“Big Oil vs The World”: BBC Exposé Fails (Episode I)

from MasterResource

By Richard W. Fulmer — September 19, 2022

Episode 1 of BBC’s Big Oil vs The World is a polished, emotional, lawyer-like brief for one side of a multi-sided, complex issue. But in the final analysis, the BBC case is long on agenda and feelings and short on facts, balance, and proper context. The documentary is slick propaganda that accuses oil companies of producing slick propaganda.

With its documentary Big Oil vs The World, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has added its voice to the chorus accusing the petroleum industry in general, and ExxonMobil in particular, of misleading the public and slowing the global response to climate change. The three-part documentary (DenialDoubt, and Delay) was produced in cooperation with PBS, which ran its version on Frontline under the title The Power of Big Oil in April and May of this year.

While watching Episode 1 of the BBC’s film, I was reminded of the 2002 movie The Bourne Identity. In the story, the CIA had a global phalanx of assassins sitting by their phones waiting for orders. I imagined actual CIA operatives watching the show longingly saying to themselves, “If only.”

According to Big Oil vs The World, the petroleum industry is as all-powerful as was Bourne’s CIA. The documentary relentlessly pounds the theme home. We learn, for example, that ExxonMobil’s occasional newspaper advertisements controlled the opinion of a public that was, by the way, regularly exposed to stories and opinions of climatological doom from every conceivable media outlet. We also learn that the oil industry dominated the United States Senate.

In 1997, for example, the Senate unanimously (95 to 0) passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which declared that it would not sign off on a Kyoto treaty that put the United States at an economic disadvantage. The documentary describes industry lobbying efforts in support of the resolution, implying that, but for those efforts, the resolution would have failed. However, the idea that the oil business had every Senator from every state – even those states with little or no oil reserves – in its pocket is pure Bourne-level fantasy.

Senators were concerned that the Kyoto Protocol would exempt developing countries from emission reductions, as, in fact, it did. During an interview for the documentary, former Vice President Al Gore pointed out that global politics dictated that Kyoto could not have been enacted if developing nations were not exempted. He argued that developed nations had, up to that point, produced the lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions and should be responsible for the reductions.

But what is fair is not necessarily effective. As U.S. lawmakers feared, the exemption created incentives for companies in developed nations to offshore emission-intensive industries to developing nations – a fact not mentioned in the video. Nor did the BBC bother to report that labor unions also backed the resolution. Labor’s support may partially explain the Clinton White House’s failure to oppose Byrd-Hagel.

During his interview with the BBC, former Senator Chuck Hagel – one of the Resolution’s co-sponsors – claims that industry lobbyists lied to him. The interviewer then asks, “If they had held their hands up then and said, ‘Yes, this is real,’ could it have been different?” Hagel replied,

Oh, absolutely. It would have changed everything. I think that it would have changed the average citizen’s appreciation of climate change, and mine. Of course. It would have put the United States and the whole world on a different track. And today we would have been so much further ahead than we are. It’s cost this country and it’s cost the world.

Is it really true that the oil companies deceived Hagel, blocking a new energy and political reality? Would inexpensive and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels have been discovered were it not for Big Oil? Did Big Oil really have the power to suppress research into alternative energies during the quarter-century that elapsed since the resolution was passed? Would the average citizen gladly have shelled out trillions in taxes and higher energy prices if the oil companies had backed the Kyoto Protocol? Hardly.

Al Gore’s stark summation for Episode 1 is revealing:

I think that it’s the moral equivalent of a war crime. I think that it is in many ways the most serious crime of the post-World War II era. The consequences of what they have done are almost unimaginable.

Note that Gore isn’t condemning the Senate for unanimously passing Byrd-Hagel, nor the automotive industry nor the labor unions for supporting it. Gore is not condemning his own administration for failing to oppose the resolution. He is condemning the petroleum industry, following the BBC’s narrative that Big Oil is pulling all the strings. Like the documentary itself, Gore’s accusation does little to enlighten and much to inflame.

Putting ExxonMobil on Trial

Part of the case against ExxonMobil, the video’s main target, is that the company began researching the greenhouse effect in the late 1970s (the “global cooling” and Peak Oil era), and its scientists found cause for concern. When the bottom dropped out of the oil market in 1982, though, the company cut back on its research program and sold off its research into solar power and lithium batteries.

During the downturn, in fact, Exxon was hemorrhaging money and desperately worked to staunch the flow. Not only did it lay off thousands of employees, it sold both Exxon Nuclear and Reliance Electric Company in 1986. Moreover, its earlier abortive attempts to diversify had taught it that it needed to concentrate on what it knew – oil, gas, and chemicals. Thus in 1981 the company closed Exxon Office Systems and, in the 2000s, it sold off its retail gas stations.

Ed Garvey was one of the young scientists Exxon brought on board in 1978 to do climate research. During his interview with the BBC, he stated:

It’s heartbreaking to me. I saw all that potential… to really solve the problem…. Had Exxon chosen to pick up the ball then and begin to lead, the discussions would have been about how to do it. We had solar scientists doing research. We had lithium battery chemists doing research. Think of how important these sciences are to the world currently. Parts of the world are going to suffer enormously, unnecessarily so and for something that we could have done something about. Not doing anything for decades, that… that’s just squandered time and we’re going to pay for it.

Again, the theme of the all-powerful oil industry. Without Exxon, nothing could happen; with it, everything could be solved. Yet earlier in the documentary, Garvey had stated that, rather than shutting down their lithium battery and solar research, Exxon had sold them. The research did not stop; it was transferred to companies with more expertise in those fields than Exxon had or could realistically ever hope to have. That’s a good thing.

Disaster Movies

Throughout the documentary, videos of natural disasters – drought, floods, hurricanes, forest fires – appear on the screen. While the scenes are typically presented without comment, their placement implies that each was the result of global warming. The BBC was wise not to make the claim explicit. As Dr. James Hansen stated in his 1988 Congressional testimony, “It is not possible to blame a specific heatwave/drought on the greenhouse effect.” That was true then and it’s true today.

Simply showing the film clips left out key facts. For example, the videos of the 2018 California forest fires provided horrifying images but no context. The California “Camp Fire,” the deadliest and most destructive in the state’s history, was sparked by faulty equipment owned by Pacific Gas and Electric.

Winds, a large buildup of dead trees, and warm weather all made the wildfires worse. Global warming, natural or not, may well have contributed; the vast number of dead trees was, in part, a result of droughts during the 2010s. On the other hand, as NPR reports, “environmental laws prevent [the state’s forests] from being thinned or logged.”

Climate has and always will change, and anticipation, adaptation and resiliency are needed. That includes updating our forestry management practices for weather extremes.

Tit-for-Tat

The documentary discussed the Global Climate Coalition, an industry PR organization, at length. In 1996, the GCC published The IPCC: Institutionalized “Scientific Cleansing”, a report that accused Dr. Benjamin Santer – the convening lead author of Chapter 8, “Detection of Climate Change and Attributions of Causes,” in the IPCC’s second assessment report – of altering the text after the other contributors had signed off on it. Although Santer’s fellow authors supported him, editorials across the U.S. repeated and amplified the charge.

BBC’s documentary focused on the word “cleansing,” which appeared in the title as well as in the body as follows:

The changes quite clearly have the obvious political purpose of cleansing important information that would lead policy makers and the public to be very cautious, if not skeptical, about blaming human activities for climate change over the past century.

Dr. Santer’s response:

I had grandparents who were ‘cleansed’ because of their religion in the Second World War. People were being cleansed because of their religion in Bosnia…. This attack on individuals, on their integrity, decency, honesty involved high personal cost.

Santer had every reason to be outraged at the language used. Ironically, though, the documentary quickly switches to climate activist and investigator, Kert Davies, who launches a similar personal attack on Lee Raymond:

In the mid-90s, after he becomes chairman of the board of Exxon, Lee Raymond is an ardent denier.

The term “denier” – used throughout the video – evokes the phrase “Holocaust denier,” and it first appeared in print in 1995, one year before the GCC’s paper appeared.

Davies is followed by Professor Martin Hoffert, an Exxon Climate Consultant from 1981 to 1987, who characterized statements in Lee Raymond’s 1996 article, “Climate Change: Don’t Ignore the Facts,” as “evil.”

What were Raymond’s statements that sparked the condemnation? That the “scientific evidence remains inconclusive”–and cutting back on fossil-fuel usage would have “ominous economic implications.” Raymond’s article also argued that “we must understand it better” before we take “precipitous, poorly considered action on climate change” that “could inflict severe economic damage.”

While scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming is far more widely accepted today than it was in 1996, Raymond’s warnings were prophetic. Governments around the world – in the politically-driven need to “do something” – grasped at readily available but impractical alternatives to fossil fuels that only made the problem worse:

Climate policy has also shifted oil production, mineral mining, and energy-intensive industries to countries with dismal environmental records. “Emit more elsewhere” policies do nothing to ease climate change. And the EU’s refusal to produce its own natural gas has made it dependent on a militant Russia that is now using its leverage for extortion.

Early in the documentary, a scientist states that, in the 1970s, fossil fuels provided 85% of the world’s energy. By 2019, after the expenditure of scarce resources and trillions of dollars, that portion had dropped to 84%. Switching from fossil fuels is technically, economically, politically, and diplomatically difficult. Nothing that Big Oil could have done, or can do, will change that fact. Energy density and reliability are what they are.

Grand Fog or Obvious Truth?

The BBC also interviewed John Passacantando, founder and executive director of Ozone Action from 1992 to 2000, and executive director of Greenpeace from 2000 to 2008. During the interview, he took aim at the GCC document Communications Program, published on July 11, 1995:

This is the strategy of the grand fog. This is a plan from the PR firm E. Bruce Harrison after [the UN Convention on Climate Change in] Berlin.

Reading from the document:

Prepared for the Global Climate Coalition, July 11, 1995. Third party recruitment and op-ed placement will continue although with a new emphasis on economists.

No longer reading:

There are firms that they can pay who will say, you know, ‘solving global warming will cost lots of jobs, there will be higher energy costs.’ This is the next layer of fog.

Yet, as we have learned – and as the BBC neglected to report – the costs have been very high indeed. The UK/EU energy crisis that began prior to the Russian invasion from a “wind drought” is an important data point.

Conclusion

Episode 1 of BBC’s Big Oil vs The World is a polished, emotional, lawyer-like brief for one side of a multi-sided, complex issue. The film is well directed. Its melancholy background music effectively sets the mood; its disaster film clips convey urgency; and its interviews reflect remorse, despair, and anger.

But in the final analysis, the BBC case is long on agenda and feelings and short on facts, balance, and proper context. The documentary is slick propaganda that accuses oil companies of producing slick propaganda.

Part II tomorrow and Part III Wednesday will review the two remaining BBC episodes.

_________________________________

Richard W. Fulmer is the coauthor (with Robert L. Bradley Jr.) of Energy: The Master Resource (Kendall-Hunt: 2004) and the author of numerous articles, book reviews, and blog posts in the classical-liberal tradition. 

For other posts on the same subject (with Robert Bradley Jr.), see:

5 10 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

58 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 19, 2022 10:18 am

The root problem (at least in America) is the Obama EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” which demonized CO2 as a pollutant — which of course it is not. Even the EPA’s own IG (Inspector General) report said this about the interval EPA review process … “This review did not meet all OMB requirements for peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA’s response were not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an EPA employee.” Does anyone know if that “not publicly reported” report ever became public? What are they hiding?

Oldseadog
September 19, 2022 10:21 am

” …… short on facts, balance and proper context.”
No change there, then.

Richard Page
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 19, 2022 10:38 am

It’s somewhat like a film that states: “based on true events” where only the names of the lead characters connect the film to reality. BBC at it’s finest, making stuff up wholesale to suit their minority, extremist viewpoint.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 12:25 pm

Instead of docu-dramas, they are doctored-dramas.

Jack Frost
September 19, 2022 10:33 am

A perfect example of why I do not pay the TV licence fee, as it funds the BBC. I refuse to watch or listen to the Beeb and will not support it.
I suggest everyone who complains about the BBC do the same. Don’t pay the TV tax and starve the BBC of funds.

Redge
Reply to  Jack Frost
September 19, 2022 10:54 am

I suggest everyone who complains about the BBC do the same. Don’t pay the TV tax and starve the BBC of funds.

Sadly, those of us who think are in the minority.

We can only hope the Tories follow through on their promise to reform/ abolish the license fee

Richard Page
Reply to  Redge
September 19, 2022 12:08 pm

Does anyone know what has happened with Nadine Dorries’ charter review of the BBC? Apart from it’s supposed launch, I can’t find any information on progress or what has been done, or even when/if it’s due to be released.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 3:22 pm

Nadine Dorries is no longer in the Cabinet. Hopefully her successor will continue the review

Richard Page
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 19, 2022 3:56 pm

That much I was aware of but I don’t know what happened to the review, I hope it doesn’t get shuffled into the long grass as well. Nadine Dorries’ replacement is Michelle Donelan btw, in case you missed it (which I did, I have no idea who she is or what she’s done).

Last edited 7 days ago by Richard Page
Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 4:09 pm

OK. In 2019, Michelle Donelan stated that (reference the licence fee) “the unfair tax should be abolished” and started an online petition to stop the ending of free tv licences. She has also complained about the salaries paid to BBC executives and presenters. It could get interesting, hopefully.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 3:23 pm

As she is no longer minister it will likely disappear altogether, as hopefully will her online harms bill. It remains to be seen what the new incumbent will press for, if anything.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Redge
September 20, 2022 2:05 am

The BBC’s viewership is in long-term and apparently irreversible decline, especially among the young.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1333888/bbc-news-decline-in-viewers-netflix-bbc-crisis-tv-licence-fee

Gerry, England
Reply to  Graemethecat
September 22, 2022 4:44 am

They are struggling to deal with on-demand services for which no licence is required and the young are the top group that use those services. And short of a subscription model, there is nothing they can do about that. They won’t go subscription as they fear the huge drop in income. Copying such as the German model of adding the tax to your local tax is immoral as there are people who do not have a TV.

Tom Halla
September 19, 2022 10:37 am

This is the old Stalinist “wreckers” excuse for their programs not working. Their enlightened central planning would have resulted in the Radiant Future, if not for malign interference.

jeffery P
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 19, 2022 2:53 pm

The “wreckers,” yes. If only the wreckers would get out of the way…

These people seriously believe that if only the deniers would quit obstructing progress then their utopian world would come to be.

September 19, 2022 10:46 am

Do you have any understanding of the amount of federal and private grants to “climate change” pushers vs grants to rational studies?

Chris R
Reply to  Linda Perruso
September 19, 2022 2:30 pm

Linda,

Rather a large discrepancy. The late U.S. Senator John McCain sent a rather threatening letter to, I believe, ExxonMobil where he charged over a 10-year period, Exxon sent funding totaling $19 million dollars to skeptical scientists. Less than years later, the U.S. budget set aside $1.9 billion in FY 2005 for “climate change research”, and another $3.6 billion for climate change adaptation. In ONE year.

September 19, 2022 11:10 am

Regarding PBS Frontline’s “The Power of Big Oil” Part 1, I covered the fatal faults with that program’s “crooked skeptic climate scientists” accusation and the core promulgators of that accusation here. WUWT reproduced my GelbspanFiles blog post here. I have not yet seen this ‘new’ BBC version, but my educated guess is that it is little more than a regurgitated version of the Frontline program. These program share a producer, Jane McMullen.

Last edited 8 days ago by Russell Cook
Pauleta
September 19, 2022 11:10 am

So, any news when the BBC will stop using anything derived from oil? If I am not mistaken there are no bootleg refineries and alternative oil.

Anytime soon?

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Pauleta
September 19, 2022 3:27 pm

It hasn’t stopped sending reporters to every part of the globe and shows no sign of stopping. Including flyng environment reporters to remote locations to report on the damage caused by flying

Richard Page
Reply to  Pauleta
September 19, 2022 4:18 pm

I did hear that the BBC intends, in the next few years, to move its news and current affairs department out of the UK and base it in USA, where they will have adverts during the broadcasts. So much for ‘British’ Broadcasting Corporation and nice to see what they’re spending the UK licence fee on.

Peta of Newark
September 19, 2022 11:11 am

The BBC produces such stuff for 3 reasons:

It is what folks nowadays want:

  1. It portrays ‘bad guys‘ and thus makes the viewer feel better about themselves in that they may become ‘Superman’, Indiana Jones or James T Kirk
  2. It portrays poor little people being downtrodden, onto which they can ‘feel sorry for’ and thereafter signal virtue by claiming they want to help these poor suffering little people. IOW It makes them feel superior
  3. It is thus ‘Opium for the masses‘ – Government recognises that and encourages BBC to make ever more. It stops The People from thinking for themselves and acting appropriately.

Other Opiods endorsed by Government are also Sugar (carbohydrate food as endorsed by doctors everywhere) and also Alcohol. Insanely cheap considering inflation and historic prices despite the huuuuuge Tax Take

Mix all those things together as happens every early evening in the UK, add an epic and over-powerful bureaucracy (which causes stress so that The People turn to The Opium as a matter of course) plus grotesquely over-priced legal services, and you finish up with a passive, frightened and brainwashed population that will agree with anything you suggest. Mencken’s hobgoblins.

Just on the off chance someone didn’t catch the TV News or the totally dysfunction early evening Soap Operas, they can Read All About It in the Grauniad.

There is No Escape and you Will Comply.

fretslider
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 19, 2022 1:30 pm

The BBC tells people what they want

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 19, 2022 2:15 pm

It’s even better than that. The Beeb’s blaming “Big Oil” for
a crime that it is actually doing- harming people with a scam-
when in fact “Big Oil” is supplying useful & necessary energy
& is guilty of no crime at all. It’s a win-win-win for The Beeb:

1) It reinforces the legitimacy of the CAGW scam of the impending
disaster from rising CO2.

2) It villainizes “Big Oil” & its useful & necessary 24/7 solar
products- the very life blood of the world’s prosperity- a
competitor of the useless & expensive solar & wind.

3) They’re now altruistic “super heroes” for exposing this “scam” &
saving people from the disastrous consequences of not mitigating
a CO2 increase.

The Beeb has shown the tactic of blaming others for the crime(s) you
yourself are guilty of is very effective!

jeffery P
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 19, 2022 2:54 pm

What people want this? Not the proles.

Dave Yaussy
September 19, 2022 11:14 am

“Big Oil”, in the form of publicly-traded majors, is only a fraction of “Big State Oil” entities, like Saudi Aramco and the Russian state oil companies, who escape all censure.

The most frustrating part of all of this, for me, is that all these people decrying Exxon’s “deception” have known all this for years, and continue to use huge amounts of petroleum and petroleum products. They are addicts who gladly pay drug pushers for their fix, and then rage against the cartels that transport drugs.

I don’t understand why that hypocrisy isn’t more obvious to those with even a smidgen of interest in climate change.

David Dibbell
September 19, 2022 11:27 am

SHAME on you big oil companies for producing an affordable supply of reliable hydrocarbon fuels from natural deposits! SHAME, I say! /s

There is another way to look at the background of all this.
#NASA_Knew

Richard Page
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 19, 2022 12:15 pm

Al Gore started his fortune in cattle, then made $100 million selling his tv station for Qatari oil money.
#AlGore_knew

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 12:28 pm

I thought the Gore family fortune started with tobacco farming.

Mr.
Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2022 2:16 pm

Yeah, with young Albert as a divinity student.
Had his sights on becoming a televangelist.
Then discovered that the global warming religion was much more lucrative than shilling for the father son and holy ghost.

And the rest they say, is . . .

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
September 19, 2022 4:12 pm

I didn’t know that, wonder how much of it Al Gore got?

OweninGA
Reply to  Richard Page
September 19, 2022 5:01 pm

understand his grades precluded finishing.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2022 7:15 pm

And Occidental PETROLEUM…

Slowroll
Reply to  David Dibbell
September 20, 2022 9:56 am

I have often said that we should thank the oil companies for investing huge amounts of capital in high financial risk operations that provide us with a comfortable lifestyle unimaginable 150 years ago.

BallBounces
September 19, 2022 11:33 am

I’m going to have to pull out On The Beach to cheer up…

ResourceGuy
September 19, 2022 11:55 am

Next up is the UFO episode you have all been waiting for with the same experts providing key interviews.

Graham
September 19, 2022 12:30 pm

The first fact that the BBC have got completely wrong is that CO2 is not a pollutant .
Every man ,woman and child on this planet exhale CO2 so that would mean that we are all polluters .
CO2 is the gas of life with rising levels helping to feed the world by increasing crop yields ..
These films and documentaries are straight out propaganda to make people feel guilty and then to vote for Green policies which can only make their populations poorer .
It is well past the time that politicians pushing climate change to get elected into power were made to do as they say.
They want all of us to cut back on our fossil fuel use but they gallivant around the world using unlimited fuel .
Europe might wake up when the energy crisis hits this coming northern winter .
Inflation is running rampant but the central banks in many countries are lying to the people .
How can they predict 5 to 8 % inflation when shipping has increased 600%, nitrogen fertilizer 350%,Potassium and phosphate fertilizers have also had large increases .
Fuel in most countries has risen 30 to 40% .
There will be flow on effects

Philo
Reply to  Graham
September 19, 2022 1:41 pm

It seems about time for every available resource should be called out to start suing for false advertisements or lying about reported, implied facts.

After that, start campaigns on facebook, at al delivering the truth on their support for false memes.

Old Retired Guy
September 19, 2022 12:30 pm

As to noting jobs will disappear, in Germany, the economic engine of the EU, it is starting to hit the fan. And that engine funds a lot of transfer payments to other EU members. It ain’t going to be pretty over there.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Old Retired Guy
September 19, 2022 1:07 pm

Bingo!!

Rud Istvan
September 19, 2022 12:38 pm

Back in the day (before Climategate), their stuff was ‘credible’. Most predictions hadn’t yet failed, IPCC was still taken seriously, and the ‘scientists’ had not yet been exposed as a conniving cabal.
But it is 15 years later. Even this obviously biased propaganda is pretty thin gruel now for anyone paying the least bit of attention.
Renewables have reached grid penetrations that are dangerous. Texas Feb 2021 was but a foreshadowing of the EU winter coming soon, with insufficient natgas and a quarter of France’s nuclear fleet down for corrosion repairs. Joe Bastardi says the outlook is for this winter in Europe to be like 2010-11 (bitter cold). Maybe that will be enough to break the greenie hex.

Gyan1
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 19, 2022 10:18 pm

True believers are so out of touch with reality than no amount of suffering or real world evidence can penetrate their psychotic delusion. They will blame big oil for the failure of green insanity.

Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
September 19, 2022 1:12 pm

Propagandists gonna propagandize.

Philo
Reply to  Paul Hurley (aka PaulH)
September 19, 2022 1:43 pm

So, propagandize back with real,proven facts.

Chris Hanley
September 19, 2022 2:05 pm

I wonder how many viewers have been convinced by Episode 1 of Big Oil vs The World to stop using their products? 😆

H. D. Hoese
September 19, 2022 2:25 pm

Quite independent of petroleum back in the 80s we knew the problem with ‘renewables.’ Back in the 60s we knew who to blame, someday they will tax the air we breathe. A few placed blame about behavior problems due to moon shots. Similar views now, exponentially.

niceguy
September 19, 2022 5:37 pm

Russia allegedly spent 300 millions $ in over a decade to influence elections in Western countries.
A senate runoff in the US can have more that 300 millions spent…

But somehow Russia can shape the whole Western public opinion.

MarkW
Reply to  niceguy
September 19, 2022 6:01 pm

1) It’s a lot more than $300 million.
2) It’s been going on for more like 60 years.
3) It’s amazing how much influence you can get when you control organizations that shape opinion.
4) Very few run-offs cost $300 million. High profile in huge states, maybe. The vast majority cost several orders of magnitude less.

Are you really this desperate to provide cover for Putin?

Bob
September 19, 2022 6:51 pm

The BBC and PBS are liars and cheats, we can’t allow them to go on with their deceitful and immoral ways.

Tom Abbott
September 19, 2022 7:34 pm

All I can say is Exxon did a damn good job. They managed to hide all the evidence of human-caused catastrophic global warming/climate change, and nobody has been able to find it to this very day. That’s what you call a first-class coverup.

Those poor alarmist climate scientsts all fervently searching for evidence of CAGW and they don’t know that Exxon hid it all! Their only alternative is to pretend they have found the evidence in hopes of fooling the public some more and keeping the grant money coming in.

Exxon_Knew_And hid it!

RickWill
September 19, 2022 8:02 pm

Of course. It would have put the United States and the whole world on a different track. And today we would have been so much further ahead than we are. It’s cost this country and it’s cost the world.

Instead it was left to Germany to lead the way. Enough wind and solar capacity to meet all their electricity needs for one hour over, perhaps, five days in a year. The rest of the time they rely on imported gas to keep the place going. Now that Russia has turned off the gas valve, Germany is in deep poo.

So USA could have been in the deep poo sooner. Consider Germany the canary in the coal mine or possibly the raptor in the turbine blades.

In the process of Germany leading they way, they have given up their ability to manufacture to China. They design behemoth EVs, built outside the country, that only the government can afford to operate by taking hard earned from the broad population.

Lee L
Reply to  RickWill
September 20, 2022 6:25 am

Now you have put your finger on the REAL danger from Eurozealots’ commitment to so called renewables.
The attempted replacement of nat gas and coal fired electricity with non nuclear gizmos like solar panels and wind turbines, will result in a MASSIVE TRANSFER of western currency to China rather than to western economies.

Tom.1
September 19, 2022 8:52 pm

The climate change movement needs a whipping boy to conceal the technological and economic folly that they are pushing,

September 19, 2022 9:42 pm

Lee Raymond was one of the best leaders that Exxon ever had. He was highly intelligent, insisted on excellence, and told the truth – including the fact that the Climate Change scare was false nonsense. Unlike so many oil executives today, he never paid lip service to the phony green climate scam and thus he did his duty to his shareholders and the public.
Many oil executives have a significant education in the Earth Sciences – they KNOW the
climate scam is false, but they won’t risk their salaries and pensions to speak out against the wishes of their woke Boards, most of whom are uneducated dolts from the financial community. The last oil CEO who spoke Climate truth in Calgary was Jim Buckee at Talisman – Jim had a PhD in Astrophysics and was ten times smarter than the popular press, who tried to intimidate him on the Climate issue.
It was fun to go to Talisman’s AGM and watch Jim slice and dice the local press in question period.
Oil execs who publicly support the Climate and Carbon Tax scams are traitors to their shareholders AND the public – and we will see the human disaster that unfolds this winter, especially in Europe, as energy shortages that were accurately predicted 20 years ago hit hard and Excess Winter Deaths soar.

.

Rod Evans
September 20, 2022 12:31 am

The time must be fast approaching when the fossil fuel industry make a meaningful stand for sane energy policies and life providing affordable availability of fuel.
One of the most effective push back policies they could collectively adopt, is a condition of supply contract.
The contract would state the supply of fossil fuel to the user is conditional on the user’s consent for the supply to be ongoing. The supply contract would require the user to sign a statement that they support the ongoing extraction and use of fossil fuel.
Any user not wishing to sign would be taken off the list of users and left to find alternative energy options.
The BBC would be told they either sign up to sane available energy options, or they get disconnected.
Let us see how long the BBC and its ‘international’ correspondent’s survive without actually supporting the use of fossil fuels.
The big fossil fuel industry players could also ask the UN to sign a wish to be supplied contract. It would be interesting to see how they would square their current anti fossil fuel stance, with their desire for ongoing aviation fuel supply to fly around the world at tax payers expense??

Graham
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 20, 2022 2:14 pm

Well said Rod ,
Our communist Prime Minister Jacinda from New Zealand is attending the UN in New York at this moment after attending the Queens funeral in London .
Thats OK if you were not trying your best to stuff your country going carbon zero and trying to restrict farming which provides the majority of New Zealands over seas funds .
Surely Carbon Zero means not using fossil fuel flying around the world .
She could have zoomed or gone by sailing ship as my great grand parents sailed from the UK to New Zealand in the 1840s and 1860s.
Every person boarding a jet plane should be asked to sign a statement that they are happy to suport ongoing fossil fuel use and extraction .
Those that refused to sign would be asked to find some other way of getting to their destination.
It might at least make some people think .
But not very likely .

PCman999
September 20, 2022 7:22 pm

It is maddening how the green mob spews such rivers of hate and defamation against a basic, necessary, and core industry such as the petro industry and no one calls them out.

The rhetoric is so hyperbolic that Hitler and Goebbels must somehow be the ghost writers for such relentless propaganda.

Reply to  PCman999
September 21, 2022 2:44 am

PC: Actually, it was Lenin.

THE ROAD TO VENEZUELA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP!

The dysfunctional policies of Climate and Covid were never about the environment or health – they were intended to cripple the economy. Almost every country had the same plan!

Do we really think all Western governments’ advisors are that obtuse? IT’S THE PLAN!

Lenin wrote: https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin
[excerpts]
1 “People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.”
2 “It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.”
3 “Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
4 “The goal of socialism is communism.”
5 “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
6 “Trust is good, but control is better.”
7 “As an ultimate objective, “peace” simply means communist world control.”

THE LIBERALS’ COVERT GREEN PLAN FOR CANADA – POVERTY AND DICTATORSHIP
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/the-liberals-covert-green-plan-for-canada-poverty-and-dictatorship/

WHAT THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS REALLY ABOUT — AND IT’S NOT THE CLIMATE
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/20/what-the-green-new-deal-is-really-about-and-its-not-the-climate/

%d bloggers like this: