House Democrats Keep Anti-Exxon Climate Crusade Alive As NY’s AG Ratchets Up Pressure On Oil Producers

From The Daily Caller

Chris White Tech Reporter

October 21, 2019 2:23 PM ET

House Democrats are asking activists and academics to testify about how ExxonMobil’s supposed contributions to global warming are affecting black people in poor neighborhoods.

House Democrats on the Oversight Committee Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are inviting academic Naomi Oreskes and other activists to Congress Wednesday to discuss the oil industry and its effect on the environment. Oreskes is known for accusing Exxon of climate crimes.

“As early as the 1970s, oil giants like Exxon knew that climate change was real and that the burning of fossil fuels was a major contributor to the problem,” the committee’s Democrats noted in an Oct. 18 memo announcing the hearing.

The hearing then notes that,”the consequences of climate change have had a disproportionate effect on people of color, low-income communities, and vulnerable populations.” Democrats on the committee titled the hearing “Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change.”

Oreskes and others will testify on the same week as New York Attorney General Letitia James is set to begin a trial against ExxonMobil over how the Texas-based company accounts for the costs of future environmental regulations on global warming.

James’s lawsuit follows New York’s years-long investigation into Exxon, which began under former AG Eric Schneiderman, who resigned in 2018 following reports that he abused an ex-lover. (RELATED: Schneiderman Accuser Says The Abuse Got Worse After Trump Won The Election)

The plaintiffs in the census citizenship question case — New York Attorney General Letitia James (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

“The New York Attorney General’s allegations are false. We tell investors through regular disclosures how the company accounts for risks associated with climate change. We are confident in the facts and look forward to seeing our company exonerated in court,” according to a statement posted on Exxon’s website.

Analysts have criticized Oreskes’ anti-Exxon positions in the past. She relied on invalid research methods to determine Exxon once used ads to cast doubt on climate change, Kimberly Neuendorf, a researcher at Cleveland State University, said in 2018 of Oreskes’ work.

Neuendorf created the research method Oreskes used for a 2017 analysis suggesting Exxon downplayed the effect climate change has on oil futures. Neuendorf believed at the time that the analysis was not performed to her specifications.

Oreskes’ analysis, which focused on Exxon’s ads over the past 40 years, received favorable coverage from Reuters and The New York Times, among several dozen other outlets. Other outlets took notice of several significant problems with the methods and tools Oreskes used to draw her conclusion.

The ads cited in Oreskes report were predominantly from Mobil before the company merged with Exxon in 1999, meaning the professor of history at Harvard University compared the research of one company with the advertorials of another.

She relied on 36 advertorials published between 1989 and 2004. Exxon was formed in late 1999, nearly a decade after the first advertorial was published. Only 11 of the 36 advertorials belonged to ExxonMobil, while the other 25 were exclusively published before the merger.

Oreskes republished portions of her findings on Monday ahead of her testimony.

Exxon has not yet responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the hearing. Oreskes dismissed Neuendorf’s arguments, telling the DCNF that she is a lobbyist without credentials.

“Neuendorf is a paid consultant whose work has never been peer-reviewed: precisely the sort of misdirection that Erik Conway I wrote about at length in Merchants of Doubt. Unlike Professor Neuendorf, we have always subjected our work to independent, objective expert review,” Oreskes said.

Neuendorf’s curriculum vitae suggests her work has been peer-reviewed several times throughout her 40-year career.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
62 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
TEWS_Pilot
October 21, 2019 6:09 pm

“Donald Trump will be elected over my dead body!” ~ Elijah Cummings

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
October 21, 2019 7:12 pm

re-elected now

TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 21, 2019 7:58 pm

UPDATE!!!

Donald Trump will be reelected over OUR dead bodies….anybody wanna join me?
Elijah Cummings
HEY, I’ll sign on!
Tommy D’Alesandro

THIS JUST IN:
Tommy D’Alesandro, Nancy Pelosi’s brother and former Baltimore mayor, dead at 90 from stroke complications

Patrick MJD
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
October 21, 2019 9:57 pm
TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 21, 2019 10:14 pm

Canada is where the USA was in 2012 as elections go. One more cycle and maybe someone who is not even on the national scene will emerge to turn things around…otherwise, enjoy your 3rd world lifestyle, Canada.

Glen Ferrier
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 21, 2019 11:43 pm

Canada had an election today; we lost.

Doonman
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 22, 2019 12:13 am

Canada needs to limit global warming soon, as a mile of ice on top of Toronto is the natural condition 90% of the time over the last 3.5 million years.

Randy watson
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
October 21, 2019 10:30 pm

😀

John Endicott
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
October 22, 2019 9:17 am

“Donald Trump will be elected over my dead body!” ~ Elijah Cummings

One should always be careful what one wishes for.

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
October 22, 2019 1:59 pm

Source? This “my dead body” quote was previously falsely attributed to Janet Reno.

TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
October 22, 2019 4:58 pm

Source: Hillary Clinton…..prove me wrong. ☺

John Endicott
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
October 22, 2019 6:39 pm

The false attribute to Janet Reno was clearly part of a Russian misinformation campaign designed to help trump win the election (or something). I’m sure Shifty Shift is looking into it.

TEWS_Pilot
Reply to  John Endicott
October 22, 2019 7:50 pm

OK, you got me. No fooling this time, I heard it from “Quid Pro” Joe Biden…who heard it from Corn Pop…FACT.…you can’t work at a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have an Indian accent….

ScienceABC123
October 21, 2019 6:16 pm

I wonder how long New York would last if the oil industry were to say – “You don’t like what we do, the products we produce. You want to sue us into oblivion. Fine! We’re not going to sell you anymore of our products.”

Rocketscientist
Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 21, 2019 7:44 pm

As I opined in the previous post regarding this. They are attempting to bankrupt the oil industry so that they can nationalize it. If fossil fuel usage has done anything to poorer communities it was to lift them out of abject poverty.

Redge
Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 21, 2019 10:53 pm

The fossil fuel companies should take a leaf out of XR’s book and hold a series of disruptive strikes in the states who are funding this nonsense.

We’d soon see how long these states functioned using unreliables.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
October 22, 2019 5:59 am

Better yet, the U.S. Justice Department should look into possible conspiracy and racketeering charges against the Democrat State AG’s and the billionaires who are buying their way into the State AGs Offices and using them as political weapons against those the Democrats oppose.

Privately funded prosecuting State Attorney’s, undermine the Rule of Law and put unelected billionaire’s interests ahead of the People’s interests. It’s time to shine a bright light on this political attack on our legal system.

Sam Pyeatte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 22, 2019 5:10 pm

They are just playing a modern-day version of the “Gangs of New York”, only more dishonest.

Frank Garrett
Reply to  Redge
October 23, 2019 6:59 am

A kind of ‘Atlas shrugged’. I’d be down for that, and you can bet the idiots at XR would stop immediately.

Gordon Dressler
October 21, 2019 6:24 pm

It is despicable that a certain group feels the need to play the race card because other attempts to earn attention have apparently failed.

By the way, I too knew in the 1970’s that climate change was real and I did nothing about it . . . come get me, I’ll be expecting you to knock on my door around midnight.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
October 22, 2019 6:08 am

“It is despicable that a certain group feels the need to play the race card because other attempts to earn attention have apparently failed.”

This is standard operating procedure for the radical Democrats. They always fall back on the race card as a last resort argument. And they don’t really mean it as an argument, they mean for it to shut the oppostion up and it usually worked in the past, before Trump.

It doesn’t work so well with someone like Trump who immediately fights back at any attack. They call Trump a racist every day in the Leftwing Media and Trump’s approval rating among minorities continues to grow. The race card can only get the Democrats so far, and I think they have reached that limit with regard to Trump. The Democrats have overused their chief weapon and turned it into background noise.

commieBob
October 21, 2019 6:52 pm

Neuendorf created the research method Oreskes used for a 2017 analysis suggesting Exxon downplayed the effect climate change has on oil futures. Neuendorf believed at the time that the analysis was not performed to her specifications.

We’re seeing this time after time. The alarmists use complicated analysis but they do it wrong. It looks convincing unless you’re expert enough to spot the errors.

When I was an undergrad, a prof complained to me that students would misapply any formula they could get their hands on. Much later in my career, I realized the problem wasn’t restricted to students.

George Daddis
Reply to  commieBob
October 22, 2019 6:21 am

A half century ago I received my BSME (Mechanical Engineering).
After 4 years of plowing through the program with many books of tables for math, chemistry, strength of materials etc my classmates insisted the BS stood for Bachelor of Substitution.

For the youngsters out there those were the slide rule days; before calculators, computers or the internet./i>

Schitzree
Reply to  commieBob
October 22, 2019 8:37 am

Neuendorf is a paid consultant whose work has never been peer-reviewed: precisely the sort of misdirection that Erik Conway I wrote about at length in Merchants of Doubt.

Oreskes not only misused Neuendorf’s research method, she then tried to claim she wasn’t a ‘real’ Scientists when Neuendorf pointed it out.

Utterly repugnant.

~¿~

MarkW
October 21, 2019 6:55 pm

There are a lot more donations that they need to extort.

markl
October 21, 2019 6:57 pm

When you can’t win with facts you make up social improprieties to sway the votes. These days in America the Left are assigning social injustices with support of the MSM to everything, and anything, and few are questioning them. This too has run its’ course and people have had enough.

Mark Broderick
October 21, 2019 7:01 pm

Exxon does not create extra CO2. The people that USE their product create extra CO2. D’OH !

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mark Broderick
October 21, 2019 10:00 pm

That may be true however, there are Australians who want emissions from those users overseas of Australian coal to be included in Australian emission figures. D’oh!

October 21, 2019 7:18 pm

Congress people can lie and slander to their hearts desire when they do so either on the House/Senate floor or in committee. They are Constitutionally protected to say anything they want without fear of being sued.

Democrats have now seized on this Constitutional protection to lie their asess off about anything they want… to the media… to each other… and to the American public.

Now we’ve got Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi trying to match former Senator Harry Reid’s unparalleled lying legacy. A truly epic lie-fest is underway with Democrats.

Bemused Bill.
October 21, 2019 7:34 pm

“Donald Trump will be elected over my dead body!” ~ Elijah Cummings

Good, on both accounts. I want to thank everyone here who use their own brains to make their own judgment calls, I would be getting pretty depressed if it weren’t for the few sites that seek the truth rather than pedal the bullshit consensus.
This is what we have to deal with, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q
If I were in the room when he said this I would have unloaded on him in major way, it amazes me no-one did.

Scissor
Reply to  Bemused Bill.
October 21, 2019 7:47 pm

Really?

Scissor
October 21, 2019 7:42 pm

Thanks for not including a photograph of Oreskes.

William Haas
October 21, 2019 7:47 pm

There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science. So maybe the best thing for the Oil companies to do is to stop selling their fossil fuel products and then see what the people have to say about that. If people think that the use of fossil fuels is bad then they should immediately stop making use of all goods and services that makes use of fossil fuels. After all it is their money that keeps the fossil fuel companies in business. If they are really serious about reducing the use of fossil fuels then they should start funding the construction of nuclear power plants to gradually replace fossil fuel based power plants. So called green energy is not sufficient to meet the needs of modern society.

October 21, 2019 8:03 pm

The title of this hearing is “Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth about Climate Change.” While the odds are against it, I hope the GOP members will show up and question whether any evidence exists anywhere to prove this conspiracy ever actually happened. Oreskes will look like a deer caught in the headlights if she is finally forced to stand and deliver on her accusations.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Russell Cook
October 22, 2019 6:17 am

“I hope the GOP members will show up and question whether any evidence exists anywhere to prove this conspiracy ever actually happened.”

I would be surprised if that happened. Most Republicans, just like most Democrats, don’t have the background to argue the finer points of human-caused climate change with the exception of Senator Jim Inhofe and a few others. And the Republicans know if they challenge “the Science” they are going to be thoroughly ridiculed in the Mainstream Media, and that’s the last thing any Republican wants. So they keep their mouths shut for the most part and cede the floor to the alarmists.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 22, 2019 8:11 am

The AGW issue is a two-prong attack: the science part of it, and the accusation that ‘Big Oil & Coal’ paid skeptic ‘shill scientists’ to undercut the certainty of the IPCC’s science. The IPCC is weak, but I’d suggest the accusation against skeptics is far weaker. The GOP members need not know one bit about science when they ask where the evidence is proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between industry execs and skeptic scientists/speakers. What I’m worried about is that the GOP members of this committee won’t even rise to that simple line of questioning.

John Endicott
Reply to  Russell Cook
October 22, 2019 9:12 am

What I’m worried about is that the GOP members of this committee won’t even rise to that simple line of questioning.

Unfortunately you worries are well founded. First this is in the democrat controlled House, so you can be sure Republicans won’t get a fair stab at question time. But even if they did, this is the House and it seems that most of the GOPers that would be willing to ask relevant probing questions on the topic are in the other chamber (the Senate).

Ken
October 21, 2019 8:10 pm

Oreskes is not to be believed. Her execrable TED talk, which was a criticism of the scientific method, showed her true colors. Ironic from a professor of History of Science.

Kevin Foley
October 21, 2019 8:33 pm

Exxon extracts and sells tightly bound hydrocarbon chain molecules. Its customers sometimes react these chains with Oxygen to release energy. The end user creates the carbon dioxide, not Exxon.

Brian Valentine
October 21, 2019 8:50 pm

These people are no better than someone pretending to fall in a Walmart and feigning injury so they can sue.

The NY AG is perfectly aware of that.

RockyRoad
October 21, 2019 8:58 pm

“…the burning of fossil fuels is a major contributor to world-wide foodstuff production!”

There, fixed it for her!

Michael
October 21, 2019 9:12 pm

Inexpensive ubiquitous energy.

We have it and it is what separates us from the third world.

Sam
October 21, 2019 9:14 pm

What problem? AOC supporters say they have solved the problem. They said the solution is to “Eat Babies”. That will solve the climate problem…..

Sam
October 21, 2019 9:18 pm

What problem? AOC supporters say they have solved the problem. They said the solution is to “Eat Babies”. That will solve the climate problem…..

Tom Gelsthorpe
October 21, 2019 10:38 pm

In the halls of academe, do-gooderism, and ambulance-chasing, biting the hands that feed you is now a moral imperative. Everyone who feels fossil fuels are a no-no should try growing crops, processing those crops into food and fiber, and delivering the products to market without ’em. That’s right — plow fields by roping yourself to the plow, hoeing the beans, picking the cotton & corn, milking the cows, weaving the cloth, etc. by hand, and schlepping food from farm to table with backpacks. No refrigerators, no glass, paper, steel or concrete, either. None o’ these computers, or — Gaia forbid! — smoke signals. That would be cheating.

Two-three days of real work would cure these numbskulls. In the meantime, keep up the nonsensical headlines: “World to end in 11 years! Women & minorities hardest hit!”

Sunny
October 21, 2019 10:52 pm

What the h+ll LOL… So “global warming” only effects black people in poor neighbourhoods LOLOLO what about all the other races living in poor neighbourhoods? Are the black people who live in rich neighbourhoods ok? Is their weather nice and warm? Does this mean white people have lush weather were ever they live?

House Democrats are asking activists and academics to testify about how ExxonMobil’s supposed contributions to global warming are affecting black people in poor neighborhoods

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 21, 2019 11:15 pm

The Oreskeses of this world are just the louse in the pelt. In 50 years, Exxon or its successor will be going strong whilst the irritants will have been forgotten.

Charlie
October 22, 2019 1:13 am

Is that the full extent of it? A whole 25 (or 36) advertorials over a 15 years period. If do, I’d say Exxon Mobil did not put much uf an effort in to try and cast doubt on clmate change, if indeed you csuld characterize what they as such.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Charlie
October 22, 2019 6:27 am

“I’d say Exxon Mobil did not put much uf an effort in to try and cast doubt on clmate change, if indeed you could characterize what they as such.”

Exxon did not try to cast doubt on human-caused climate change. They didn’t address human-caused climate change.

What we have here from Oreskes is a distortion of what Exxon intended. It’s just like when the MSM take something Trump says and completely distorts the meaning in an effort to harm Trump. That’s what Oreskes is doing here to Exxon.

I don’t think Exxon has anything to worry about. There is still no evidence human-caused climate change is real and even if it were there is no evidence Exxon tried to cover up it up.

Not Guilty !!!

Charlie
October 22, 2019 1:44 am

Is that the full extent of it? A whole 25 (or 36) advertorials in a 15 yers period? If it is, Exxon Mobil didn’t put much effort in to casting doubt on climate change, even if you could chrarcterize what they did as that.

October 22, 2019 3:08 am

oreskes content analysis is FOR shit

here is her data. If you havent done content analysis before, you basically come up with a
taxonomy for text . Then you (SHOULD) train coders to code the text using the taxonomy
Authors probably should not be coders ( confirmation bias)

https://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/12/8/084019/media/ERL_12_8_084019_suppdata.pdf

Anyway, A quick read through some examples
of their coding found this

“EP4b-2: Proposes that the world “conduct scientific research to improve society’s ability to predict possible consequences (positive as well as negative) of future climate
change. Programs should concentrate on factors that seriously limit current understanding. These include the effects of clouds, aerosols, sea ice, deep-ocean circulation,
hydrology and natural climate variability. We also need to improve the monitoring of climate.” [Not strictly incorrect, but asymmetrical emphasis on scientific uncertainties leads
us, on balance, to code as EP4b-2.]”

To be code as EP4b-2 the content has to satisfy the following

EP4b-2: Uncertain of human contribution to AGW
• Explicitly or implicitly questions whether humans are the primary cause of global
warming, including by suggesting one or more of [33]:
o There’s no empirical evidence
o Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
o Climate has changed before
o There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature
o It’s the sun
o Other planets are warming
o CO2 is not the only driver of climate
o It’s the ocean
o Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
o Models are unreliable
o Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming
o Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use
o Nuclear testing is causing global warming

This content is NOT EP4b-2

“conduct scientific research to improve society’s ability to predict possible consequences (positive as well as negative) of future climate
change. Programs should concentrate on factors that seriously limit current understanding. These include the effects of clouds, aerosols, sea ice, deep-ocean circulation,
hydrology and natural climate variability. We also need to improve the monitoring of climate.”

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
October 22, 2019 9:05 am

To be code as EP4b-2 the content has to satisfy the following
EP4b-2: Uncertain of human contribution to AGW

Frankly that code sounds like a good thing to be coded as, it’s stuff not code as that, that one should be concerned with because:

• Explicitly or implicitly questions whether humans are the primary cause of global
warming, including by suggesting one or more of [33]:
o There’s no empirical evidence

Well there is no empirical evidence, anyone who thinks otherwise better provide the empirical evidence or be shamed as the liar they are.

o Increasing CO2 has little to no effect

as far as can be determined, the effect of increasing CO2 is very small, despite what the always wrong model assume

o Climate has changed before

Indeed it has, only a real climate denier would deny that the climate has changed before

o There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature

well, there is no correlation. When the temps were falling between the 40s and the 70s, CO2 was rising. When temps were rising from the 70s to the 00s CO2 was rising. When temps were flat (“the pause”) in the 00s to the 10s, CO2 was rising. Where’s the correlation in that?

o It’s the sun

In large part, it is. It’d be damn cold without the sun even if the atmosphere was 100% CO2.

o Other planets are warming

well, they are. (or at least they were, I admit I haven’t been keeping track to see if they still are)

o CO2 is not the only driver of climate

Again, that is very true. Do you deny there are other factors beside CO2 the drive climate?

o It’s the ocean

Like the sun, the Ocean system has a very big influence on the climate. Why would you deny that?

o Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate

Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that’s a fact of life on this big blue marble.

o Models are unreliable

Considering their track record of failed prediction (or projection if you prefer), only a dishonest person would claim they were reliable.

o Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming

Another true statement.

o Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use

Yes, it is, again with the true statements as if the were not true.

o Nuclear testing is causing global warming

Ok, this one doesn’t belong in this list (unless you forgot the word not). saying nuclear testing is causing global warming has as much validity as saying extreme weather is caused by global warming, that is a validity of *NONE*, there’s no evidence to support either statement.

so one false statement among a list of true statements and all those true statements are a problem because? Bueller? Bueller?

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  John Endicott
October 22, 2019 2:34 pm

RE: There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

There is correlation at large scales (Vostok), but the CO2 rises in the atmosphere as a result of the ocean warming with an approximate 800 year lag. Correlation yes, but not at the one they think there is.

Hivemind
October 22, 2019 3:36 am

“academic Naomi Oreskes”

I don’t think that anybody should accuse Naomi Oreskes of being an academic. She is an activist, pure and simple. Very simple.

Gerry, England
October 22, 2019 5:44 am

‘…independent, objective expert review,” Oreskes said.

Oreskes wouldn’t recognise such a thing even if it punched her in the face.

Tom Abbott
October 22, 2019 5:46 am

From the article: ““As early as the 1970s, oil giants like Exxon knew that climate change was real and that the burning of fossil fuels was a major contributor to the problem,” the committee’s Democrats noted in an Oct. 18 memo announcing the hearing.”

As late as today, the Democrats and their alarmist stooges couldn’t prove that statement if their lives depended on proving it. There is no evidence that Human-Caused climate change is real or, therefore, that fossil fuels are a major contributor. They are assuming things not in evidence.

Exxon knew just what everyone else knew and none of what they knew proves that CO2 causes the Earth’s climate to overheat.

“Exxon Knew” assumes there was something to know. The Democrats and their alarmist stooges are again assuming too much based on practically nothing.

Tom Abbott
October 22, 2019 6:46 am

From the article: “Neuendorf is a paid consultant whose work has never been peer-reviewed: precisely the sort of misdirection that Erik Conway I wrote about at length in Merchants of Doubt. Unlike Professor Neuendorf, we have always subjected our work to independent, objective expert review,” Oreskes said.

Neuendorf’s curriculum vitae suggests her work has been peer-reviewed several times throughout her 40-year career.”

So Oreskes said something that was untrue about Neuendorf. Is Oreskes just ignorant or is she a deliberate liar? Concerned citizens want to know.

Ken
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 23, 2019 7:27 pm

If she could just restrain herself to being only a deliberate liar, that would be an improvement. But she profaned the Scientific Method in her TED talk. Very, very dangerous stuff. Her glib delivery was designed to let the audience know that she was letting them in on the little known fact that the Scientific Method is obsolete, that now science is driven by (she did not use this exact word, but what she said means this exact word) consensus.

Dr. Feynman is probably still spinning in his grave.

Michael Jankowski
October 22, 2019 10:11 am

Neuendorf developed the methodology Oreskes used in 2017…Oreskes didn’t have any lack-of-peer-review complaints then.

Pretty sure Neuendorf knows when her methodology is done incorrectly by others. Oreskes is putting faith that her backers will be in great “denial.”

JCalvertN(UK)
October 22, 2019 7:07 pm

I wonder if “Burisma knew too”

LdB
October 22, 2019 8:14 pm

I find the whole concept like the greatest Conspiracy Theory ever put up by left wing mental cases.

So if you follow the logic, Oil companies deliberately set out to have adverse effects on the poor especially people of color. They haven’t stated whether the public burning the fossil fuels were in on the conspiracy or just unwitting instruments.

Whatever the case all the problems of people of color is the oil company and your fault and you should all pay and feel guilty 🙂

%d bloggers like this: