Fossil fuel companies believes in manmade global warming

Bergslagstroll · Sep 21, 2017

Or at least scientist and other people that is working for the oil industry have known about manmade global warming for decades and the risk it poses.

The oil industry’s knowledge of dangerous climate change stretches back to the 1960s, with unearthed documents showing that it was warned of “serious worldwide environmental changes” more than 45 years ago.

The Stanford Research Institute presented a report to the American Petroleum Institute (API) in 1968 that warned the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels could carry an array of harmful consequences for the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.

The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.

However, since then the company has invested heavily in highly polluting oil reserves and helped lobby against climate action, leading to accusations that Shell knew the grave risks of global warming but did not act accordingly.

Shell’s 28-minute film, called Climate of Concern, was made for public viewing, particularly in schools and universities. It warned of extreme weather, floods, famines and climate refugees as fossil fuel burning warmed the world. The serious warning was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their report to the United Nations at the end of 1990”, the film noted.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

The good thing is fossil fuel finally is being forced to be more open about emissions, low-carbon investments and lobbying.

BP has promised to be more open about its impact on climate change after 98% of shareholders backed a resolution calling for greater transparency at the fossil fuel group.

The company committed to publishing more information on a range of issues, including whether the value of its oil and gas reserves will be damaged by limits on carbon emissions; its investments in low-carbon technology; the scale of carbon dioxide emissions from its operations; the linking of executive pay to greenhouse gas reduction; and its lobbying on climate change.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/16/bp-promises-more-transparency-on-climate-issues

RabidAlpaca · Sep 21, 2017

This is one of the many reasons the fossil fuel companies should be heavily prosecuted. They've known for decades about the dangers of their products but intentionally defrauded the public for financial gain. It is no different than the tobacco companies hiring doctors to say smoking is good for you and producing fake studies, or the paint companies running a misinformation campaign saying that lead in their paint isn't harmful to humans. Unfortunately our political system is built around money, and those with money own our politicians, so the chance of any of them spending even one day in jail is exactly zero.

DaveFagan · Sep 21, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
This is one of the many reasons the fossil fuel companies should be heavily prosecuted. They've known for decades about the dangers of their products but intentionally defrauded the public for financial gain. It is no different than the tobacco companies hiring doctors to say smoking is good for you and producing fake studies, or the paint companies running a misinformation campaign saying that lead in their paint isn't harmful to humans. Unfortunately our political system is built around money, and those with money own our politicians, so the chance of any of them spending even one day in jail is exactly zero.

In 1910 when the US GDP was $813 million, John D. Rockefeller had $1 billion. Energy fueled the Industrial Revolution. Energy fueled the Wars, WW1 and WW11, and Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. The USA cozied up with the Saudi Arabian scumbags to protect the USDollar after defaulting on the Bretton Woods agreement. That was an outright confirmation of the USA/Energy link in policy and politics. Energy has run our Nation for a long time with the USA government a virtual partner with Big Energy and the banking that finances Big Energy. Wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria would seem to be to maintain control over rich pertr resources. What a coinky dink, eh? The USA collects great amounts of tax monies from Petro and the Petro Corporations collect it for them and deliver it. De facto partners, don't ya' know? The USA rejects the Paris accords on climate. What a surprise. What does Petro do with all the profits. If you have a ton or two of cash money, you are a bank or about to become a bank. Do Banks have power and influence? Does a cat have an ass? This Energy partnership with our government is what prevents addresssing the Global Warming issue effectively. It all goes back to taxation and Corporations collecting those taxes for its' partner, the good ol' USA.

longview · Sep 21, 2017

I am confident the oil companies have know that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for as long as anyone else.
I also suspect there is little agreement if the added CO2 is dangerous or even a net positive.
The oil companies will be the ones who sell us the solution for AGW, even if AGW is not a real issue.
There is a real issue with energy, and it's sustainability, The oil companies know this,
and plan to stay in business long after the oil becomes uneconomical to use for fuel.
People call these companies "oil companies" yet most of what they sell is not oil,
but finished fuel products.
I do not think it would be safe to say the people who run oil companies are nice people,
they likely are not.
What they are, are people who know how to stay in business, as has been demonstrated for over a century.

Jack Hays · Sep 21, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Or at least scientist and other people that is working for the oil industry have known about manmade global warming for decades and the risk it poses.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

The good thing is fossil fuel finally is being forced to be more open about emissions, low-carbon investments and lobbying.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/16/bp-promises-more-transparency-on-climate-issues

Exxon published all its research and participated actively in the IPCC. There's nothing new here.

[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

April 20, 2016 in Climate News.

Jack Hays · Sep 21, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
This is one of the many reasons the fossil fuel companies should be heavily prosecuted. They've known for decades about the dangers of their products but intentionally defrauded the public for financial gain. It is no different than the tobacco companies hiring doctors to say smoking is good for you and producing fake studies, or the paint companies running a misinformation campaign saying that lead in their paint isn't harmful to humans. Unfortunately our political system is built around money, and those with money own our politicians, so the chance of any of them spending even one day in jail is exactly zero.

You are uninformed. Exxon published all their research and participated actively in the IPCC.

[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

April 20, 2016 in Climate News.

RabidAlpaca · Sep 21, 2017

DaveFagan said:
In 1910 when the US GDP was $813 million, John D. Rockefeller had $1 billion. Energy fueled the Industrial Revolution. Energy fueled the Wars, WW1 and WW11, and Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. The USA cozied up with the Saudi Arabian scumbags to protect the USDollar after defaulting on the Bretton Woods agreement. That was an outright confirmation of the USA/Energy link in policy and politics. Energy has run our Nation for a long time with the USA government a virtual partner with Big Energy and the banking that finances Big Energy. Wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria would seem to be to maintain control over rich pertr resources. What a coinky dink, eh? The USA collects great amounts of tax monies from Petro and the Petro Corporations collect it for them and deliver it. De facto partners, don't ya' know? The USA rejects the Paris accords on climate. What a surprise. What does Petro do with all the profits. If you have a ton or two of cash money, you are a bank or about to become a bank. Do Banks have power and influence? Does a cat have an ass? This Energy partnership with our government is what prevents addresssing the Global Warming issue effectively. It all goes back to taxation and Corporations collecting those taxes for its' partner, the good ol' USA.

I find it certifiably insane that we love oil so much we'll cozy up with Saudi Arabia, the country that intentionally exports radical islamic terrorism more than any nation on earth and directly and intentionally planned and carried out 9/11. Yet Saudi Arabia are our close allies and Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with 9/11, we've been at war with for 16 years.

flogger · Sep 21, 2017

I find it certifiably insane that we love oil so much we'll cozy up with Saudi Arabia, the country that intentionally exports radical islamic terrorism more than any nation on earth and directly and intentionally planned and carried out 9/11. Yet Saudi Arabia are our close allies and Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with 9/11, we've been at war with for 16 years.

I'm pretty sure Bush's advisors told him early on that he couldn't attack the real 9/11 culprit, not just because of the oil but because it has Mecca in it too.

This would have effectively put the US at war with the entire Islamic world for decades to come. Afghanistan wasn't really working out and Bush still needed a big pile of dead Muslims somewhere to present to the angry but gullible US electorate or he wouldn't get his second term. Iraq was the perfect patsy so it got chosen. The rest is history

Jack Hays · Sep 21, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
I find it certifiably insane that we love oil so much we'll cozy up with Saudi Arabia, the country that intentionally exports radical islamic terrorism more than any nation on earth and directly and intentionally planned and carried out 9/11. Yet Saudi Arabia are our close allies and Afghanistan, which had nothing to do with 9/11, we've been at war with for 16 years.

flogger said:
I'm pretty sure Bush's advisors told him early on that he couldn't attack the real 9/11 culprit, not just because of the oil but because it has Mecca in it too.

This would have effectively put the US at war with the entire Islamic world for decades to come. Afghanistan wasn't really working out and Bush still needed a big pile of dead Muslims somewhere to present to the angry but gullible US electorate or he wouldn't get his second term. Iraq was the perfect patsy so it got chosen. The rest is history

The government of Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/11. The government of Afghanistan provided refuge for bin Laden.

DaveFagan · Sep 21, 2017

Jack Hays said:
The government of Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with 9/11. The government of Afghanistan provided refuge for bin Laden.

Your record is stuck in the same groove. Check the NeoCon propaganda manual for updates. 28 pages. Mullah Omar said he would turn over OBL for trial if evidence was presented that he was an active participant. No evidence presented. A very profitable war, for corporate Amerika, ensued. In the short version, there is more evidence of Saudi complicity in 9/11 than OBL complicity in 9/11. There was also $50,000 dollars from Mahmud of Pakistani ISI to the perps. Wait for it. Pakistan was hiding OBL. Ring around the rosy, don't ya' know?
/

countryboy · Sep 21, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
Fossil fuel companies believes in manmade global warming

Or at least scientist and other people that is working for the oil industry have known about manmade global warming for decades and the risk it poses.

The good thing is fossil fuel finally is being forced to be more open about emissions, low-carbon investments and lobbying.

That's some top-notch grammar you've got going on there. :lamo

Lord of Planar · Sep 21, 2017

Jack Hays said:
You are uninformed. Exxon published all their research and participated actively in the IPCC.

[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

April 20, 2016 in Climate News.

What do you expect?

He believes The Guardian!

Jack Hays · Sep 21, 2017

DaveFagan said:
Your record is stuck in the same groove. Check the NeoCon propaganda manual for updates. 28 pages. Mullah Omar said he would turn over OBL for trial if evidence was presented that he was an active participant. No evidence presented. A very profitable war, for corporate Amerika, ensued. In the short version, there is more evidence of Saudi complicity in 9/11 than OBL complicity in 9/11. There was also $50,000 dollars from Mahmud of Pakistani ISI to the perps. Wait for it. Pakistan was hiding OBL. Ring around the rosy, don't ya' know?
/

Mullah Omar's offer was a fraudulent dodge, and known to be so. It was properly ignored.

DaveFagan · Sep 21, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Mullah Omar's offer was a fraudulent dodge, and known to be so. It was properly ignored.

You're right, he made the offer. It was never tested for fraudulence. Some ignoramus in the CIA may have stated it was a fraud. A fraud declaring a fraud. Get real.
/

Jack Hays · Sep 21, 2017

DaveFagan said:
You're right, he made the offer. It was never tested for fraudulence. Some ignoramus in the CIA may have stated it was a fraud. A fraud declaring a fraud. Get real.
/

It was known to be a fraudulent ploy.

Bergslagstroll · Sep 22, 2017

RabidAlpaca said:
This is one of the many reasons the fossil fuel companies should be heavily prosecuted. They've known for decades about the dangers of their products but intentionally defrauded the public for financial gain. It is no different than the tobacco companies hiring doctors to say smoking is good for you and producing fake studies, or the paint companies running a misinformation campaign saying that lead in their paint isn't harmful to humans. Unfortunately our political system is built around money, and those with money own our politicians, so the chance of any of them spending even one day in jail is exactly zero.

The influence of big business and money over politics and our societies both in USA and here in Europe is a big reason for not more have been done to reduce manmade global warming. It was also for example the reason why USA allowed lead paint decades after it was banned in Europe.

So, it can therefore be important that the focus also is more and more on the economical aspect of fossil fuel. For example, the trial in New York their Exxon is sued for defrauding investors. You also have increased talk and concern of the carbon bubble, that both the competition from renewables and environmental concern will lead to that a lot of fossil fuel assets will not be extracted. That you even have the French fossil fuel company Total calculating a cost of C02 into its business decisions.

Total executives believe renewables will grow fast—"It’s clear they will grow very fast," said Total Vice President Gérard Moutet—and that the relative value of oil and gas will decrease but not disappear for the foreseeable future. They also believe a carbon price is inevitable.

"We believe strongly that emission of CO2 will have a cost, and it must have a cost," Moutet said.

So the company's strategy has been to factor a carbon price—€25 per ton of CO2 ($27.40)—into business decisions as if the price exists today.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...-paris-to-deflate-carbon-bubble/#6debe7827078

While the influence of big business over our societies also leads to that those companies can make huge profits while everyone must pay the cost. Like for example energy subsidies is trillions of dollars if you include the negative effect of fossil fuel that the fossil fuel companies don’t have to pay for.

IMF Survey : Counting the Cost of Energy Subsidies

Or how over 500,000 American kids have elevated levels of lead in their blood.

HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune.com

Bergslagstroll · Sep 22, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Exxon published all its research and participated actively in the IPCC. There's nothing new here.

[h=1]The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared[/h]If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

April 20, 2016 in Climate News.

The case is about this.

Exxon documents turned over to New York investigators during the probe show the company used "secret, internal figures" that were lower than numbers publicly disclosed to investors from 2010 to 2014, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office said in the filing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...n-eric-schneiderman-climate-change/102418492/

That fraud is not covered by free speech.

Also, even if you link claim is true that it’s a lot of uncertainty in Exxon’s own research why then spend millions on question global warming? Also it's seem instead be a case of executives not wanting to listen to their own scientists because it would hurt their profits.

Exxon employed scientists who researched climate change and shared that information with company executives as early as the 1970s, according to reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times earlier this fall. The company subsequently spent millions on campaigns to question the science behind global warming, according to the reports.

Exxon Mobil Climate Change: New York Launches Probe | Time.com

Also, people that deny manmade global warming like to claim that IPCC is a big scam. So, it’s interesting that you claim that Exxon have particpated in IPCC. That it’s show IPCC credibility is so strong that even the fossil fuel companies want to participate in IPCC.

Jack Hays · Sep 22, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
The case is about this.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...n-eric-schneiderman-climate-change/102418492/

That fraud is not covered by free speech.

Also, even if you link claim is true that it’s a lot of uncertainty in Exxon’s own research why then spend millions on question global warming? Also it's seem instead be a case of executives not wanting to listen to their own scientists because it would hurt their profits.

Exxon Mobil Climate Change: New York Launches Probe | Time.com

Also, people that deny manmade global warming like to claim that IPCC is a big scam. So, it’s interesting that you claim that Exxon have particpated in IPCC. That it’s show IPCC credibility is so strong that even the fossil fuel companies want to participate in IPCC.

The NY AG has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and defeated in court.

[h=1]#ExxonKnew and Schneiderman get hoisted by their own petard[/h]Schneiderman Continues Media Strategy in Court Hearing with Meaningless “Bombshell” Claim by Katie Brown, PhD New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office attempted once again to manufacture an email controversy, proclaiming in a letter that Exxon had refused “to comply in good faith with OAG’s investigative subpoena dated November 4, 2015,” and characterizing it as…

March 22, 2017 in Climate News.

Bergslagstroll · Sep 23, 2017

Jack Hays said:
The NY AG has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and defeated in court.

[h=1]#ExxonKnew and Schneiderman get hoisted by their own petard[/h]Schneiderman Continues Media Strategy in Court Hearing with Meaningless “Bombshell” Claim by Katie Brown, PhD New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office attempted once again to manufacture an email controversy, proclaiming in a letter that Exxon had refused “to comply in good faith with OAG’s investigative subpoena dated November 4, 2015,” and characterizing it as…

March 22, 2017 in Climate News.

The NY AG have already in another case been successful in forcing more disclosure from another fossil fuel company.

Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest private sector coal company, has agreed to make more robust disclosures to its investors about the financial risks it faces from future government policies and regulations related to climate change and other environmental issues that could reduce demand for its product.

The coal giant’s concessions came in response to a two-year investigation by the New York attorney general that found that Peabody had not been forthright with investors and regulators about threats to its business that the company projected in private.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/...r-disclosures-of-financial-risks.html?mcubz=3
.
While at the same time it’s good that you have fossil fuel companies like Norwegian Statoil that openly acknowledge manmade global warming.

We believe a low CO2 footprint is a competitive advantage, providing us with attractive business opportunities in a transition to a lower emission economy.

Statoil acknowledges the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) scientific consensus of the influence human activities have on inducing climate change. Statoil aims to be a part of a global energy transformation and continue to turn natural resources into energy for people and progress for society.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

This also show one of many weaknesses the argument of denying manmade global warming have. That even fossil fuel companies acknowledge manmade global warming and IPCC. That if manmade global warming was a big scam like some denyers like to claim, why wouldn’t the fossil fuel companies with their waste resource be able to support and accomplish an alternative theory instead of supporting the scientific consensus? That the people that deny manmade global warming can’t even agree on if global warming is happening.

Jack Hays · Sep 23, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
The NY AG have already in another case been successful in forcing more disclosure from another fossil fuel company.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/...r-disclosures-of-financial-risks.html?mcubz=3
.
While at the same time it’s good that you have fossil fuel companies like Norwegian Statoil that openly acknowledge manmade global warming.

https://www.statoil.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

This also show one of many weaknesses the argument of denying manmade global warming have. That even fossil fuel companies acknowledge manmade global warming and IPCC. That if manmade global warming was a big scam like some denyers like to claim, why wouldn’t the fossil fuel companies with their waste resource be able to support and accomplish an alternative theory instead of supporting the scientific consensus? That the people that deny manmade global warming can’t even agree on if global warming is happening.

I can do this for as long as necessary.

[h=1]Documents show Eric Schneiderman’s #ExxonKnew coalition crumbling from within[/h]Press release from E&E Legal: For Immediate Release: September 22, 2016 AS AGS’ RICO CAMPAIGN MISFIRES, RE-AIMS, SCHNEIDERMAN SEEKS TO SAVE FACE, DOCUMENTS SUGGEST FOIA REQUESTS LED AT LEAST ONE AG TO ABANDON SCHNEIDERMAN COALITION Washington, D.C. — Newly released emails from two different states and obtained by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) offer further insight into…

September 23, 2016 in Climate ugliness.

Media_Truth · Sep 24, 2017

flogger said:
I'm pretty sure Bush's advisors told him early on that he couldn't attack the real 9/11 culprit, not just because of the oil but because it has Mecca in it too.

This would have effectively put the US at war with the entire Islamic world for decades to come. Afghanistan wasn't really working out and Bush still needed a big pile of dead Muslims somewhere to present to the angry but gullible US electorate or he wouldn't get his second term. Iraq was the perfect patsy so it got chosen. The rest is history

$6 Trillion dollars later... That's not history - we'll live with that a long time...

Lord of Planar · Sep 24, 2017

flogger said:
I'm pretty sure Bush's advisors told him early on that he couldn't attack the real 9/11 culprit, not just because of the oil but because it has Mecca in it too.

This would have effectively put the US at war with the entire Islamic world for decades to come. Afghanistan wasn't really working out and Bush still needed a big pile of dead Muslims somewhere to present to the angry but gullible US electorate or he wouldn't get his second term. Iraq was the perfect patsy so it got chosen. The rest is history

I personally think that we should have told the middle east that if they didn't clean house of their terrorists, that we would bomb Mecca.

Bergslagstroll · Sep 24, 2017

Jack Hays said:
I can do this for as long as necessary.

[h=1]Documents show Eric Schneiderman’s #ExxonKnew coalition crumbling from within[/h]Press release from E&E Legal: For Immediate Release: September 22, 2016 AS AGS’ RICO CAMPAIGN MISFIRES, RE-AIMS, SCHNEIDERMAN SEEKS TO SAVE FACE, DOCUMENTS SUGGEST FOIA REQUESTS LED AT LEAST ONE AG TO ABANDON SCHNEIDERMAN COALITION Washington, D.C. — Newly released emails from two different states and obtained by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) offer further insight into…

September 23, 2016 in Climate ugliness.

It can be good to remember that Exxon Mobil now acknowledge manmade global warming.

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

Our position | ExxonMobil

While you for example have this study that show that have been a big discrepancy between their own scientific findings and their communication to the public in the past.

They found that Exxon’s climate change studies, published from 1977 to 2014, were in line with the scientific thinking of the time. Some 80 percent of the company’s research and internal communications acknowledged that climate change was real and was caused by humans.

But 80 percent of Exxon’s statements to the broader public, which reached a much larger audience, expressed doubt about climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?mcubz=1

Your source isn’t credibility take for example it has an entire section about ”climategate”, a fake scandal. This is another example of the weakness of the argument against manmade global warming. That it would be no need for creating such fake scandals if it existed real evidence against manmade global warming. My link is to Wikipedia, but the article is full of links so it easy to check up the facts about the fake scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-6committees-15

Bergslagstroll · Sep 24, 2017

Media_Truth said:
$6 Trillion dollars later... That's not history - we'll live with that a long time...

Yes, and we have lived with the problems that west dependence of cheap oil from the Middle East causes for a long time. For example, western countries support of the overthrow of the democratic Iranian government in the 1950’s, that lead to the brutal Shah regime supported by western countries. The first oil crisis and after that the Iran revolution. The Gulf War, 9/11, the Iraq war and now ISIS.

Also after decades of close relationship with western countries Saudi Arabia is still one of the world’s most brutal and fundamentalist regime.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/saudi-arabia

There the people that with peaceful means try to work for freedom, democracy and secularism get horrific punishment.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/18/raif-badawi-saudi-arabia-blogger

While the western countries continue to support the regime and sell weapons to them. Their USA even have military bases in Saudi Arabia.

You can also look at “tough talking” Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia there he didn’t dare to criticize the regime for their gross violation of human rights, their global support of fundamentalism or the countries connection to terrorism.

Or how the British government doesn’t want to release a report about UK-based Islamist groups, there according to critics is because it could implicate and upset Saudi Arabia, just like another report have done.

Saudi Arabia has 'clear link' to UK extremism, report says - BBC News

Jack Hays · Sep 24, 2017

Bergslagstroll said:
It can be good to remember that Exxon Mobil now acknowledge manmade global warming.

Our position | ExxonMobil

While you for example have this study that show that have been a big discrepancy between their own scientific findings and their communication to the public in the past.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-study.html?mcubz=1

Your source isn’t credibility take for example it has an entire section about ”climategate”, a fake scandal. This is another example of the weakness of the argument against manmade global warming. That it would be no need for creating such fake scandals if it existed real evidence against manmade global warming. My link is to Wikipedia, but the article is full of links so it easy to check up the facts about the fake scandal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-6committees-15

Exxon's position has not changed. And Climategate was (and remains) a real scandal, whitewashing notwithstanding.

Fossil fuel companies believes in manmade global warming

Bergslagstroll

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

Jack Hays

Traveler

RabidAlpaca

Engineer

flogger

Jack Hays

Traveler

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

countryboy

Lord of Planar

Jack Hays

Traveler

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

Jack Hays

Traveler

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

Jack Hays

Traveler

Bergslagstroll

Jack Hays

Traveler

Media_Truth

Lord of Planar

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

Jack Hays

Traveler