Image 01 Image 03

Congressmen Want to Unleash Feds on ExxonMobil

Congressmen Want to Unleash Feds on ExxonMobil

The crime? Climate Change denial!

Chinese hackers and Islamic terrorists are real global threats, but some congressmen are targeting climate change deniers instead!

Two representatives assert that ExxonMobil lied about climate change data in the same way cigarette companies hid the real hazards associated with smoking, and they are now threatening a federal investigation.

The two members of Congress wrote to Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, on Wednesday, saying they were concerned by the results of two separate investigations by Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, which found that ExxonMobil scientists confirmed fossil fuels were causing climate change decades ago, but publicly embarked on a campaign of denial.

“ExxonMobil’s apparent behavior is similar to cigarette companies that repeatedly denied harm from tobacco and spread uncertainty and misinformation to the public,” Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, both Democratic members of Congress from California, wrote. “We ask that the DoJ similarly investigate Exxon for organizing a sustained deception campaign disputing climate science and failing to disclose truthful information to investors and the public.”

They asked the Department of Justice to look into a number of statutes concerning Exxon’s actions, including truth in advertising and racketeering laws.

According to these representatives, ExxonMobile officals “hid” the knowledge that carbon dioxide causes climate change for over 27 years. Why? Because they had the temerity to do their own research, and use that data to try and get a competitive edge.

The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.

Documents were obtained from the Imperial Oil collection at Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and the Exxon Mobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History.

“We considered climate change in a number of operational and planning issues,” said Brian Flannery, who was Exxon’s in-house climate science advisor from 1980 to 2011. In a recent interview, he described the company’s internal effort to study the effects of global warming as a competitive necessity: “If you don’t do it, and your competitors do, you’re at a loss.”

The comparison between cigarette manufacturers and ExxonMobile is egregious. There is a big difference between the what the cigarette companies did, and the health consequences impacting unwarned Americans who were exposed to carcinogens, and what ExxonMobil did, which was to initiate its own research on a compound that has an extremely beneficial and necessary presence in our environment.

However, Lie (a Los Angeles representative) and DeSaulnier (from Contra Cost) are in Democratic Party “safe seats”, so they don’t have to worry about the adverse impact their inanity will have on issues important to their citizens (i.e., jobs and energy costs). They can safely carry the banner of eco-activism.

Interestingly, one of the most recent corporate decisions caused a great deal of progressive outrage: The company refused to add a climate change expert on the board of directors. When asked about the decision, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson responded:

We chose not to lose money on purpose.

The targeting of ExxonMobil is part of a new trend aimed at silencing those opposed to today’s climate change theology.

Lord Monckton, one of the leading scientists battling against the “settled science”, has just submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to determine how the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled to support climate change activism in specific legal cases before it. The 20-part request is quite sweeping in its scope and names a specific liberal activist (Philippe Sands QC) who may have exerted inappropriate influence of a judge (Robert Carnwath, Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill).

In France, the nation’s top weatherman was forced to take a “vacation” after publishing a book accusing the top climatologists of taking the world hostage. French citizens, unhappy with the suspension of the popular weather analyst, are petitioning to have him returned to his job.

As a climate change skeptic, I suppose I should be grateful that they aren’t burning us heretics at the stake…but then that would release carbon dioxide. I can only hope that the case against ExxonMobil goes up in smoke and our representatives begin to pay attention to true global security threats.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



…which found that ExxonMobil scientists confirmed fossil fuels were causing climate change decades ago, but publicly embarked on a campaign of denial.

Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times. Well, there you go.

Unbiased and fair….are two words you’ll never hear to describe these progressive sinkholes.

CO2 concentration may be related to overall global temperatures, but is not a driver.

“In general, does CO2 correlate with temperature in climate history?”

“The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate. “

” Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier, both Democratic members of Congress from California…”

Democrats from California???

Need we have to know anymore??

Lynch to get right on it?

The latter is assured…

“…Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times…found that ExxonMobil scientists confirmed fossil fuels were causing climate change…”

Really? Then they confirmed something that no climate scientist has been able to confirm. The best the climate scientists have done is to test theories of how CO2 may change the climate, but constructing climate models and then recording how those models (not the actual climate) respond to changes in the amount of virtual CO2 in their virtual atmospheres doesn’t prove or confirm anything. No climate scientist in the world has ever claimed to have demonstrated that the climate actually works the way the models indicate that it might. You will not find a single, peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal in which scientists claim to have demonstrated that the theory of AGW is correct.

Fun with graphs, showing how your can even torture a chart!

This, of course, is how the Mann “Hockey Stick” was obtained and proven a fraud!

I had hoped global warming was real because it would mean easier, quicker tanning, very important to a handsome dog like me.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 21, 2015 at 1:04 pm

If Exxon was worried about Mann-Made global warming in the 1970s, they appear to have been zigging while most other experts were zagging. The expert “consensus” was for global cooling or a new mini Ice Age.

The blog linked below has collected links to what looks like about 50 or so stories from the 1970s hyping “global cooling” or a new ice age. Scroll down to the bottom and there are two “Updates” of video clips from Walter Cronkite and Howard K. Smith warning about the coming Ice Age.

Then there’s the CIA intelligence report issued in 1974 warning about the potential for global unrest from disastrous food harvests caused by global cooling.

If I were looking at an investigation, given that ExxonMobile has quite likely done pretty extensive climate research, I’d look at their results and ask one simple question:

Do ExxonMobile’s results predict overall changes in temperature more or less accurately than previous models?

If their results show a better correlation than the “climate models” the AGW hypothesis (I’m not even dignifying it by calling it a “theory”, which implies they have significant supporting evidence) is based on, then I’d conclude that ExxonMobile researchers have a better understanding of “climate change” than AGW proponents.

Which if you think about it, is probably true.

“As a climate change skeptic, I suppose I should be grateful that they aren’t burning us heretics at the stake…but then that would release carbon dioxide.”

What a dilemma you are for the GW crowd. They would have to increase your carbon footprint in order to reduce it. Fraud really is tricky business.

ExxonMobil has a lot of scientists studying anything related to their business. OK, let’s suppose a few of them concluded that AGW was real and catastrophic, and reported their results up the line. Meanwhile a bunch of others were getting different results, and did not support those conclusions. Was the board obliged to accept the view of the one or two alarmists?! Even if we suppose that all their scientific staff signed on to the alarmist position, is the board obliged to take their conclusions as gospel?!

“I can only hope that the case against ExxonMobil goes up in smoke and our representatives begin to pay attention to true global security threats.”

Sometimes I think that the passion for stuff like microaggressions and AGW is intentionally encouraged in order to avoid thinking about the real problems.

Other times I just shake my head.

It appears that no staff member, founder, contributor or adviser of “Inside Climate” has ANY science degree. The founders appear to be a former Bloomberg financial person working with RENEWABLE and alternative energy financing and a former Rockefeller Foundation employee also working with renewable and alternative energy. Couldn’t possibly be any conflict of interest in their “investigation”.
From skimming the two articles, it appears there were not two independent investigations.
Comparing “Big Oil” to “Big Tobacco” and climate change to smoking has been used by Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt(Hansen’s hand picked replacement at NASA), and John Cook(perpetrator of the fraudulent 97% consensus “study”). The use by Inside Climate LAT and the Guardian(long time supporter of AGW and anti-Semites) indicates yet another manufactured story sent out to the usual henchmen.

There’s Exxon-Mobil on the one hand, and Marx-Lenin on the other. The latter two are in Congress.

What a state of affairs.

Then there’s Boehner-Ryan.

Two representatives assert that ExxonMobil lied about climate change data? Really?

Here is a real easy one to solve!

Obama lied about Obamacare time after time! It would not have passed congress with out the lies and payoffs.

I demand an investigation! Use the RICO laws to go after Obama and his criminal administration! He has used many other lies to severally damage our nation.

The next one would be his illegal immigration lies!

The article is pure propaganda!

“In the hockey stick controversy, the data and methods used in reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years have been disputed. Reconstructions have consistently shown that the rise in the instrumental temperature record of the past 150 years is not matched in earlier centuries, and the name “hockey stick graph” was coined for figures showing a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperatures.”

Noblesse Oblige | October 22, 2015 at 10:09 pm

Though the whackos in the WH are salivating over the prospect of a “tobacco-like case here,” the boys will lose this one, since there is nothing to see here. In the early 1980s we had the Charney Report and the first National Academy findings which set the climate sensitivity at between 1.5 and 4.5 deg C for doubling of CO2, where it remains today after another 30 years and untold billions of climate model research. Their case would go up in smoke the moment the attorneys trotted out these reports: “Poof. No conspiracy. Sorry boys. You lose, as you must on anything involving real science. But npt to worry yet. The faithful will still hold out hope for another tobacco miracle, but it will not happen here.