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

From MasterResource

By Richard W. Fulmer 

Perhaps the most compelling testimony in Episode 2 of the BBC’s documentary Big Oil vs The World comes from Bill Heins, a geoscientist who worked with ExxonMobil from 2001 to 2019:

I’m disappointed, I’m angry, I’m disenchanted at the duplicity exhibited by ExxonMobil to say one thing internally and to say a different thing with a much different consequence in the political arena.

The implication is that the same people within ExxonMobil were saying one thing internally and another publicly. But the story Heins tells suggests that it was different people who were saying different things:

Shortly after I joined ExxonMobil, there was a presentation by Art Green, who was the chief geoscientist of ExxonMobil Exploration. All the scientific staff were there. Art got up and gave his presentation about how ice core records were unreliable and here were temperature excursions in the past when there couldn’t possibly be any human influence. And here’s all these reasons why we really don’t have to worry about climate change. He didn’t clearly state it, but the subtext appeared to be that his bosses didn’t believe that climate change was something to be concerned about. There was kind of stunned silence in the room. And ExxonMobil is a very polite place. In that context the reaction was remarkable. Translated into modern parlance, the reaction was, “Are you f***ing nuts?”

To Heins, the scientist, the facts are clear:

[W]e put CO2 in the atmosphere and that makes the temperature go up and that’s bad. Everybody understands that completely, clearly.

Exxon executives either disagreed or, more likely, believed that there was more to the story. Heins’s one-dimensional thinking is reflected in the opening sequence of each episode in the BBC’s three-part documentary. We hear a disembodied voice ask, “What do you do when you learn the product you make threatens the entire planet?”

As a rhetorical device, this question is brilliant. As a reflection of reality, it’s simplistic and incorrect. A more accurate, less biased, less loaded question is: “What do you do when you know your products are keeping billions of people comfortable, productive, and even alive but might have negative aggregate effects on the planet in terms of human betterment sometime in the future?” The short answer is: “You keep making the product until there are viable alternatives, otherwise countless people will be made uncomfortable, unproductive, even killed.”

Oil companies (and others) have tried to find practical substitutes for oil and natural gas but failed, as could have been predicted. First, established companies rarely create and develop the technologies that will replace their products; their capital, both physical and human, is rooted in the existing tried-and-true technology, not the experimental new. Second, no one else has yet been able to find a practical substitute, with the politically unacceptable exception of nuclear power.

The acceptable alternatives that have been found – wind turbines, solar farms, biomass, biofuels, utility-sized batteries – are either unreliable, unscalable, more polluting than fossil fuels, or consume more energy to make than they produce. They are certainly noncompetitive, requiring special government favor.

This is a vast problem, but just how vast isn’t widely appreciated. In 2015, global carbon emissions were around five tons per person per year. Annual per capita emissions vary greatly by country: from less than one ton in Haiti to about 17 tons in the U.S. According to the IPCC, global per capita emissions must drop to Haitian levels by 2075 “just to stabilize human influences on the climate.” (Steven E. Koonin, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, p. 213). Yet this drop must occur even as demand for energy is sharply rising, especially in China, India, Central and South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

But the oil companies’ alleged crime was not just that they continued producing and selling their products. They also advertised the benefits of their products and cast doubt on the alternatives that governments around the world were pushing. Worse, their advertising highlighted uncertainties in the science that, in a one-dimensional world, would dictate the need to stop pumping oil immediately.

Earlier this year, Robert Bradley Jr. and I reviewed the ExxonMobil ads that Harvard science history professors Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes identified as particularly egregious. We found that the ads were in accordance with the accepted science of the day and generally hold up well even now. But Heins doesn’t dispute that the ads were factual, he argues that they were misleading. Heins (reviewing a stack of ExxonMobil ads):

When I looked at those advertorials at the time, I didn’t take them to be that important…  So, this one about “unsettled science” is highlighting uncertainties or variabilities that are true but they’re not important to the issue. It’s not something that deflects us from the basic idea that more CO2 changes the climate in a bad way. They were sowing doubt. It was not just public posturing; it was truly casting aspersions on science.

Heins’s charge, and that of the BBC, is not that ExxonMobil lied, but that they misled the public by emphasizing the “wrong” truths, and they funded think tanks that also emphasized the wrong truths.

That ExxonMobil’s ads were technically factual is, of course, a low bar. As Benjamin Franklin observed, “Half the truth is often a great lie.” So, what about the part the company left out? What about the natural disasters that are so prominently featured in the BBC’s documentary? 

Doubling Down on Disaster

Like the first episode, Episode 2 presents a series of clips depicting horrific natural disasters. Viewers are told that the number of such events has been steadily growing. However, a review of the actual data reveals a far less alarming picture (the following comes from Koonin, pp. 130–43).

Tornadoes – The number of tornadoes in the U.S. has not increased over the last sixty years. What has increased is our ability to detect smaller and smaller storms. So, a chart showing all detected tornadoes since 1960 shows an alarming rising trend. If, however, we remove weaker (and less damaging) tornadoes from the charts and include only the high-intensity storms that were detectable throughout the entire reporting period, the rising trend completely disappears.

Hurricanes – Reports showing a sharp increase in the number of hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons typically use 1970 as their starting point. If, however, we expand the window back to, say, 1850, the recent increase is revealed to be simply part of a sixty-year cycle.

Rainfall – In the U.S., average annual precipitation has increased by about 0.6 percent per decade since 1900. In addition, during the last 40 years, the number of intense rainfall events has increased. Anthropogenic causality or natural, the good news is that prioritized flood management works against the alarmist narrative.

Drought – While California’s recent six-year drought is the worst since 1901, it is difficult to identify a long-term trend from the Palmer Drought Severity Index for the state over the last 120 years.

Wildfires – Satellite data for 2003–2015 shows a steady downward trend in the global area burned by fires. However, the “data also showed a significant increase in the intensity and reach of fires in the western United States.” These observations probably reflect a combination of improved firefighting equipment and techniques worldwide, with the U.S. West Coast experience reflecting warmer temperatures due to some combination of weather variations and anthropogenic climate change, and notoriously poor forestry management.

In short, extreme-weather-event frequency is far more nuanced than the BBC portrays, and it certainly does not accord with the unrelieved images of catastrophe depicted in its documentary.

Conclusion

The BBC’s claim that ExxonMobil misled the public doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A better case can be made that it is the BBC that is being misleading. First, it reported only part of the story. Yes, burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide warms the planet. But fossil fuels also keep most people in the world today alive and there are currently no alternatives that are both practical and politically acceptable. Moreover, there are benefits to increased atmospheric levels of CO2 and to the warmer, wetter world that the higher levels foster. For example, more carbon dioxide increases crop yields by raising the rate of photosynthesis and reducing the amount of water that plants lose through transpiration.

Second, it charged that ExxonMobil “knew.” But ExxonMobil is not a single entity. It has tens of thousands of employees who have a wide range of opinions. Yes, its scientists knew that carbon dioxide emissions were a potential problem. But company management also knew that there was little choice but to keep producing the fuels that power the world. Third, the BBC hyped extreme weather events without providing any context. Finally, the documentary offers a false choice by implying that we can quickly stop using fossil fuels without the loss of millions of lives.

_________________________________

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. 

This is the second installment of a three part series. Part I on BBC Episode I was yesterday; Part III BBC Episode III is tomorrow.

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

4.4 9 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

60 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
September 21, 2022 10:40 am

The BBC is pushing a narrative and that narrative states:

“[W]e put CO2 in the atmosphere and that makes the temperature go up and that’s bad. “

Job done.

Reply to  fretslider
September 21, 2022 11:04 am

Isn’t it bad, because too few people will die of cold, thus causing a catastrophic population explosion?

Spetzer86
Reply to  Curious George
September 21, 2022 11:23 am

It might be bad because if they can’t get rid of fossil fuels, not enough people will die of starvation. They’ve already made inroads in multiple countries about getting rid of nitrogen fertilizers. Then get rid of all ICE engines and see how well your modern farm works. I’m shocked Brandon hasn’t started running with the fertilizer story yet.

MarkW
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 21, 2022 11:52 am

He was going to. But then he forgot.

Tom Halla
September 21, 2022 10:42 am

Anything other than the greens catechism is heresy.

Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 11:00 am

1. ice core records were [are] unreliable [clearly showing that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle] and here [sic] were temperature excursions in the past when there couldn’t possibly be any human influence. And here’s all these reasons why we really don’t have to worry about climate change.

2.  “To Heins, the [mis-informed] scientist, the facts are clear:

[W]e put CO2 in the atmosphere and [there is no data proving] that [this] makes the temperature go up… “

3. “What do you do when you learn the product you make threatens the entire planet?” — As a rhetorical [propaganda] device, this question is brilliant.”

(Above 3 items edited to correct errors.)

4. its scientists knew that carbon dioxide emissions were a potential problem. 

Wrong. No scientist (one who draws conclusions from observations) could know that. There is no data indicating that CO2 emissions are a “problem.”

The scientists “knew” in the sense that we “know” that if there is intelligent life on another planet, it *is* going to attack us. (In other words, we do not know and it is, therefore, not reasonable to have all humans live in deep caves to increase the likelihood of the survival of the human race.)

MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 11:53 am

In the quote, the evidence that ice cores were unreliable was because they were showing temperature excursions that couldn’t be explained.

That’s hardly a “scientific” way to look at data.

Philo
Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2022 1:29 pm

It is the job of scientists to determine what caused the variations in the ice cores.
Since there is NO evidence that the ice cores are fraudulent in some way or improperly measured, the ice cores the ice core history is “the facts” we have to work with.

It’s a requirement for “every” scientist to work scientifically and not publish findings that aren’t supported by the evidence. To do so is simply “NOT Science). It is propaganda.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Philo
September 21, 2022 2:40 pm

You are correct. It is NOT science, but it is a constant flow of non-science put out by people who claim to be “scientists.” Most scientists don’t really know what science is.

John in Oz
Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2022 4:00 pm

Digging deeper to find the reason is hard work

They forget that:

Nature never breaks her own laws.
Leonardo da Vinci

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 2:36 pm

I like point 4 especially. There is no quantitative evidence that these (horror!) “emissions” do anything to the climate. They know that the leaders of this movement are blatant layers, but they sit on their hands, or say “Oh yes, it might be a serious danger” when they know there is nothing there. Exxon-Mobil is guilty of hiding this fact that they well know. Their game is simply “Let’s go along to get along.” I think it is criminal negligence for them to not inform the public about the scam nature of the AGW crowd’s constant repeat of false narratives in the face of empirical science.

Gerard O'Dowd
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 11:25 pm

With “scientists”’like Bill Heins on board it’s little wonder why XOM stock went no where for years.

If you don’t believe in the mission statement of the corporation, which happens to be your employer, signs your pay check every two weeks, provides you and your family a high standard of living, supplies the world with a critical commodity that supports the entire economy, then hey, pea brain, GTFO. Find employment elsewhere, jackass.

Jeff L
September 21, 2022 11:02 am

As an Exxon alum, 2 things to add:

1) I worked with Art Green in the early 90s – a very smart scientist with deep knowledge across a wide range of topics. That is how he ended up as chief geoscientist in one of the largest organizations in the world , whose success is predicated in understanding the natural world.

2) Do we know why Bill Heins left Exxon? It sounds like he has an axe to grind ; he does not sound like a rational scientific thinker that should be trusted above Art Green. But of course , he is a useful idiot for the BBC & getting clicks with alarmist drivel.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Jeff L
September 21, 2022 11:03 am

“Bill Heins … does not sound like a rational scientific thinker… .”

Amen.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Jeff L
September 21, 2022 12:40 pm

Heins’ viewpoint would certainly not have been in the majority in the 90’s….even today most of their scientists will say the models’ predictions are twice too high, and most of their engineers are strongly opposed to letting people starve and freeze to death when they have an economical drilling solution available …

Richard Page
Reply to  Jeff L
September 21, 2022 1:12 pm

If I read this correctly he was a geoscience researcher with Exxon Mobil from 2001-2015 then left to become Chief Geoscientist at Getech Group, a geological and geophysical consultancy company. I don’t think he has an axe to grind per se, other than possibly a bit disgruntled that his opinion was over-ridden by others with differing opinions.

janice baker
Reply to  Jeff L
September 21, 2022 1:13 pm

My father, now deceased, worked for Imperial Oil (the Canadian sub of esso/exxon) all his adult life. He was not a corporate lackey and was considered a brilliant engineer and geophysicist. He was very vocal in his critique of the “climate warming” narrative and almost apoplectic about some of the stuff coming out. He was of a very skeptical mind and while i am not in his league intellectually, i am proud to say i have inherited his skeptical attitude (on many issues). i have major doubts about that scientific meeting.

gdt
Reply to  Jeff L
September 21, 2022 7:44 pm

I’m also retired from Exxon. If Heins was a geoscientist then he must have missed the paleoclimate part of the studies. These clearly show that past CO2 was >1000 ppm, temperatures were under control and life on earth flourished. This one simple fact disproves the “climate crisis” hypothesis. Nothing else required.

ResourceGuy
September 21, 2022 11:10 am
Spetzer86
Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 21, 2022 11:27 am

Sounds like the SA power company is relying on additional RE to “improve” their supply situation. I don’t think that’s how RE works…

MarkW
Reply to  Spetzer86
September 21, 2022 11:56 am

SA is doing what most other communist countries have done. They are replacing the engineers who actually know how the systems work and how to maintain them, with party regulars who can relied on to give the answer that those in power want to hear.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2022 2:29 pm

“They are replacing the engineers who actually know how the systems work and how to maintain them, with party regulars who can (be) relied on to give the answer that those in power want to hear.”

Mark, that’s not limited to just communist countries. It is also SOP for any country ruled under a single-party system. In fact the current administration seems to be heading us fast in that direction, i.e. toward an oligarchy, with early implementation of that process. Eisenhower did warn us about that when he stated:”The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

John K. Sutherland
September 21, 2022 11:20 am

“What do you do when you learn the product you make threatens the entire planet?”

Response: Show me how it is threatening the planet. Show me the actual science.

If the premise is a lie, without scientific basis, Shut up. Move on.

If the premise has substantial validity, then you have two choices: A) throw your hands up in the air, stop everything you are doing, and die, you miserable SOB.
OR:
B) Examine the problem, bring the best science to bear on the problem as we have generally been doing for hundreds of years of such problems. Solve it. Move on.

That, is why we are not neck deep in horse manure today.

Robert B
Reply to  John K. Sutherland
September 21, 2022 9:32 pm

What does he mean by “learn”?

Slander and libel are rife. You can learn a lot about yourself from what people say. Very little of it will be true.

September 21, 2022 11:22 am

It will take a System Black, lasting maybe a week, for the penny to drop with some people, but not with the religious zealots at the BBC/Guardian, who will say that this proves the need for more wind/solar.

There needs to be a long march of sensible people through the institutions.

Gyan1
September 21, 2022 11:43 am

They are clearly violating their own editorial standards.

“In our journalism in particular, we seek to establish the truth and use the highest reporting standards to provide coverage that is fair and accurate.”

Despicable liars spreading false propaganda are their actual standards.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Gyan1
September 21, 2022 2:41 pm

So even their editorial standards are just propaganda.
Or, to paraphase a joke, if greenies didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all.

MarkW
September 21, 2022 11:50 am

The number of hurricanes recorded is also influenced by our increased ability to detect smaller and shorter lived storms.

paul
Reply to  MarkW
September 21, 2022 12:54 pm

& to slap a name on them asap. Gotta keep that tally of named storms up as much as possible, it makes for better asetics that is more inline with their fearmongering

Tom.1
September 21, 2022 12:03 pm

If your primary goal is shuttering the fossil fuel industry, then this is what you do. Greens hate oil, gas, and coal irrespective of any cost-benefit analysis.

tgasloli
Reply to  Tom.1
September 21, 2022 12:34 pm

And they invented the climate change fraud to achieve a preconceived unscientific goal.

If they were really concerned about the environment they would have cheered the heavily controlled coal fired boilers & the wide spread use of combined cycle natural gas turbines.

Instead they mislabeled CO2 a pollutant based on science fraud.

David Dibbell
September 21, 2022 12:52 pm

Quotes from this post’s conclusion:

Yes, burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide…”
Valid, confirmed. Obviously so.

“… and carbon dioxide warms the planet.”
Confirmed only in that it has a static radiative warming effect experienced at the surface looking toward space. But whether it ends up warming the planet is not confirmed at all. Because when you put the atmosphere into circulation as the working fluid of its own heat engine operation, you DO NOT KNOW that recent warming in the land and oceans can be reliably attributed to CO2’s GHG properties. And you DO NOT KNOW what to expect next year or the next century in respect to warming as emissions continue.

So my sense is that even in these well-written posts exposing the bias of the BBC and its sources, there is too much being given away to the opposing claims.

#NASA_Knew


 

fretslider
September 21, 2022 1:24 pm
Rud Istvan
September 21, 2022 2:38 pm

Just a ridicule. By ‘carbon’ BBC means CO2. carbon is a black solid. cO2 is an invisible gas. The molecular weight of carbon is 12 (plus a very small isotope fraction). The molecular weight of CO2 is 44. (2 oxygen at 16 is 32 plus 1 carbon at 12 is 44). So the BBC “five tons per person of carbon per year’ is wrong by 44/12= 3.7x exaggerated. But this series and the BBC was never about scientific accuracy.

Macha
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 21, 2022 3:01 pm

Well said Rud. One of my biggests gripes.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 21, 2022 4:54 pm

How will US citizens [or UK] vote if they knew that the “Greens” want us all to have the carbon footprint of current day Haitians? The BBC [and other MSM] have to keep lying to the masses – by both omission and comission.
Being anti-fossil fuels without a reliable alternative is immoral.

AndyHce
Reply to  Rud Istvan
September 21, 2022 10:40 pm

carbon is a black solid.

As in all those black diamonds?

Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 3:09 pm

WITH FOSSIL FUEL
comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 3:09 pm

WITHOUT FOSSIL FUEL
comment image

AndyHce
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 10:42 pm

think of all those oxen and horses put out of gainful employment!

Disputin
Reply to  AndyHce
September 22, 2022 3:28 am

But they are in gainful employment – as steaks!

MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 22, 2022 9:36 am

Can’t let them use oxen or horses. Too much methane production.

william Johnston
Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2022 7:06 pm

How much of that is offset by the natural fertilizer produced.

September 21, 2022 3:20 pm

Biased Brainwashing Cult: Never Knowingly Impartial. Even people who still watch the BBC no longer believe they are honest.

spren
September 21, 2022 3:30 pm

Stop with the nonsense that CO2 is bad. The actual science indicates CO2 only has a very minimal impact on increasing temperature. And since humans only contribute around 4% of the annual CO2 volumes in the atmosphere, any reductions to that 4% would have next to no impact whatsoever, other than destroying our economy and standard of living. What we need to reduce or eliminate are these mentally-unsound climate liars who are only dupes for the Marxists in the background.

Olen
September 21, 2022 4:11 pm

Where do they get off with thinking they can change Western Civilization without the consent of the people. One way is to replace the population with people who have no interest except for what they can get. Another is to destroy the economy and the people’s ability to resist.

How are they confident, by not having to satisfy the people for election purposes.

Oil companies are a business and the only purpose of business is to make money. Without that incentive there is no business and no energy.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Olen
September 21, 2022 5:07 pm

comment image

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 21, 2022 5:20 pm

I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it’s time America was run like a business.
Donald J. Trump

TRUMP! 2024


Last edited 13 days ago by Janice Moore
MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 22, 2022 9:40 am

The problem with that quote is what happens when the “rules of the game” are changed so that whatever the government wants this week is in complete opposition to actually making a profit.

I prefer something along the lines of people are allowed to do whatever they want, so long as they don’t take anything they haven’t earned and do no harm to others. This includes people who happen to own companies.

MarkW
Reply to  Olen
September 22, 2022 9:37 am

They also need to make sure that the population has been completely disarmed.

Richard W Fulmer
September 21, 2022 5:54 pm

This is what I originally wrote:
As a rhetorical device, this question is brilliant. As a reflection of reality, it’s ludicrous. A better, less biased, less loaded question is: “What do you do when you learn the product you make that is keeping billions of people alive might hurt the planet sometime in the future?” The short answer is: “You keep making the product until there are viable alternatives, otherwise millions of people will die.”

This is the revision from the Master Resource editor:
As a rhetorical device, this question is brilliant. As a reflection of reality, it’s simplistic and incorrect. A more accurate, less biased, less loaded question is: “What do you do when you know your products are keeping billions of people comfortable, productive, and even alive but might have negative aggregate effects on the planet in terms of human betterment sometime in the future?” The short answer is: “You keep making the product until there are viable alternatives, otherwise countless people will be made uncomfortable, unproductive, even killed.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard W Fulmer
September 21, 2022 9:09 pm

Your original version was better.

Next time, tell the editor that ALL changes must be approved by YOU.

How frustrating!

Thank you for taking the time to “talk” to us. 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 22, 2022 9:43 am

Short and pithy is almost always better than long and convoluted.

Edward Katz
September 21, 2022 5:57 pm

If there’s one reality that undermines the anti-fossil fuel crowd’s assertions, it’s the fact that until large-capacity storage batteries capable of powering entire homes and large buildings are developed, all these alternate energy producers like solar and wind are of strictly limited value because their output has to be used almost immediately and can’t be held in reserve. And that’s when they’re actually producing power in the first place. Somehow this actuality keeps escaping the environmentalists.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Edward Katz
September 22, 2022 6:16 am

Re batteries capable of powering large buildings,

Michael Kelly, former Prof of Technology,Cambridge University, F.R.S., and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering,and a former Chief Scientific Advisor notes that the £45m 100MW battery installed near Adelaide in 2018 would power the emergency wards (30% of the total wards) at Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge for 24 hours on a single charge. The current back up is two diesel generators which can run as long as fuel is available and cost £0.25m.

https://www.thegwpf.org>content>uploads>2022>03>Kelly-Net-Zero-Progress-Report.pdf

Zane
September 21, 2022 8:15 pm

Oil companies don’t ” make ” oil. They merely extract it.

If this ” scientist ” really did work for ExxonMobil, I think it’s time to sack their HR guy.

Peta of Newark
September 22, 2022 1:50 am

The BBC lives in its own Dream World = one that it itself created.
Its all fake, all fantasy, it’s all crap and it does your head in.

It is dysfunctional crap, aimed at brainwashing the populace into pacifying and stupefying them.

Hollywood set the pace, visiting a cinema has pretty well always been more addictive and destructive (physically as well as mentally) than any chemical drug you might name – except for maybe, Sugar

Which version:
The original w/John Lydon
The new version w/Public Enemy

The entire interweb is not far behind, except this time it is making people angry.
Previously mild mannered folks are now flat out trolls, angry just for the sake of it and because they can.
Then, censorship, insane moderation and ‘cancelling’ simply work to make folks even more worked up

None of this going well, none of it is working as intended and even worse, it’s trapped in its own self-sustaining positive feedback loop and nobody bar (let’s say by example) Jordan Petersen or Donald Trump have the guts or where-with-all to make a stand

I switched the TV off 20+ years ago because it was all dysfunctional gossip and trash even then, it wont be long before the interweb goes down the same pan.
Apart from mindless Electronic Dance Music 😀

Disputin
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 22, 2022 3:37 am

I got rid of my (black & white) TV thirty years ago. Although I did watch other people’s occasionally I haven’t really missed it.

Neo
September 22, 2022 12:16 pm

established companies rarely create and develop the technologies that will replace their products

Every 17 to 20 years, DuPont seems to find a new substitute to their refrigerant products.
Some say it always seems to align with the expiration of their patents.

Last edited 12 days ago by Neo
Richard W Fulmer
Reply to  Neo
September 22, 2022 5:20 pm

But they’re still in the chemical refrigerant business. Switching from one formula to another isn’t a huge leap and is certainly nothing like jumping from producing oil to producing batteries.

%d bloggers like this: