Exxon : Feeding The Crocodile

Had Exxon’s leadership been using their brains, they would have financed skeptical scientists who had been cut off Al Gore. Instead they fed the green crocodile and are now its next intended meal. They could have established a large body of evidence that government climatologists are political hacks, not scientists.

But the good news is that I have done their job for them. In the 1970’s, our top government climatologists were worried about global cooling, not global warming.



11 Jul 1974, Page 1 – at Newspapers.com


After the PDO shift in 1976, they began to detect warming and started shifting to the global cooling bandwagon but there was no agreement. Schneider said :

This is a game of values, not so much a game of science…. science can not give certain answers about the future.


31 Jan 1977, Page 10 – at Newspapers.com

MIT professor Jule Charney summed it up quite succinctly.

I don’t think we can predict climate now, and I wouldn’t trust anyone who said he could…. Anyone who says he can tell you more than a few days in advance what the weather is going to be, is practicing necromancy.


Lakeland Ledger – Google News Archive Search

There is overwhelming evidence that government funded climate scientists are incompetent political hacks who tamper with data to jack up their failed theories. Exxon needs to pull themselves together and mount an aggressive defense.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Exxon : Feeding The Crocodile

  1. Mark says:

    SG The oil companies are owned by the banks and the likes of Goldman sachs and co are set to get into a trillion dollar cap and trade nonsense, epic profits. The EU proved the whole enterprise is wide open to fraud too.

    A whole global economic model is being build, or has been, on green subsidies. Isn’t Tesla’s whole business model founded on subsidies?

    Meanwhile the place when they make these monstrous wind turbines, Baotou in China is a toxic wasteland where nothing will grow for a very long time.
    Destruction of China’s environment and use of slave labour just for smug inefficient expensive possibly harmful windfarms for the nations that can afford them.
    Australian energy bills from wind farms is astronomical!!

    Of course when you look at the history of Dr Pachauri.. you see where this is all going. It’s a UN commie slash corporate takeover. This global governance nonsense in paris is related to the TTIP and TTP amongst other agreements. The UN will tell us what we can and cant do (with politicians now resembling governors in the old Roman system of rule) and corporations will run all else. Small government big corporations and an overarching UN, an organisation that contains no democratically elected individuals.

    The nuts are going a step further. All electric devices will have to be smart meter compatible. They plan a global map of energy use, new legislation from the UN if they succeed will force manufactures to build RFID chips into electric devices so a profile can be made of your device use as each device will report to the smart meter and to the host server. This data is also worth a lot of money.
    This also relates to the internet of things, this is how devices will connect, to the smart meter.

    The UN\corporate end game on energy is accounting for every joule of energy and making maximum profits with no local government with enough power to change that.

    It’s not some “grand conspiracy theory” it’s technologically logical plus it makes the energy consumer an actual commodity. Plus the sales and marketing value of that data is immense. This denotes both control (UN) and profits (corporations).

  2. Mark says:

    oh yeah my point Doh.

    Exxon and co have not put up a good fight because they didn’t want to put up a good fight, not when their major share holders are the banks that intend to make vast fortunes on cap and trade and the like, and oil companies will always make massive profits, no oil tomorrow? no civilisation the day after that.

    • Mark, if I could try to crystalize what you’ve got there … in my view, the core issues are as follows.

      A company is first and foremost its shareholders, not its management. In the case of Exxon Mobil (herein “Exxon”), the shareholders are dominated by the Rockefeller family and their associates.

      Without my defending the morals of the Rockefeller family, when it comes to energy, it is a fact that they used to be very much in line with their management team at Exxon.

      What changed that family? Essentially, they were co-opted by more powerful forces that wanted a significant change.

      It may be that they initially believed the change was plausible and economically beneficial, though I think they believe that today. But they have their marching orders, and it would be very detrimental to them to ignore them.

      The management have not been privy to all these machinations, so they are still back on the old mindset of, “What is crazy will destroy us, and what is sane will preserve us.”

      The shareholders are trying to get them to drop that attitude, because they are convinced that the preservation of the company (and of them personally) depends on it. So there is a continuing fight, which is not exactly low-key.

      Each side needs the other too much to really go after them, even as they openly express contempt for them.

      I think the management is starting to come around to what is inevitable, but they intend to do whatever they think they can get away with in the meantime to harass and embarass those with whom they disagree.

      Mark Levin reported last night that Exxon used to give hugely to the Clinton foundation, but recently cut that off. Therefore, like clockwork, Hillary Clinton emerges to threaten them with destruction. Naturally, it has nothing to do with their values or beliefs, which haven’t changed a whit since the days when they were paying the protection money. It has solely to do with the fact that the money was cut off.

      Major changes are of course in the works at the global level, but they are based less on reducing the use of carboniferous energy, than on establishing a new pecking order for those who are involved with it, and with other valuable resources. The UN plays a role in fostering these changes, but their involvement is a matter of convenience for the decision makers. Much of what is in the works will be only loosely related to UN policies. That doesn’t make it any less evil OR any less globally centralized.

      Seven keys to understanding the present-day power structure are:

      1) That it has a global (transnational) character, and is positioned over the nations, even when it nominally operates at the national or sub-national level.

      2) That the very top of the pyramid comprises persons who go to great lengths to conceal the extent of their power.

      3) That their purpose in having so much secrecy is to acheive a high degree of stability for a massively complex (and thus inherently unstable) structure. (That’s where the concept of relating masonry to all of this comes from. What does a mason do? He establishes a structure, i.e. a specific relationship between elements … and then he cements it in place so it won’t change on its own.)

      4) That they will never achieve the level of stability that they seek, but they will wreak a lot of havoc on others in their efforts to do so.

      5) That since they are Satanic, in their minds it is of little consequence what effect their actions have on the average person; rather, they are obsessed with their grand scheme.

      6) That on a semi-conscious level, they know that their system is unstable and that they will not have a lot of time to develop it before facing the music. So they act aggressively and carelessly, changing direction often, and are more concerned with erecting something that is globally unified under a single authority, than with any specific plan.

      7) That, while individuals within the ranks of the structure may wield enormous power, they live in constant fear of the powers that they are in service to. This fear translates to hatred, which naturally is taken out on those below them, even though most of us had nothing to do with their ending up in that predicament.

      — RT

      • Don G says:

        I see the incentive of big oil as to promote AGW fears, since natural gas is the best alternative to coal. As for Exxon’s climate R&D, it would be malfeasance for a company with that kind of capital investment timelines to not do research in climate trends. Their research results should be kept secret for competition reasons.

  3. jmrsudbury says:

    You wrote, “After the PDO shift in 1976, they began to detect warming and started shifting to the global cooling…” That cooling word should be warning instead. Do you care? — John M Reynolds

    • John, actually, it should be “warming”, not “warning”. Do you care?

      ‘Yes, of course, Richard.’

      That’s what I thought! Now there’s a lesson in there, somewhere. Not saying the correction is not important; in this case, it is. That’s not the lesson you’re looking for.

      — RT

  4. Don G says:

    Al Gore is pushing a standard (aimed at Exxon) that “misleading statements” need to be invested by government. The NY AG agrees. Having moved this far outside of regular science, I hope that attorneys general across the country dive into investigating *every* statement made by the climate alarmists. Start with Al Gore, because 20 years later, his statements look misleading and thus look criminal!

  5. Password Protected says:

    I’d be surprised if Exxon had any special insight into climate impacts of increasing CO2. Even with NOAA tamperature data the difference between CO2 forced and natural changes is fuzzy. Mind you, if your on a witch hunt you’ll probably find a witch.

  6. SMS says:

    Most of us suffer from short memories; unfortunately.

    Exxon did give money and support to CEI and their skeptical views when Al Gore first came out with his atrocious lie of a film.

    As a major company doing business in the US Exxon does not want to alienate any portion of the purchasing public. The environmentalists found out about the support given by Exxon to CEI and began a very effective campaign to demonize them. Exxon responded by pulling it’s support to CEI. Why? Because it has a duty to its share holders to maximize profits and negative publicity impacts share price. Exxon had suffered significant negative publicity as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill and was willing to kowtow to the green gods at the snap of a finger.

    At the same time Exxon gave money to CEI it was also giving money to environmental groups. Why? Giving to environmental causes gives the public a false sense of “feeling good”. I doubt that Exxon really feels that environmentalists are anything other than a group of lying, deceitful acolytes of the green religion.

    I believe (no data to prove this belief) that most companies do not believe in CAGW but are unwilling to fight the environmentalists in the media. There is no way that the media will allow a fair fight and they know it; so why go there.

  7. Svend Ferdinandsen says:

    You could also ask why NY did not followed all the alarm and made some effort to protect the city against Sandy. It would be hard to say that they where not told about the eventual catastrophy.

  8. JustAnotherPerson says:

    Jule Charney…Professor at MIT, had AMS award named after him, obvious quack because he thinks that the non-linear complex chaotic system of climate is too difficult to model to be able to predict anything…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *