Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ExxonMobil and Common Sense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ExxonMobil and Common Sense

    The CEO of ExxonMobil came out strongly against both renewable energy and climate change at a recent shareholders meeting. It's about time that corporate America struck back against the nonsense being spouted by the Obama administration.

    Good for ExxonMobil.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/exxo...ney-on-purpose
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    Well, maybe they can pony-up a little cash to fund the people debunking that crap.
    Last I heard, the Global Whiners were getting 50 times the funding that the skeptics were.

    But I guess common sense in the Corporate world only goes so far.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • #3
      ^ Considering there are many in the "corporate world" drooling at prospects of profits to be made via scams that ACC/AGW makes possible

      Few in the "corporate world" that agree with ExxonMobil's position are willing to suffer PR and customer losses by stating such publicly, better to "drink the kool-aid" and play lip-service.

      Since most of the funding to "prove" ACC/AGW comes from guv'mint sources, the more essential strategy is to cut out that 'pork'.

      Comment


      • #4
        In the long run, Gorebal Warming will almost certainly be proven a fraud. It is the short term damage it can do that's a problem.

        From a corporate perspective they can weather that. From an individual perspective, we the people get screwed by Gorebal Warming.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
          Well, maybe they can pony-up a little cash to fund the people debunking that crap.
          Last I heard, the Global Whiners were getting 50 times the funding that the skeptics were.

          But I guess common sense in the Corporate world only goes so far.
          They do

          http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/...3/uyfvgytd.png

          Old data but I don't have time to do any research.

          Comment


          • #6
            Any thread that starts out Exxon Mobil (or any Big Oil) and common sense" is a meaningless proposition to begin with.

            Big Oil is not and never has been about common sense in any of it's many manifestations - they are about profit and only profit regardless of who gets screwed in the process.


            Big Oil are the robber barons of the 21st century.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Any thread that starts out Exxon Mobil (or any Big Oil) and common sense" is a meaningless proposition to begin with.

              Big Oil is not and never has been about common sense in any of it's many manifestations - they are about profit and only profit regardless of who gets screwed in the process.


              Big Oil are the robber barons of the 21st century.
              Exxon is far more sensible than the advocates of wind and solar are...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Any thread that starts out Exxon Mobil (or any Big Oil) and common sense" is a meaningless proposition to begin with.

                Big Oil is not and never has been about common sense in any of it's many manifestations - they are about profit and only profit regardless of who gets screwed in the process.


                Big Oil are the robber barons of the 21st century.
                Absolute nonsense and a waste of energy on your part.

                All companies are about profits. That's called capitalism.

                It's an excellent company that builds the economy and it does excellent work.

                And it and the other oil companies keep your car on the road, unless of course you don't own one.

                After your major false step on the Sterling case, your opinions are suspect for accuracy.

                In short, you're more full of it than a Christmas goose.

                And your self-serving comments against the Marine Corps should be withdrawn and apologized for as they were out of line and inaccurate.

                Sincerely,
                M
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Any thread that starts out Exxon Mobil (or any Big Oil) and common sense" is a meaningless proposition to begin with.

                  Big Oil is not and never has been about common sense in any of it's many manifestations - they are about profit and only profit regardless of who gets screwed in the process.


                  Big Oil are the robber barons of the 21st century.
                  Having been there a couple of times, one doesn't stay in business long if you aren't making profits. Not a fun way to learn basic economic lessons.

                  Could we at least try Big Petroleum, a more correct term for the resource they use. "Oil" is compound/molecule of many varied types and applications.

                  For that matter, try thinking in terms of "Hydro-Carbon Resources" for something even more accurate and inclusive. About 90%+ of "synthetic" or "man-made" products (plastics) are HCR or Petroleum by-products.

                  Anyone/entity that makes a profit is considered "robber baron" by those whom don't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    On a related note: For what was thrown away on the "stimulus" Obama did we could have financed 50 (1 per state) large nuclear power plants and now be on the cusp of true energy independence. But, the stupid, insane, and political prevailed and that didn't happen...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                      They do

                      http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/...3/uyfvgytd.png

                      Old data but I don't have time to do any research.
                      It doesn't take much time at all if you aren't a [email protected]
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Gorebots obsess over ExxonMobil almost as much as they do the Koch Brothers...
                      Climatic Change
                      February 2014, Volume 122, Issue 4, pp 681-694
                      Date: 21 Dec 2013

                      Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

                      Robert J. Brulle

                      This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

                      http://link.springer.com/article/10....584-013-1018-7

                      The total average annual income of 91 "CCCM" organizations was ~$900 million from 2003-2010. An average of $64 million per year of that total came from philanthropic foundations. About 5% of the $64M/yr came from Koch affiliated foundations and about 1% came from the ExxonMobil Foundation.

                      The CCCM's include the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Cato and just about every pro-business libertarian/conservative think tank in the US. While all of these organizations devote at least a fraction of their resources to protecting the US economy from Gorebots, greenhadists and enviromarxists, the only ones primarily focused on the AGW fraud are Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receive a whopping 2-3% of ~$64 million per year from as many as 140 different foundations.

                      The Natural Resources Defense Council is totally dedicated to the imposition of Enviromarxism in the USA and religiously devoted to the AGW myth. Their annual income ($100 million) is more than the combined income of the American Enterprise Institute ($45 million), Cato Institute ($29 million), Heartland Institute ($5) and Competitive Enterprise Institute ($6 million).

                      The Columbia Earth Institute (AKA Enviromarxism) has an annual budget of ~$130 million...
                      In the 21st century, the preeminent need of our economy and society is to solve the problem of global sustainability...

                      [...]

                      The problem with the modern university is that it is organized around disciplinary fields, like biology and economics, or professional skills, such as engineering and law. While public policy schools have brought together many fields to attempt to solve policy problems, and business schools have done the same in attempting to train business leaders, both lack the grounding in sciences and engineering needed to address the issues of global sustainability. What is needed is a new form of academic organization that is university-wide, with the mission of institutionalizing interaction among all of these fields to address the problems of global sustainability.

                      The Earth Institute is precisely that: a new form of academic institution that integrates the knowledge base of the 21st century university to address the problems of global sustainability. Its mission is to develop programs of research, education, outreach and practical application of knowledge to address the critical issue of global sustainability.

                      [...]

                      The Institute is not a school, and does not grant degrees, but has partnered with schools to create and in many cases manage educational programs. These educational programs include non-degree programs of adult and executive education, but they also include the following degree programs:
                      • Undergraduate major in Sustainable Development,
                      • PhD in Sustainable Development,
                      • MS in Sustainability Management,
                      • MPA in Environmental Science and Policy,
                      • MPA in Development Practice, and
                      • MA in Climate and Society


                      http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3743197

                      $130 million per year to teach liberal arts majors to sound "sciencey" when spouting Enviromarxist psychobabble.

                      The Fed's spend about $21 BILLION per year in their war against climate change...



                      $21 billion per year stolen from productive Americans and p!$$ed away by Enviromarxists on Gorebot research grants and freebies for [email protected]

                      While the billions spent by Enviromarxist terrorist groups (NRDC, WWF,,Grennpeace, Sierra Club, etc.), academia and government pushing the AGW fraud are at least an order of magnitude larger than CCCM spending, the cost of Enviromarxist regulations is at least 3 orders of magnitude (1,000 times) CCCM spending.
                      Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

                      The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ange-hysteria/

                      The Gorebots demonstrate even more mental deficiency when they babble on about ExxonMobil and the Koch Brothers than they do when they babble about the 97% consensus about a 95% failed hypothesis.

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I knew it was just a matter of time...

                        Okay Doc is here, time for all us amateurs to go home.
                        "Why is the Rum gone?"

                        -Captain Jack

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          Exxon is far more sensible than the advocates of wind and solar are...
                          Only up to a point. Remember that these are the same people who haven't built a new refinery in almost forty years despite massive increases in fossil fuel consumption. That sound intelligent or "common sense" to you?
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Only up to a point. Remember that these are the same people who haven't built a new refinery in almost forty years despite massive increases in fossil fuel consumption. That sound intelligent or "common sense" to you?
                            The later would make reasonable levels of sense depending on several factors:

                            First, would be environmental / regulatory. It might be simply too expensive to build a new US refinery because the government regulations make it too expensive.

                            Next would be efficiency. If the current refineries were upgraded and could produce more product then it might be unnecessary to build completely new ones.

                            Overseas competition. It might be cheaper to refine the raw oil overseas and ship the finished product to the US than ship raw oil for processing. This would be particularly true if the regulatory situation were severe or the cost of labor and energy abroad were much lower. The cost of shipping raw oil versus finished product might be higher too.

                            So, I can see reasons for that situation.

                            I know at one time about a decade ago, one of the energy companies was thinking about building a new refinery at Yuma Arizona to handle Venezuelan crude but that deal fell through on a combination of Mexican corruption, US government regulatory nightmares, and then Venezuelan instability.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Exactly.

                              Increased efficiency of modernized refineries also mean that existing plants can meet demand without excess capitol investment.

                              Straight from the stockholder report.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X