the Devil in a Stephen King flick!

  23. _Jim says:

    Michael A. Lewis says December 9, 2012 at 6:22 pm:

    B*llsh*t!

    I know Exxon. I was living in Valdez when the Exxon Valdez piled on the rocks of Bligh Reef. I know how Exxon thinks and how it acts.

    At their first press conference an Exxon spokesman said, “You don’t know how lucky you are. You have Exxon and Exxon does things straight.”

    That was the first of their lies.

    Where in Valdez? What years were you there (for starters)?

    Also, how can you “… know how Exxon thinks” by simple observation of action?

    Aren’t any observations you might make colored by any biases or preconceived notions you may posses, such as those possibly developed through a history of anti-progress ‘environmental activism’?

    .

  24. RACookPE1978 says:

    As they found in the early rocket-propelled aircraft trying to break the sonic barrier, a child trying to breathe through an oil-soaked “oxygen-impregnated” leather mask will be burned alive in her bedsheets ….

    Yeppers.

    Good thing Exxon-Mobil IS making the sterile plastics that allow this child – and millions like her – to live a healthy life.

    ‘Course, now, the eco-friendly Obama regime will be doing all it can to destroy the medical care that is saving lives.

  25. A-Funny-Thing-Happened-On-The-Way-Away-From-Doha says:

    Just found this on Reuters:
    “But unless rich and poor countries can inject urgency into their negotiations, they are heading for a diplomatic fiasco in 2015 – their next deadline for a new global deal.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/09/us-climate-talks-process-idUSBRE8B808N20121209

    ‘Urgency’ I know the word.

    But “Urgency” as above, I do not know.

    Me thinks that a clever word-craftman is needed.

    Yes it is true, 16 years and no trend in ‘global’ temperature change. Lots of problems, siting, instruments, time-of-day, blah blah blah.

    1997, the UN Kyoto Protocol.

    1998, still the ‘stand out’ year! Question: Anomaly or Artifact?

    One of our dearest munchkins must have seen what Ante Maude has seen. Kissy Kissy.

    Time for our Dearest Munchkin to STAND UP, MAN UP and Connect the Dots.

    Pssssssssss …..

    Empirical evidence abounds … quite astonishing to me … Ante Maude … Kyoto worked! .. Game Over. We Won! ‘Snicker Snicker’ ‘Kissy Kissy’ Oh, do not bother about the ‘Bothers’. Just flotsam and jetsam.

    XD ;D

  26. Doug Allen says:

    Alex Rawls,
    Your “dripping hatred” for the Obama administration, and by extension those of us who voted for Obama, is- to use your words- perverse. Your lack of perspective, blame, guilt by association, stereotyping, ad hominem attacks are the mark of a poor looser. Get a grip and join adult discussion. The Exxon bashing speaks for itself as being trashy and deserves our contempt. You don’t yourself need to be trashy and spew disinformation in order to criticize policy, mis- (or dis) information and things which are in poor taste.

  27. Jeff Alberts says:

    And Alarmists complain that the Unabomber billboard was bad??

  28. geran says:

    To Max Hugoson—–

    GREAT comment. I know very little about the Koch brothers, but the more I learn, the more I like.

  29. 1IDVET says:

    Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
    Good read.

  30. Ric Werme says:

    One of my Facebook friends posted the link to the video a week or two ago. So I posted a link to the 10:10 “No Pressure” video as a counter to this. :-)

  31. ba says:

    Simple truth is that many children would not exist without fossil fuel based fertilizers over this past century. Hydroelectric based ammonia and Chilean nitrates would have been insufficient. Agree about the Koch brothers. The media noise and political events we see today sort of read like Atlas Shrugged opening more poorly. Which was inspired by Rand’s experience in revolutionary Russia devolving toward the Bolsheviks.

  32. Gnomish says:

    you ain’t seen nothing yet.
    keep paying your taxes; they’ll eventually nationalize your groceries.
    you get what you settle for.

    .

  33. _Jim says:

    Doug Allen says December 9, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Outside of socialist goals (wealth redistribution and so forth) what do you see as positives in this present administration?

    .

  34. metamars says:

    Excuse me, but while cowardice may be a plausible-sounding explanation for why Exxon-Mobil doesn’t mount a real climate-science education effort in their own defense, I don’t buy this explanation, at all. As for the Koch brothers being more inclined to defend themselves than Exxon-Mobil, I’m not seeing that, either. So they gave what for them is a small tip to Heartland – so what? They also helped fund the 2nd phase of the Tea Parties (frankly, corrupting the initial movement, to a great degree), and could easily use their influence to get Tea Parties to adopt educating about carbon realism, and the dangers of a carbon tax, as a major tactic.
    Yours truly has proposed doing a national leafleting campaign, to educate the public about climate science. See here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/climate-ugliness-goes-nuclear/

    I advised not waiting for Exxon-Mobil to help, because I don’t think Exxon-Mobil cares. If anything, they will make more money from carbon trading schemes, if they are being dealt in,, and via keeping their oil in the ground, longer, as prices rises are all but assured, given that we have passed peak oil. Climategate II showed the interest of Goldman Sachs in carbon markets, and it strikes me as entirely plausible that the global warming scam can be traced, as Jesse Ventura claims, to Maurice Strong, the Rothschilds, and the Rockefellers.

    Meanwhile, I blame both CO2 climate catastrophists as well as skeptics, who call themselves environmentally friendly, for not pushing alternative energy R&D into carbon free, dense energy sources, especially fusion. They could do this via pushing for crowd-funding, if they happen to be ideologically opposed to governments investing $$. Eric Lerner has beaten the big hot fusion projects, but has to waste time and energy soliciting funding. See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/08/1071933/-In-the-race-for-fusion-a-dark-horse-takes-the-lead

    The US government (NASA) is acknowledging funding LENR (so-called ‘cold fusion’) research, but we know that it (US Navy, IIRC) was investigating LENR’s secretly, after supposedly being found to be a myth. See http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream

    CERN is also looking into LENRs.

  35. G P Hanner says:

    They are betting that 50 years of dumbing down education will result in a large number, especially among the younger generations, to believe that nonsense. If we don’t take back the education system from the “experts” they will win that bet.

  36. Rascal says:

    Very simple answer.
    Several NYC hospitals lost emergency power during post-tropical storm Sandy.
    That power was necessarily supplied by fossil fueled generators, as it was too windy for wind turbines(?) and too dark for solar power.
    The fossil fuel might not have been supplied by Exxon-Mobile, but fossil fuel is fossil fuel, regardless of supplier.
    I would imagine that the pediatric (you know KIDS) facilities depending on the emergency power quite appreciated it.

  37. ba says:

    As for BP vs Exxon spills, Exxon would be like a priggish Boy Scout, insolently smug, not quite as sharp as the self image but at least somewhat contrite when confronted by a mistake with big consequences. BP is more like an alcoholic mafioso that keeps running people down without jail time, with lots of bodies. BP’s damage to the Gulf of Mexico is diluted, spread far and deep, simply hard to measure.

    Lest someone think this view unacceptably harsh, I would suggest they review the multiple industrial catastrophes, and deaths, of BP more closely.

  38. Tyler says:

    Yeah, I agree. Sometimes people forget the hundreds of other applications of petroleum. Right now we need oil, and not only is it an addiction, it’s necessary in some cases. Our life expectancy values would be nowhere near as high without it.

  39. RoHa says:

    “If they are getting rich, doesn’t that mean they have to be creating quite a bit of value?”

    No. The banksters and financiers get rich by ripping off the rest of us, not by creating value. Exxon may well be creating value, but you can’t deduce that from the fact that they are getting rich.

  40. GeoLurking says:

    Well… lets be a bit more upfront eh?

    Exxon and a few other oil companies do get breaks from the federal government that non-oil producers do not get.

    They get a cut in the royalties that they have to pay for production in certain oil leases. Bad? Well, the Minerals Management Service, now known under the more socialist and green sounding “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,” can not get anyone to bid on the really deep leases if the cost of putting the field into production is too high.

    They do it because no one will touch it other wise.

    See… the daily lease rate for Semisubersible drill platforms rated for 4000′+ Water Depth only runs about $414,000. That’s the average daily rate as of 8 Dec 2012.

    How about a drill ship rated for the same water depth instead of a platform? Only $463,000… per day, average lease rate.

    Source: http://www.rigzone.com/data/dayrates/

  41. Tom J says:

    Didn’t a really, really great man, the 4th best President of the United States, belch out these famous words, “You didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen.” So wouldn’t it follow that Exxon couldn’t possibly be responsible for what Andrew Boyd and his thoroughly valuable group, ‘the other 98%’, claim? Couldn’t someone else have made those ghastly things happen? Who knows, maybe there was a great Andy Boyd sometime in Exxon’s past. And maybe he made it all happen. Maybe everybody made it happen. Maybe nobody made it happen. Maybe it never happened. It’s so cool. Anything can be anything anybody wants it to be.

    Whoops. There are exceptions. And they appear to be the green energy firms. Here the POTUS is unarguably right. The owners didn’t build those things. Of course nobody did either. I wonder why. Maybe Boyd knows. Maybe the POTUS knows. He’s a smart man. Very smart.
    sarc

  42. Sera says:

    I thought that oxygen masks were made of vinyl or pvc- it looks to me as though Exxon is trying to save that child in the video.

  43. Bill says:

    Real science with peer reviewed papers concerning Exxon Valdez can be found here: http://www.valdezsciences.com/index.cfm – very interesting.
    I was in Seward a couple of years after the spill and many of the locals admitted (off camera) that the $1 billion that Exxon had spent in Seward after the spill was the best thing that had ever happened to them. The fisherman had never had it so good as being paid not to fish for 3 years and then having the benefit of replensihed stocks when they did get back on the water. Many felt that the next best thing that could happen would be another spill.

  44. metamars says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Meanwhile, I blame both CO2 climate catastrophists as well as skeptics, who call themselves environmentally friendly, for not pushing alternative energy R&D into carbon free, dense energy sources, especially fusion.

    I agree, and I hope that Anthony allows more threads on the LENR topic here on WUWT. It makes our side look good to have something positive to offer. And it will make the capital-S “Skeptics,” who support the current climate consensus, look bad in the aftermath, for being wrong on both fronts. (They pooh-pooh cold fusion.)

  45. lsmith2710 says:

    Reblogged this on My Blog steady as we go and commented:
    thanks for the truth being brought out in this blog……..

  46. Day By Day says:

    @ Gary Pearse who says: The child with the plastic oxygen mask is being saved by a petroleum industry product. Imagine the oxygen mask made of ox leathe..

    Thank you for that analogy–put right in persepctive.

  47. Notice the sudden drop in Tax Preferences in 1988 under the pretend ‘oil man’ and New World Order frontman, Bush the Elder ? It is no surprise that the banking elite are determined to bankrupt all humanity and return the world to their neofeudalism. As VP from 1980 to 1988 the Big Bush directed the Iran-Contra operation and the S &L heist, which was documented in “The Mafia, CIA and George Bush” by investigative reporter Pete Brewton. As the Fall of the Berlin Wall swept the world, president Big Bush cast a billion Chinese into serfdom with his Nevil Chamberlin moment during Tiananmen Square. The two party puppet show is a distraction from the real fraud, the monetary system. For more on this read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G Edward Griffin on the history of the corrupt Federal Reserve System. A brief introduction is in the article “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality”. When your monetary system is a lie, then science and history must be preverted to support this fundamental fraud.

  48. Peter says:

    Imagine living in a place where 99% of people have no hydrocarbons. Life expectancy was 45 yrs. Death from violence common. Everyone wanted the money to buy transport (before housing and food) and worked hard to access vehicles. I lived there as a child, it left a strong impression on me. I lived in a second country where they succeeded in breaking those chains. Both countries pay only superficial lip service to Greens. No petroleum means no medicine, no transport, grass/timber houses, and periods of no food. All Greens should be forced to live like that, for a few years.

  49. george e. smith says:

    Well gasoline is still about the cheapest liquid you can buy. Cheaper than milk, and cheaper than water. Well you can buy some really cheap grades of water, but it can have all sorts of chemical poisons in it, Ozone killing chlorine, an even fluorine. The better grades of water from the organic (carbon distribution) stores can cost as much as $30 per gallon.

    I wonder if Michael Lewis was living in Old Valdez, or perhaps in New Valdez. I’ve been to both; and even then, one was better than the other to live in.

  50. Chuck Nolan says:

    RoHa says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:39 pm
    “If they are getting rich, doesn’t that mean they have to be creating quite a bit of value?”

    No. The banksters and financiers get rich by ripping off the rest of us, not by creating value. Exxon may well be creating value, but you can’t deduce that from the fact that they are getting rich.
    ————————————-
    So untrue.
    The financial industry is creating lots of value, just not for you, me and the little people.
    You can bet Barney, Chris and friends are getting great value for their investments.
    cn

  51. Khwarizmi says:

    Metamars –
    skeptics, who call themselves environmentally friendly, for not pushing alternative energy R&D into carbon free, dense energy
    “Carbon” is not environmentally unfriendly. The carbon-based living systems in “the environment” need carbon in the form of either CO2 or … hydrocarbons:
    http://living-petrol.blogspot.com/ncr
    The so called “green” alternatives, on the other hand, do nothing to enrich the biosphere, and are therefore not good for “the environment.”

    Energy corporations, like Enron, are glorious free-market entities, and they would never conspire or collude to manufacture an artificial scarcity.

    A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce it’s refinery capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in profit.
    - Chevron internal memo, 1995

    As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry). Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing demand for gasoline.
    - Texaco internal memo, March 7, 1996

    API spokesman Jim Craig said Thursday, “We don’t know about these alleged [!] internal company memos [!!], but the idea that the API would warn member companies on profits is ludicrous.” [!!!]
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-296584.html

  52. I’m a bit surprised this came out in the wake of the assassination of a top Exxon-Mobil official in Europe a few weeks ago, presumably by someone who shares the sentiments of this video-maker. Or did it come out before?

  53. Jimbo says:

    Without fossil fuels hundreds of millions more children would die each year. What keeps the incubators going? Ambulances running? What energy is used to delivers food and clothing to stores etc, etc, etc.?

    We are dealing with a bunch of shameless, hypocritical fraudsters of the highest order.

    November 21, 2002
    Exxon gave a climate research grant to Stanford University to the tune of $100 million
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html

    “Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee”
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/02/17/big-oil-money-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

    CRU took Shell and BP money too.

  54. Ian Walker says:

    Exxon like many other fossil fuel companies are divesting from oil fields. Google ‘ Exxon divest oil field or Exxon sell oil field, do the same with other oil companies, they are even willing, to sell of assets they just bought, and take hundreds of millions of dollar losses in their desperation to dump fossil fuel “assets”. Look up what petrobas are doing with the refinery they just bought in Texas. See how big a loss Connoco took on the sale of one of their fields. BP have sold major fields from the US to Russia from the arctic to the UK Shell have dumped anything they can in Africa and East Asia. I could go on. A black swan has flown in to the fossil fuel markets and its name is LENR.

  55. Gene Selkov says:

    george e. smith says:

    > Well gasoline is still about the cheapest liquid you can buy. Cheaper than milk, and cheaper than water… The better grades of water from the organic (carbon distribution) stores can cost as much as $30 per gallon.

    What can be a better grade of water than steam-distilled? It costs around $1 per gallon at most places and 80c at WalMart. You are not talking about analytical-grade pure water sold by Sigma Aldrich, are you? But that’s not “water”, for the purposes of comparison.

  56. LazyTeenager says:

    Unfortunately we have to take these people seriously because the country just re-elected a president who thinks much the same way
    ———
    I dont like the advert.

    But blaming it in Obama is
    A) irrelevant
    B) likely wrong

    Seems like some one is trying too hard with the kitchen sink.

    Should be possible to find a graph of domestic USA oil production during recent years. If that production had increased during Obama’s presidency then your claim is toast.

  57. georgi says:

    what is this $10billion subsidy they mention? Can’t find it on their website

  58. metamars says:

    @Khwarizmi :

    “Carbon” is not environmentally unfriendly.”

    It’s not the carbon, per se, that concerns me, but rather toxic metals such as mercury. See, e.g.: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-21-092.asp.

    Also, drilling for oil at the bottom of the ocean, at absurd pressures, is asking for trouble. BP’s despicable performance (countenanced by the corrupt Obama administration) didn’t help, either, unless you consider humans and dolphins suffering internal hemorrhaging a good thing. (http://www.garynull.com/home/dahr-jamail-bp-dispersants-causing-sickness.html). And if we already had fusion energy, what would be the point of shipping tar sands goo across the country? What of water requirements, and toxic wastelands, left behind? (http://www.desmogblog.com/top-10-facts-canada-alberta-oil-sands-information).

    More CO2 from fossil fuel burning would be a good thing. However, even if it turns out that there are other desirable organic by-products of fossil fuel burning, the general case, so far as I know, is one of toxicity.

    Fusion power plants would have a certain measure of radioactivity that would have to be dealt with, but nothing like fission plants.

  59. metamars says:

    @Ian Walker: “A black swan has flown in to the fossil fuel markets and its name is LENR.”

    Do you have solid info on a connection between abandoning oil fields and commercialization of LENRs? Or are you basically making a reasonable assumption?

  60. mfo says:

    The child in the video is wearing a nebulizer. It enables the child to inhale medication into its lungs. A child using a nebulizer is likely to be suffering from a respiratory disease such as asthma, tuberculosis, pneumonia or cystic fibrosis. There is no evidence that children living in warm climates suffer more respiratory problems.

    Obviously the greatest danger to children’s health is poverty. In poor communities children are frequently underweight or starving, the water is often unsafe, sanitation and hygiene are poor or non-existant. Smoke from solid fuels being used indoors to cook and light the home is a major cause of respiratory illness in children living in poverty.

    To improve the lives of such children, particularly in the third world, the standard of living needs to be raised and to do this they need access to cheap energy from oil, gas and coal. Exactly the opposite of what the video claims.

    In fact the world’s population has increased from about 1.6 billion in 1900 to nearly 7 billion today primarily due to the benefits the human race has gained from carbon-based fuels and the way they enable us to live and make progress.

    But as readers of WUWT know there is a clear and extremely nasty pattern emerging of CAGW activists and propagandists using children for political ends. In videos children are made to do dangerous experiments or are blown to pieces for not believing in CAGW. This latest video is simply another example of what amounts to political child abuse.

    The American Lung Association (ALA) has used children to promote the Clean Air Act which is beneficial when applied to soot or lead but idiotic when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant which must be regulated. The EPA has granted the ALA over $20 million in the last ten years which is probably why we see adverts like this:
    http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/upton-billboard.jpg
    http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/Reports/Non-Profit+Grants?OpenView

  61. Ric Werme says:

    metamars says:
    December 10, 2012 at 4:02 am

    @Khwarizmi :

    “Carbon” is not environmentally unfriendly.”

    It’s not the carbon, per se, that concerns me, but rather toxic metals such as mercury. See, e.g.: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-21-092.asp.

    In that case, we should get the carbon out of mercury so we can demonize the latter properly.

    Umm, hang on – I think I need more coffee. Unfortunately, all I have is inorganic water.

  62. arthur4563 says:

    I notice the smokestack in the background (which seems to have acquired lots of smoke thanks to
    video editing). Never heard of using gasoline for a smokestack operation. My thanks to the video for pointing out Exxon’s sins – will buy from BP and Shell from now on.

  63. mkelly says:

    I feel terrible. I made some good money buying and selling Exxon (and others like them) stock over the years. Had I known they hated my children I would never have done that.

    OH wait the profits I made on the stock plus the dividends paid to me helped pay for some of the things my children needed as they grew. So never mind. I feel fine after all. Loved the two for one splits.

  64. arthur4563 says:

    Went to the website – they are apparently supported by something called Environmental Action,
    which basically wants donations, not discussion. They claim we know global warming is true because some economists said so. Right. I always send my climatology questions to an
    economist. Well, since economists are so crappy at predicting future economies, they must be good when it comes to future climates. The logic seems solid to me, being a blithering idiot.

  65. How much tax do Exxon and the rest pay to the US Govt?

    Over here, the UK govt collect Corporation Tax, Fuel Duty, VAT and North Sea Oil taxes, which amount to tens of billions every year. Take that away, and we really would be broke.

  66. more soylent green! says:

    I wonder how many would starve world-wide, without the fossil fuels used to grow and distribute food?

    Two centuries ago, it took 19 people working in agriculture to feed 20. Without modern farming methods and fossil fuel powered equipment such as tractors and combines, the developed world could not feed itself. There would certainly be nothing left over to export to the world’s hungry.

  67. MarkW says:

    For every seller, there must be a buyer.
    Exxon couldn’t make a penny if people don’t buy what they are selling.
    Liberals don’t hate companies, they hate humanity itself.

  68. Rob Crawford says:

    Wow, this post seems to have attracted a lots of folks who sport tin foil habidashery.

    Who funds sites like the one highlighted?

  69. Pamela Gray says:

    Reminds me of campus doomsayers with tall placards spouting scripture. The difference is that this form now appears to be the state religion. Which is exactly why our wiser founding fathers championed the cause of separation of church and state. We should demand the scrubbing of this religion from state rotundas as stridently as we did Bethlehem’s Christmas story.

  70. Pamela Gray says:

    LazyTeenager, you are so naive. All presidents are well known for being womanizers. They strive and scheme to make whoopy across the political spectrum. Obama is no different. Have you considered this, how will Obama get his ship to come in on carbon taxes if he completely restricts oil production? He gets in bed with whomever and whatever it takes to further his agenda. Just like all the others have done before him.

  71. NoAstronomer says:

    “Indeed, if gasoline producers stopped producing, wouldn’t everyone, including the children, die practically on the spot?”

    If people take just lesson away from the events around Hurricane Sandy it should be this.

    Mike

  72. John West says:

    There’s a blog with comments here:
    http://priceofoil.org/2012/12/06/exxon-hates-your-children-satire-with-a-serious-message/

    I haven’t attempted a comment yet to test moderation level. I’m counting to a million and reminding myself that it’s likely they’ve been duped and don’t really know how ignorant they are before commenting.

  73. DirkH says:

    Owen in Ga says:
    December 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    “@TImothy Sorenson: There will be no defamation suit in this case for fear of invoking the Streisand principle. Maybe 200 people knew about this video before WUWT put this article up. ”

    That assumes that nobody reads Twitchy. Also, you can count on the leftist blog faction, DailyKos etc to promote it. Astonishingly they have quite a bit of traffic.

  74. _Jim says:

    Dennis Nikols says December 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    … The right wing as been as strident as the left when it comes to class war

    I would care to ask for one example, as it is too easy today to make assertions which do not have any backing or substantiation; also please do not lump the Tea party or conservatives in with a perceived ‘right wing’.

    .

  75. Bruce Cobb says:

    Pure psychological projection on their part. They are in fact the ones who hate, and not just Exxon, but humanity itself.

  76. MarkW says:

    Dennis Nikols says:
    December 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm


    The claim that the right has been involved in class warfare is only true if you are one of those people who believe that objecting to having one person’s money stolen in order to give it to others is class warfare, and believing that you have a right to have other people’s money spent on you isn’t.
    As to Free Market not working, when has it ever been tried. What we have today is that middle ground that you claim you want and it is failing.

  77. Chris B says:

    I found this satire on Youtube. Apologies to George.

  78. MarkW says:

    Doug Allen says:
    December 9, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Those who believe that they are entitled to take other people’s money so that it can be spent on themselves have earned every drop of contempt that they receive.

  79. MarkW says:

    RoHa says:
    December 9, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    Bankers and financiers do not get rich by ripping people off. They get rich by providing services that people are willing to pay a lot of money to receive. Just because you don’t understand economics, don’t assume that nobody else does either.

  80. MarkW says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:54 am

    You definitely live up to your tag, don’t you.
    The increase in production under Obama occurred due to leases that were let during the Bush administration and for the most part on lands outside the control of the federal govt.
    Obama tried the same lie during the campaign, and only his syncophants bought it.

  81. MarkW says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:54 am

    Obama tried to sell that lie during the campaign. I’m not surprised that you bought it.
    The increases occurred from two factors, leases let during the Bush administration, and on state and private lands that he doesn’t control.
    Every action he took during the last 4 years was aimed at reducing current and future production.

  82. MarkW says:

    georgi says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:55 am

    The subsidy comes from the fact that Exxon’s tax rate is not 100%

  83. Bruce Cobb says:

    I would add that it is only a small step to go from the statement that “Exxon hates your children” to “Climate D** niers hate your children”.

  84. Jimbo says:

    Is this libel or slander? Either way Exxon needs to get some cojones and tackle this idiot.

  85. DesertYote says:

    I’m an environmentalist and I hate your children, I hate you, and I hate your success. We know that Marxism is destroying civilization, but we don’t care because it makes us powerful…

  86. _Jim says:

    Faux Science Slayer says December 9, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    The two party puppet show is a distraction from the real fraud, the monetary system. For more on this read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G Edward Griffin on the history of the corrupt Federal Reserve System. …

    Yes, highly recommended for those unable to absorb more reputable sources on the ‘banking system’ or if one likes reading ‘high drama’ and made-up stories … IMNSHO of course.

    Griffin, film maker, JBS member, child actor, former voice on WJR Detroit MI once upon a time took some courses to become a certified financial planner, and somehow came away with the idea that he had become an ‘expert’ on the subject of the origins of our ‘monetary system’ and furthermore found the ‘root cause’ of all our financial woes (Creature from Jekyll Is.)

    More debunking G. Edward Griffin’s works and links to debunking website can be found here.

    BTW, FSS, nice self-ident as a “Keeper Of Odd Knowledge” (K. O. O. K.)

    .

  87. more soylent green! says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    December 10, 2012 at 3:54 am
    Unfortunately we have to take these people seriously because the country just re-elected a president who thinks much the same way
    ———
    I dont like the advert.

    But blaming it in Obama is
    A) irrelevant
    B) likely wrong

    Seems like some one is trying too hard with the kitchen sink.

    Should be possible to find a graph of domestic USA oil production during recent years. If that production had increased during Obama’s presidency then your claim is toast.

    Wrong (again)!

    Domestic oil production in the USA is up because of increases in production on private land. Production on federal land is down. The number of leases approved on federal land is down. The Obama administration, particularly the EPA, has worked very diligently to create regulations to reduce every type of fossil fuel energy production and use. The Obama administration opposes coal mining and coal-fired power plants. The Obama administration opposes hydraulic fracking. The Obama administration opposes the development of North Dakota oil shale. The Obama administration opposes development of the Keystone pipeline.

  88. Khwarizmi says:

    metamars,
    Your initial concern was about carbon and peak oil rather than mercury, high pressure drills, spills, or dolphins and dispersants. I don’t like playing bait and switch.
    What concerns me most about the use of “fossil fuels” is the flagrant disregard for thermodynamic constraints by professed peripatetics of energy exploitation. That concerns me a lot.

  89. metamars says:

    @Khwarizmi Neither do I. Perhaps you should try reading for meaning and context, rather than strawmen. And if disambiguation is required, which I kindly provided in this thread, a simple “thank-you for clarifying” would do, rather than making accusations of “bait and switch”.

  90. An Opinion says:

    Exxon produces oil and gasoline. It’s the consumers that burn the gasoline to produce the CO2. It seems like the the environmentalists have missed the mark.

  91. Doug Allen says:

    Jim asked-
    Doug Allen says December 9, 2012 at 7:13 pm
    … Outside of socialist goals (wealth redistribution and so forth) what do you see as positives in this present administration?
    Jim,
    I see many positives. In the presidential primary, I voted for Ron Paul. With both Paul and Obama you know where they stand- unlike Romney. That’s a one positive. Both are less militaristic than Romney. That’s a second positive that can result in substantial spending reductions, a third positive. BTW, Paul’s criticism of our military spending and “empire” was based on Chalmers Johnson’s trilogy, SORRWS OF EMPIRE, BLOWBACK. and NEMISIS which describe how overreach has doomed one empire after another throughout history. Our overbloated militarty (700+ bases all over the world) not only is redundant power and bankrupting, but adds to the ugly American image. It also probably makes us less prepared. Next, wealth distribution isn’t particularly a socialist goal, but a requirement of a stable civilization. The disparity in income between the middle class and the very weathy has grown and continues to grow. Study ancient Greek history or any time period since then, and you’ll find that great disparities in wealth and power bring civil instability and much, much worse. Returning the the tax code to the rates of the Clinton or Reagan period, which Republicans oppose, makes good sense in many ways- a fourth positive. Another threat to national stability is the desire of many Republicans to introduce more religion into government which is resisted by the Obama admisistration- a fifth positive. As Roger Williams taught, when you mix religion and politics, you get politics. As we know here on WUWT, the same thing happens when you mix science and politics. When religion is subject to government preferences or laws, it is always damaging to religion and to government. I just finished reading the book ROGER WILLIAMS AND THE CREATION OF THE AMERICAN SOUL which ought to convince anyone how dagerous it is to mix politics and religion. Good book.
    I could easily list another dozen positives, but this is a climate blog, and we are all aware of the politics, the confirmation bias, the mania , irrationality, and, occasionally, ill will, of the alarmists toward the skeptics and lukewarmers like myself. Alec Rawls and some others here seem blind to their own confirmation bias, irrationality and ill will. When policy discussion is thrown overboard for tirades of ad hominem attacks and blame, we’re not in a position to criticize the alarmists, are we?
    Jim, there’s a partial answer. The ball is in your court!

  92. D Böehm says:

    Doug Allen says:

    “With both Paul and Obama you know where they stand- unlike Romney.”

    Well, there’s a giant case of confirmation bias on display.

    In the case of Ron Paul, yes. But Obama’s record is largely opaque. At times he professes to be a Christian, at other times, a Muslim. Where does he stand? Forbes interviewed more than 400 college classmates, and not one of them remembered Barry. In most of the Senate votes he attended he voted “Present”, instead of Aye or Nay. Where does he stand? His school records are completely opaque, as is most of his life. I could go on, but I think readers get the picture.

    Regarding Romney, his record and his life are an open book. He is The Fixer who saved literally thousands of jobs. He gave away his large inheritance to charity because he wanted to be successful on his own. He gives forty times as much money to charity every year as Obama & Biden. I could go on, but it’s not necessary. He is an entirely good and honest man who was demonized by a $Billion campaign and a complicit media. With that kind of support, Obama should have won by at least twenty points. Instead, he barely squeaked by with the enormous and unexpected help of TS Sandy.

    Your bias makes the rest of your screed worthless. You have an agenda. Next time, you would be wise to avoid starting out with easily debunked political opinions.

  93. Chris B says:

    Doug Allen says:
    December 10, 2012 at 11:24

    ================

    A window into the uncensored mind of a liberal thinker. I can see the far side, unobstructed.

  94. jeff 5778 says:

    Doug writes:
    “Study ancient Greek history or any time period since then, and you’ll find that great disparities in wealth and power bring civil instability and much, much worse. Returning the the tax code to the rates of the Clinton or Reagan period, which Republicans oppose, makes good sense in many ways- a fourth positive.”

    One can argue this but it does not follow that the federal government has a legitimate role in dealing with income inequality. Even if they did, what makes you so sure that the redistribution would go to the poor and not bureaucrats. Wait a minute, it already does. Never mind.

  95. An Opinion says:

    “Returning the the tax code to the rates of the Clinton or Reagan period, which Republicans oppose, makes good sense in many ways- a fourth positive.”

    The Democrats oppose it as well. They only want the top tax brackets to return to the Clinton erra rates, creating an even more progressive tax code.

  96. more soylent green! says:

    @Doug Allen says: December 10, 2012 at 11:24 am

    Nowhere in the Constitution is our government granted the right to redistribute wealth or reduce income equality.

    Religion has always been part of American politics, for better or worse. President Thomas Jefferson regularly attended church services held at the House of Representatives, for instance. Presidents have regularly asked Americans to pray for various outcomes, or pray for strength, etc. Our current president is not against religion in politics, just religion that doesn’t support his political views.

  97. Kevin Kilty says:

    Metamars and Roger Knights

    Fusion? Oh, please. The materials problems are so extreme that no amount of wishful thinking can tackle them. Star Trek is more realistic. Fusion would be a bigger black hole for investment than anything the Obama Administration has funded.

  98. jb frodsham says:

    A “partial” list of products made from Petroleum (6000 items). One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like: Although the major use of petroleum is as a fuel, (gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil),and petroleum and natural gas are often used to generate electricity, there are many other uses. Here are some of the ways petroleum is used in our every day lives. All plastic is made from petroleum and plastic is used almost everywhere: in cars,houses, toys, computers and clothing. Asphalt used in road construction is a petroleum product as is the synthetic rubber in the tires. Paraffin wax comes from petroleum, as do fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, phonograph records, photographic film, furniture, packaging materials, surfboards, paints, and artificial fibres used in clothing, upholstery, and carpet backing Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clotheslines Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerine Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs Combs CD’s Paint Brushes Detergents Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras Anaesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline Ink Dishwashing liquids Paint brushes Telephones Toys Unbreakable dishes Insecticides Antiseptics Dolls Car sound insulation Fishing lures Deodorant Tires Motorcycle helmets Linoleum Sweaters Tents Refrigerator linings Paint rollers Floor wax Shoes Electrician’s tape Plastic wood Model cars Glue Roller-skate wheels Trash bags Soap dishes Skis Permanent press clothes Hand lotion Clothesline Dyes Soft contact lenses Shampoo Panty hose Cameras Food preservatives Fishing rods Oil filters Combs Transparent tape Anaesthetics Upholstery Dice Disposable diapers TV cabinets Cassettes Mops Sports car bodies Salad bowls House paint Purses Electric blankets Awnings Ammonia Dresses Car battery cases Safety glass Hair curlers Pyjamas Synthetic rubber VCR tapes Eyeglasses Pillows Vitamin capsules Movie film Ice chests.

    I mean really, take that away from the propaganda makers, let them live in a mud hut and burn dung for fuel. Idiots.

  99. DesertYote says:

    Doug Allen
    December 10, 2012 at 11:24 am
    ###

    Well you’re understanding of history, government, and everything else is pretty much the direct product of Marxist propaganda. As a Ronulan, you probably have reevaluated some of your beliefs, but you got a long way to go. The Ugly American stereotype is the creation of Marxist propagandists, the Military Causes the Ugly American meme is also a Marxist creation as is the idiocy of the Weak (Focused, Efficient, Targeted, etc) Military is in reality a better Military.

    If you knew any real Greek history, you would know that the culture was brought to its knees by a group that would eventually be called tyrants. This group purported an ideology and pushed an agenda that is indistinguishable from the American Democrat. It had nothing to do with adventurism.

  100. Zeke says:

    Metamars,

    Burning coal is not toxic, and neither is burning oil. The EPA’s ruling on the safety levels of mercury from burning coal was based on shoddy science and has been discussed here on WUWT many times. Some basic facts:

    1. “US power plants account for only 0.5% of the mercury in US air. Thus, even if EPA’s new rules eventually do eliminate 90% of mercury from power plant emission streams, that’s still only 90% of 0.5% – ie, almost zero benefit.”

    2. “EPA fails to recognize that mercury is abundant in the earth’s crust. It is absorbed by trees through their roots – and released into the atmosphere when the trees are burned in forest fires, fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. In fact, US forest fires annually emit as much mercury as all US coal-burning electrical power plants. Mercury and other “pollutants” are also released by geysers, volcanoes and subsea vents, which tap directly into subsurface rock formations containing these substances.”
    refs:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/26/shutting-down-power-plants-imaginary-benefits-extensive-harm/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/04/was-good-science-really-applied-in-the-recent-mercury-report-issued-by-the-florida-department-of-environmental-protection/

    So environmental policies mandating burning “biomass,” and mandating the use of CFLs, which contain volitized mercury, while claiming that coal is “toxic,” is yet another logical and scientific pretzel that does not stand up to scrutiny. The way forward is to develop intelligent electrical manipulation of atomic configurations without outlawing or harming current cheap and abundant energy sources. There is no either/or decision that has to be made. Fusion is a both/and option, to be developed while maintaining current levels of hydrocarbon power generation.

  101. Zeke says:

    “And if we already had fusion energy, what would be the point of shipping tar sands goo across the country?”

    I can assure you very few readers here are impressed or convinced by radical environmentalists calling our natural resources “goo” or “dirty” or “toxic.” This is nonsense language used by unscrupulous scientists and politicians to frighten children. And no one here is in a hell-fire hurry to use the Precautionary Principle to freeze (or reverse) technology in sneaky back door legislation supposedly “for the public good.” Cold fusion, focus fusion, blacklight power, and George Miley’s recent work are not murder weapons to kill coal and oil.

    Besides, a pipeline is much quieter, more efficient, and cleaner than hundreds of miles of worthless 400′ wind turbines.

  102. Doug Allen says:

    D Böehm, thank you for presenting another positive reason for voting for Obama! While both sides have their ideological nut cases, your testimony offers a good explanation of why Romney lost. He had to appeal to extremists for whom facts and history were inconvenient truths. Like many, I loved Ron Paul’s authenticity, but Romney and Obama needed to appeal to a much more diverse constituency, many of whom they, no doubt, disagreed with. That’s politics, and makes it difficult to be or even appear authentic. Thus, on either side, the haters are able to, and will, attribute those most extreme positions to the candidates themselves. Nothing new there. Judith Curry talks about tribalism in the climate wars, but it’s pretty much a subset of political tribalism, isn’t it. For extremeists like D Boehm, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” I like another Moynihan quote even better because it speaks to the irrationality and tribalism that characterizes so much of politics, and the climate wars, and life, “To be Irish is to know that in the end the world will break your heart.” Count me among the honorary Irish!
    Oh Chris B- tell that to my liberal friends- ha!

  103. metamars says:

    @Zeke: Your first link, a guest post by Craig Rucker, has no links to scientific literature. There are links to the Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily; not the same things.

    In your 2nd reference, I clicked on reference links 6 and 7 for more info on the science, but I get ‘Not found’ errors. Also, some of the references didn’t seem like good primary lines of evidence and reasoning. If 550 year old mummies had more mercury in their hair then current humans, that’s interesting, but how do I know if they didn’t die from some mercury related cause of death? Also, their sources of mercury contamination might not have been via the atmosphere, but an atmospheric vector may be a more toxic pathway for contamination to affect humans.

    Finally, a quick Google Scholar search for ‘atmospheric mercury sources’ generates an awful lot of hits. E.g., this one: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GB001847.shtml
    which says, “There is no evidence of a significant enhancement in the atmospheric Hg flux as a result of preindustrial (<1900 c.e. (Common Era)) activities such as the extensive Au and Ag mining in the Americas. (3) A factor of 3 and 5x increase in the deposition of Hg to the lake sediment archives was observed since the advent of the industrial revolution in New Zealand and Nova Scotia respectively, suggesting a worldwide increase in the atmospheric deposition of Hg. Furthermore, this increase is synchronous with increases in the release of CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels on a global scale."

    This suggests an anthropogenic contribution of mercury to the atmosphere of ~80%, not 0.5%.

    Has Soon published anything in peer reviewed literature about anthropogenic Hg? I'm not getting that impression….

  104. Zeke says:

    Minority opinion: There are other reasons why Romney lost. 3 million people who voted for McCain did not turn out to vote for the former Gov of Mass. He did not run against Obamacare and he did not run against emissions reductions/renewables legislation. He was deeply invested in both of those, while all of the Representatives in the House who voted – 30 times - to repeal ObamaRomneycare are safely re-elected, enjoying the fruits of doing the right thing. We had a lot of flat tax candidates who were outspent by a factor of 5-20 in every state by the Romney 8-year Presidential Campaign. Ron Paul, most conveniently for Romney, dropped out of the race after the nomination.

  105. D Böehm says:

    Chris B says of Doug Allen:

    “A window into the uncensored mind of a liberal thinker. I can see the far side, unobstructed.”

    Yes, they are quite wacked out, no doubt about it. If it were not for psychological projection, they wouldn’t have much to say. Allen labels me an “extremeist” [sic]. That is projection, because all I want is for the government to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That’s all.

    That doesn’t make me an “extremeist”, that makes me an ordinary American. The extremists are those [on the Right or the Left] who want to be the totalitarians. Currently that job description applies almost exclusively to the Left. For proof, see here.

    That is typical extremist tyranny, just like the EPA’s ruling [recently reversed by the Supreme Court] that a temporary mud puddle in a homeowner’s yard made his property a “wetland”.

    These anti-Constitutional ‘czars’ decisions come straight from the most extreme tyrant who has ever held the office: Obama himself. Can there be any doubt? Doug Allen is a craven Obama apologist. I wonder how his projecting extremist mindset will allow him to give this destruction of a business on trumped-up charges a free pass? I suppose cognitive dissonance might explain it. Or more likely, Allen’s hatred for a free society.

  106. catcracking says:

    Some facts about the taxes that oil companies contribute to our treasury. Of course other companies contribute similar funds. This is from an earlier financial report: (note that over 50% of Exxon Mobil incomes from overseas investments which possibly explains how they actually paid more than they earned in the US)
    “ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States
    Last year, our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government topped $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of $1.6 billion. Over the past five years, we incurred a total U.S. tax expense of almost $59 billion, which is $18 billion more than we earned in the United States during the same period. Critics often try to ignore these facts by saying the oil and gas industry receives “subsidies.” But what they really mean is that they want to increase our taxes by taking away long-standing deductions for our industry while leaving these same deductions in place for other sectors of the economy”

    Then there are lease expenses and royalities which until recently contributed more to the treasury than any other source except income tax. Lease $$ fell dramatically under the current administration as the number of leases fell. This from the API:

    CLAIM: The American people aren’t getting their fair share from oil and gas companies drilling and producing on federal lands in and in federal waters. FACT: The U.S. government’s revenues from federal oil and gas production and leasing is on par with the rest of the world when bonus bids – the upfront fees paid by oil and natural gas companies to purchase leases – are factored in. In 2008, the U.S. collected almost $23 billion in revenues from federal oil and gas production and leases: $13 billion in royalties and $10 billion in bonus bids.

    Guess how much green energy contributed to the treasury?
    According to Romney the taxpayers contributed 80-90 billion and I can’t see very many BTU’s from that “investment..

  107. Zeke says:

    Metamars says:

    [Peer reviewed paper] says, “There is no evidence of a significant enhancement in the atmospheric Hg flux as a result of preindustrial (<1900 c.e. (Common Era)) activities such as the extensive Au and Ag mining in the Americas. (3) A factor of 3 and 5x increase in the deposition of Hg to the lake sediment archives was observed since the advent of the industrial revolution in New Zealand and Nova Scotia respectively, suggesting a worldwide increase in the atmospheric deposition of Hg."

    The statement, “There is no evidence of significant atmospheric Hg flux as a result of mining” is an opinion, not a fact. And we are not talking about mining, but the burning of biomass.

    The statement “A factor of 3 and 5x increase in the deposition of Hg to the lake sediment archives was observed since the advent of the industrial revolution in New Zealand and Nova Scotia respectively, suggesting a worldwide increase in the atmospheric deposition of Hg” is also an opinion not a fact. It is a suggestion, on its face, as the paper says. There is no reason to consider coal to be toxic on the basis of this thin and shoddy lake sediment study.

  108. Zeke says:

    Notice how metamars
    1.) uses the appeal to authority – peer reviewed literature – and
    2.) dodges the point that there are many natural sources of Hg in our hydrologic and biospheric cycles.

    This she does with the left hand, while claiming to advance the use of LENR with the other. Cold fusion has been declared impossible by the DOE and has very little peer reviewed papers supporting the physics, which are unknown even by those developing the technology.

  109. pat says:

    all but about 5 of the govts in the EU are rightwing, and the EU is now ground zero for all CAGW carbon dioxide scams, i wonder when the penny will drop for the anti-oil CAGW-ers that Big Oil is their “friend” and, even in the US, there are Republicans still pushing the agenda:

    6 Dec: San Francisco Chronicle: David R. Baker: California faces carbon conundrum
    Refineries in California participating in the cap-and-trade system could be double taxed if the U.S. institutes a carbon-emissions levy…
    A carbon tax even has the backing of Rex Tillerson, chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corp. He prefers the predictability of a tax to the wild price swings possible under cap and trade…
    And while many Republicans reject the idea, that opposition isn’t universal. Arthur Laffer, former economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, both support carbon pricing.
    “There is an impeccable conservative lineage for this thing,” Muro said. His proposal calls for a carbon tax of $20 per ton, rising 4 percent each year. Of the $150 billion raised annually, $30 billion would go toward clean-energy research, while the rest would go to cutting other taxes and reducing the deficit…
    http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/California-faces-carbon-conundrum-4098030.php#page-1

    10 Dec: The Hill: Ben Geman: House Energy Chairman Upton: Exxon’s support for carbon tax isn’t ‘very serious’
    House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) suggested Monday that Exxon Mobil Corp. isn’t pushing lawmakers especially hard for a carbon tax despite the company’s public embrace of the idea.
    “I don’t think it is a very serious effort on their part,” Upton said on Fox News. Upton said he told Exxon representatives personally that it’s a nonstarter…
    Upton made the comments when asked about support for a carbon tax from Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell.
    However, a tax isn’t Shell’s preferred option. Shell, in a joint statement in November with a range of businesses, affirmed its support for somehow creating a cost for carbon emissions.
    But the company said its preferred approach for pricing carbon is a more flexible system such as pollution permit trading under an emissions cap (known as cap-and-trade). Exxon, in contrast, says a tax would be better policy…
    “Combined with further advances in energy efficiency and new technologies spurred by market innovation, a well-designed carbon tax could play a significant role in addressing the challenge of rising emissions,” an Exxon spokeswoman told Bloomberg in November…
    Carbon-tax proposals have, however, gained traction in climate policy circles of late despite the dim political prospects.
    For instance, former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who recently launched a new energy program at George Mason University, is pushing for a tax on fossil fuel production that would be offset by reductions in income taxes…
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/271877-rep-upton-exxon-carbon-tax-support-isnt-very-serious

  110. D Böehm says:

    pat says:

    “all but about 5 of the govts in the EU are rightwing”

    How can that possibly be?? It must mean that we have differing definitions of “right wing”. To me, they are all either Left, or Far Left, or Far, Far Left.

    But that’s just how I see it. I suppose I could be wrong.

  111. gnomish says:

    left/right is just sideways because what signifies is who’s on top and who’s on the bottom. :)
    you get what you bend over for, pretty much.

  112. Chris B says:

    D Böehm says:
    December 10, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    ======================

    The Left considers anyone disagreeing with them is “Right Wing” because there is no one to their left. The Right thinks they are in the Center because they aren’t either fascists, or socialists.

  113. “Sera”: the mask may be silicone or other plastics – the essential question in this thread is what raw material is used to make the particular plastic in the mask. Is the raw material a form of petroleum?

    (Beyond that, the mask must be non-allergenic, flexible over a temperature range, good seal at the edges, low cost, …. attributes that take skill and dedication, which will not occur if the capriciousness of government force is widespread as there is high risk that effort will not be rewarded – remember “you didn’t build that”.)

    The mask and whatever is attached to the bottom must have good air replacement characteristics, otherwise the buildup of CO2 from the breathing process will result in a serious problem – need oxygen in, CO2 purged. (The vent holes that appear to be in that mask may suffice if there is flow of fresh air into the mask, as there is with a CPAP sleeping mask.)

  114. pat says:

    D Boehm -

    apologies for not providing a link re EU govts. i normally would paste an Independent headline from about a year ago which i think was “all but five EU govts on the right” but can’t locate it just now. however:

    June 2011: Economist: Europe’s Left: Left Out
    Today, following the defeat of the ruling Socialists in Portugal’s general election on June 5th, the left is in charge of just five: Spain, Greece, Austria, Slovenia and Cyprus. In Spain, by far the largest of these, polls suggest the Socialists will be removed from office at an election that must be held by next March…
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/europes-left

    Update: Spain is now rightwing, Greece also. France has turned left.

    June 2009: PressEurop: Europe is right-wing but…
    Most of the governments of the European Union’s 27 member countries are conservative, as are the bulk of the European Council and the president of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso. The current European Parliament, which is to be reshuffled within a matter of days, is for the most part centre-right.
    http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/15371-europe-right-wing

    CAGW is a bipartisan scam, in my opinion, but this is hidden from the public. Australia’s former PM, John Howard, like US’s George W. Bush, was constantly castigated by the MSM as a non-believer, yet all the architecture of CAGW was set up while they were in power. meanwhile, the so-called Left were being groomed & portrayed as the coming saviours of the CAGW scam, hence US and Australia now have so-called Leftwing Govts and it is extremely difficult to break the CAGW meme that it’s a left/right thing. me, i was on the left, i then read the climategate material, and now i vote informally. a pox on all of them for this power grab.

  115. D Böehm says:

    Pat,

    I generally agree with all of your posts, so I think the problem is in our definition of Left/Right.

    I believe in limited government; the smaller the better. The EU is a suffocating monster run by opaque, unaccountable bureaucrats, and as such it is totalitarian in nature. They all play word games trying to paint themselves as egalitarian, but they are no such thing. They do not believe in democracy; note the [illegally] repeated Irish vote that was necessary to suport the EU’s policies.

    Every EU country is heading toward totalitarianism, some just more than others. The average EU citizen is the target. EU citizens are expected to work for the State. That is, of course, backward.

    The same thing is happening in the U.S. But the change here is stark because we are used to relatively fair play. That has gone by the wayside. Now, the Statists have control, and they will not willingly give it up. The self-serving totalitarians are neither left nor right, they are totalitarians. Ordinary citizens like myself are the target of their greed for power. They want a much bigger cut of our income, because money is power. They are buying government employed supporters with our earnings.

    No EU country is in favor of the individual. They are all leftist totalitarian wannabe’s. The only choice the average EU citizen has is to forfeit well over half of his income to the State. And for what? For meaningless platitudes that do nothing to ease the average worker’s lot.

    I sit on a man’s back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure others that I am very sorry for him, and wish to ease his lot by all possible means — except by getting off his back.
    ~ Leo Tolstoy

  116. Gary Pearse says:

    pat says:
    December 11, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    D Boehm -

    “… i normally would paste an Independent headline from about a year ago which i think was “all but five EU govts on the right”

    The right is just not quite so left in Europe and the left is left indeed. The Democrats in the US are considered left, but they are right of EU’s right.

  117. Pamela Gray says:

    Gary, that reminds me of who’s on first. Very funny post!!!!!

  118. Think of the children!

    Just the money given to Evergreen Solar ($25 million) would have funded almost a third of the money given to Miss for a year of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program).

    So why worry about whether the children can breathe – they’ll starve first.

  119. Kevin Kilty says:
    December 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm
    Metamars and Roger Knights

    Fusion? Oh, please. The materials problems are so extreme that no amount of wishful thinking can tackle them. Star Trek is more realistic. Fusion would be a bigger black hole for investment than anything the Obama Administration has funded.

    I didn’t say “fusion,” I said “cold fusion” (and “LENR,” or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, its euphemism):

    I agree [with Metamars], and I hope that Anthony allows more threads on the LENR topic here on WUWT. It makes our side look good to have something positive to offer. And it will make the capital-S “Skeptics,” who support the current climate consensus, look bad in the aftermath, for being wrong on both fronts. (They pooh-pooh cold fusion.)

  120. pat says:

    D Boehm -

    don’t worry. like u i believe we are headed for totalitarianism, or already there, in many countries. whether it’s left or right totalitarianism, i don’t care.

    all i know is govts are too big, but not too big to fail!

    as to how we get back to some form of democracy, that i don’t know. but i do feel individuals from across the political spectrum can bring down the CAGW grab for more power, thanx to anthony and others who have provided a platform for expressing alternative views, and real science as opposed to political science.

  121. The attempt to smear Exxon seems to use a common fallacy peddled by neo-Marxists, that tax money is taking back what rightfully belongs to the collective.

    That’s consistent with Marxism’s fixed-pie and exploitation theories, which have been well disproven in reality.

    The root of those theories is a view of humans as uncreative and untrustworthy. If nothing more is created then anyone who has more must have taken it from someone else. Marxism denies that humans will act for good. In contrast, Ayn Rand explained how rational thinking and avoiding initiating force is life sustaining.”

Comments are closed.