Skip to main content

There are some people you just can't believe, no matter what, because they can't stop lying:

The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

-- George W. Bush, June 17, 2004

Liars like to hang out with other liars, which is why Bush and  ExxonMobil are such good pals.  And, just like Bush, since ExxonMobil can't stop lying, and lying, and lying, you can't believe anything they say.

ExxonMobil's latest farce is to try to polish their image and shore up credibility with environmentalists.  Unbelievably, they think that changing their leadership from an unpleasant jackass to a slick, smiling, oily jackass will somehow convince people they've turned over a new leaf.

The New York Times reports:

If Rex W. Tillerson has his way, Exxon Mobil will no longer be the oil company that environmentalists love to hate.

Since taking over as Exxon's chairman three months ago from Lee R. Raymond, his abrasive predecessor who dismissed fears of global warming and branded environmental activists "extremists," Mr. Tillerson has gone out of his way to soften Exxon's public stance on climate change.

"We recognize that climate change is a serious issue," Mr. Tillerson said during a 50-minute interview last week, pointing to a recent company report that acknowledged the link between the consumption of fossil fuels and rising global temperatures. "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change."

[Emphasis mine.]

Wha...?  Does this mean that Exxon astroturf groups will have to re-write all their anti-climate change position papers?

No, wait!  Relax, folks!  Nothing has changed (except the climate).

Continued below the fold...

The New York Times article continues:

But despite the shift in style to a less adversarial tone, the substance of Exxon's position has not changed with the new chairman. The company said the recent report only clarified its long-held position on global warming. Indeed, Mr. Tillerson noted that he, like Mr. Raymond before him, remained convinced that there was "still significant uncertainty around all of the factors that affect climate change."

Of course.  Perpetuating the "climate change is a hoax" lie, (or "catapulting the propaganda", as Bush would say), is critical for Exxon to maintain that margin over other oil companies that are (supposedly) beginning to apply themselves to alternative energy technologies.  The part I've highlighted in bold says it all, really (again, from the NYT):

In contrast to rivals at BP and Royal Dutch Shell, which plan to invest billions of dollars in the next decade to develop renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, Mr. Tillerson sees Exxon's future as still firmly tied to oil and natural gas.

The answer to today's high prices? "More supplies." President Bush's reference to America's "addiction to oil"? "An unfortunate choice of words." Exxon's role in society? "A good business, and what we do brings good things to people."

Yes, he's slick, and frustratingly stubborn, an attitude representative of the whole company, according to the Greenpeace and Exxpose Exxon representatives quoted in the article.  In other words, when faced with reality:

[Exxon's] access to the world's top hydrocarbon deposits is more limited than ever. At Exxon, the problem is magnified by the company's size. Each year, its geologists must find huge amounts of oil and gas -- nearly 1.5 billion barrels -- just to replace the company's production of about 4 million barrels a day.

... Exxon just "digs [its] heels in", and sticks with its "what the hell, there's more out there" attitude, planning 22 new projects between now and 2009 (including drilling in Alaska's North Slope).  Even if there is less and less easily accessible oil in the world, if you have enough money, you can certainly get to it, or at least Exxon thinks so.

Finally, speaking of money, the NYT article puzzles over one thing Tillerson brags about:

[Tillerson] defended Exxon's record of investing in research for alternative fuels, citing a 10-year, $100 million contribution to the Global Climate and Energy Project [CGEP] at Stanford, which focuses on long-term technological research. "We are going to continue to use fossil fuels," he said. "We are looking for the fundamental changes, but that's decades away. The question is, What are we going to do in the meantime?"

Well, that's nice, Mr. Tillerman, but some of us are onto you guys.  Is that Exxon astroturf I smell? (GCEP's name is clever, but they are not doing climate science research.  Sure sounds nice and "environmental", though.)

So, ExxonMobil may have a new face at the helm, but they are no more environmentally friendly than before.  Just like Dubya, they insist on "staying the course".

And we all know what "staying the course" gets us.

(Adapted from The Next Hurrah.)

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:24 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You keep picking on these oil ... (16+ / 0-)

    ...companies and they're going to raise your gas prices. Be nice.

  •  But Still They Obfuscate (5+ / 0-)

    "We recognize that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors affecting climate change."

    One of the factors? How about the factor?  This has been, and is, their strategy to defeat any sensible regulation to address climate change.

    "What's in the name of lord, that I should fear; To bring my grievance to the public ear?" - The Crisis, January 13, 1777

    by TPaine on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:22:32 AM PST

    •  Exactly (10+ / 0-)

      Click the last "lying" link I posted way at the beginning.  Also, click the "astroturf" link for a list of Exxon bullshit front groups, i.e. groups they've paid to debunk climate change science.


      fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

      by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:26:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Two Choices (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenearth
      • Greenhouse gasses.
      • Sun heating up.

      Sun's the only significant input, no? If there's an insulating factor other than greenhouse gas, then it must be a giant plexiglass bubble around the planet.

      So what am I missing?

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:05:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SueDe

        You did forget the radiactive decay within the Earth itself that also accounts for a considerable amount of the Earth's heating, and is a natural part of the geologic process. We're not out of the most recent Ice Age yet. Human activity is contributing to global warming, but the warming trend IS a natural phenomenon.

        Note that I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist. What we don't know is exactly how much of this warming is due to the natural temperature fluctuation cycles that occur over the ages, and how much it is being hastened due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

        One of the things you do have to consider is that while the increasing greenhouse gases trap more heat coming up off the Earth's surface, they also reflect more of the heat coming from the Sun. It might not be a 1:1 ratio, but then again, we really don't know.

        What do I think? I think we need to do what we, as humans, can to minimize our impact. We're not going to stop global warming entirely, that will only occur once the planet has reached the peak of the current temperature cycle. Climate change is inevitable. The only thing we, as humans, can do is minimize our personal impact.

        Please, don't entertain some dream that switching to a non hydrocarbon-based energy system will somehow eliminate global warming. It will help, certainly, in all manner of ways. It would help the atmosphere return to a natural balanced level. It would allow us to break from the ridiculous dependency we have on questionable governments because they can provide us with the black lifeblood of our economy. It would lower pollution, thus lowering cancer and respiratory illness rates and increasing the general health level of people worldwide. It would do all this and more. What it would NOT do, however, is prevent the Earth from warming up. it would simply slow the process a little.

        The Earth will warm and cool in cycles regardless of what we do or do not do to stop it. Assuming humans are still around several hundred thousand years from now, there will no doubt be a lot of concern about lowering sea levels, milder weather patterns and harsher winters. Global cooling will become a hot issue and receive hours upon hours of endless debate. A few geologists and scientists will point out that the warming-cooling cycle is natural, and that the earth is simply starting to enter into a new Ice Age, but they will be largely ignored.

        To sum up: Yes, we should reduce or eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, and do what we can to minimize the impact humanity has on climate change. We should do it for a lot more reasons than simply concern about global warming. No, this won't prevent climate change. No, we shouldn't panic. Panicking never helps.

        •  Why is it (0+ / 0-)

          We only notice typos AFTER the proofread and post?

        •  Dont' t panic; procrastinate instead (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenearth

          That’s just lovely. It's all about limiting the personal impact, is it? I don't buy that one bit. We have to do more than that. These people are not possibly affecting change, they are positively polluting. They are the worst polluters of all. Let's talk about other stuff they dump in everyone's world if CO2 is not a good talking point. Let's talk about dioxins (unsafe at any detectable level) and furans and other PAHs to start.

          We need to kill the internal combustion engine... end of story. Outright ban it cold turkey for religious reasons like abortion or phase it out rapidly. The economy would not stop. Necessity would become the mother of invention again. Freight would move just the same. It's the change that could put everyone to work again. It would be a difficult but positive change. It would be a great inefficiency that would redistribute great sums of money.

          The new push for bio fuels is just another way these greedy bastards have of furthering the life of the ICE, while creating more demand for natural gas based fertilizers while destroying ground quality. Do not even entertain it.

          We can live without these people. I would love to see them suffer badly. I would give up many, many luxuries to see them go bankrupt.

          •  and just what is it that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Easy B Oven

            those non-internal combustion engines would be burning? Middle East oil?

            Or were you simply unaware that there is such a thing as a non-internal combustion engine that can burn either oil or biofuel? Examples: turbine or Stirling engines.

            If you were unaware of this, you should be reading, not posting on environmental discussions and getting up to speed on the basic science.

            You may not be aware of this, but America's production and distribution network runs essentially on diesel engines and a ban on internal combustion engines would shut it down immediately.

            You're willing to give up luxuries? For most of us, eating is a necessity, not a luxury. However, do please stop eating if that floats your boat.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 04:12:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  425 ppm Co2, Methane, Thelma Bush & Louise GOP (0+ / 0-)

      This upcoming Hurricane Season is so scary with Bush in charge. We were already fooled once, I don't trust Bush at all to do a good job this next Hurricane Season.

      And, from the article below, we may not have acted soon enough folks or our time frame is now...

      If it is even possible at all to reverse, we have to start problem solving now for everyone's sake, for everyone's families...now because it can happen very fast. It can be sudden, not gradual, not 10s of years in the future. If there is a doubling of Hurricanes this season from last years hell on wheels season, everyone will know together....

      from TruthOut:
      http://www.truthout.org/...

      Global Warming: Passing the 'Tipping Point'
      By Michael McCarthy
      The Independent UK
      Saturday 11 February 2006

      A crucial global warming "tipping point" for the Earth, highlighted only last week by the British Government, has already been passed, with devastating consequences.

      ...an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold (of 400 ppm to 425 ppm).

        This number is not a familiar one even among climate researchers, and is not readily available.....So we asked one of the world's leading experts on the effects of greenhouse gases on climate, Professor Keith Shine, head of the meteorology department at the University of Reading, to calculate it precisely. Using the latest available figures (for 2004), his calculations show the equivalent concentration of C02, taking in the effects of methane and nitrous oxide at 2004 levels, is now 425ppm. This is made up of CO2 itself, at 379ppm; the global warming effect of the methane in the atmosphere, equivalent to another 40ppm of CO2; and the effect of nitrous oxide, equivalent to another 6ppm of CO2.

        "The passing of this threshold is of the most enormous significance," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on the green issues, now visiting professor at Imperial College London. "It means we have actually entered a new era - the era of dangerous climate change. We have passed the point where we can be confident of staying below the 2 degree rise set as the threshold for danger...."

        The 400ppm threshold is based on a paper given at Exeter by Malte Meinhausen of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Dr Meinhausen reviewed a dozen studies of the probability of exceeding the 2 degrees threshold at different CO2 equivalent levels. Taken together they show that only by remaining above 400 is there a very high chance of not doing so.

      ...............................

      So, now what. Can we recover from the present point or not. In the face of not knowing for sure, we still have to try, don't we. Because, like Gore said, it is too depressing not to try.

      ................................

      I always thought that the GOP pushed "the end times" to try to blame God for their and Bush's complicity in global warming.

      I keep trying to think of a new curse to describe the deadly stupid and cruel Bush and his Republicans and the companies they shill for, who may cause the death of us all: Bush's GOP-The Party of Our Extinction...Bush's GOP-The Party of the Death of Us All... Thelma Bush and Louise GOP. Bush is mean, but not as mean as extinction by global warming will be...

      ................................

      I was so hoping that challenging non-evidentiary e-voting elections to prove results with evidence of paper ballots might have changed the balance of power, that we would have been able to put scientific, reality-based people in charge who would work to literally save us all.

      Now we have to problem solve for our families...

      Can't we do something before this Hurricane Season

      -- Ask Karen Hughes to talk to Bush about stepping down
      -- maybe give him the Nixon deal
      -- can we talk to the judge about moving the case earlier to May 2006, in the case brought by the Green and Libertarian Party candidates against Ohio and the E-Voting companies in order to count the evidence...paper ballots. And if those ballots can be counted which Kerry had made secure, then will Bush step down?
      -- if he wants money, how much? Can we start a fund?
      -- class action law suit against Bush for Bad Faith
      -- sue Exxon to stop...it was Noam Chomsky who said we would be lucky if we ran out of fuel before setting off an irreversible global climate collapse.
      -- other ideas

      ...so maybe, just maybe, we can start working on reversing this horrible problem for everyone's sake. And, let's try before Hurricane season. Really, there is talk about catagory 6 hurricanes.

      And, get rid of the machines so that people can vote in who they really want...

      many green, yellow, blue and now purple dogs are a majority.

      by Prove Our Democracy with Paper Ballots on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:17:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Exxon is just like General Motors (9+ / 0-)

    In contrast to rivals at BP and Royal Dutch Shell, which plan to invest billions of dollars in the next decade to develop renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, Mr. Tillerson sees Exxon's future as still firmly tied to oil and natural gas.

    When Toyota and Honda started looking into hybrid technology and energy efficiency years ago, GM and Ford dug in their heels and insisted that good ol' fashioned V8s and SUVs were going to lead the market forever.

    Now look at them.

    We'll say the same thing about Exxon in another decade or so. Some people will claim it's a national tragedy that Exxon is going down the tubes - "how could this happen?" they'll wonder - others will recall the choice they made and married themselves to.

    •  Rewards are So High At the Exec End (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wytcld, Easy B Oven, greenearth

      that maybe they don't intend to plan very far into the future. A brief employment to qualify for the golden parachute is enough to set up a nuclear family for life in the upper class.

      What do they need to care about the prospects of the company 10-15 years down the road?

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:08:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nail on the head... (0+ / 0-)

        Exactly!

        The nature of the beast (corporation and the execs who lead them) is the processing of money.  How are the executives and the business overall judged?  By how much profit they make.  Nothing more and nothing less.

        You must always remember that in business, short-term is about 3 months out, medium-term is 6 months to a year out, and long-term is 3 to 5 years out.  It is assumed that the market will be too changed to reliably predict beyond that...so most corporations simply don't plan that far.  It is the exceptional executives that plan very long term, not the typical executives.

        Sorry to say that Mobil-Exxon is typical.  As for the other oil companies, I'll unfortunately have to wait until I see actual serious research happening before I say they are doing the right thing.  It is possible that they are just smart enough to say that they will do the research...

        "Everyone wishes to have truth on his side, but not everyone wishes to be on the side of truth" - Richard Whately

        by unbound on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 06:37:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let's hope the repubs aren't still in power (0+ / 0-)

      And then the republicans will vote to give Exxon a 100 billion dollar bail out.

    •  Exxon tops the charts (0+ / 0-)

      AP is carrying an item this morning (check the business pages of your local paper) indicating that Exxon/Mobil has just toppled WalMart and scrambled back into place as the #1 Fortune 500 company.

      If we can vote out some of the incumbents who take money from their PAC, maybe they'll stop getting tax breaks. and I'm sure I'm not the only reader here who drives right past the local Exxon station when I need gas for the car.

  •  hey this is great news! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Manix, tlh lib

    maybe Tillerson will start by contributing the first Exxon dollar towards the cleanup of Prince William Sound.

    •  Here's something really *special* (8+ / 0-)

      You know that $5 billion that a jury ordered ExxonMobil to pay for the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster?

      Exxon wants it back.

      If I had a blood pressure problem, I'd be in trouble writing these posts, because they make me furious.


      fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

      by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:32:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My cousin is the now-retired (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pacifica

        VP of Exxon's coal division.  When the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound in 1989, I was raising hell about it at a family dinner one evening.  My cousin kept trying to reassure me that Exxon would do the right thing, clean up the mess, reimburse the people in the communities for the damage to their livelihoods and be a good corporate citizen.

        My cousin retired in 1995, and since then has repeatedly stated that he's ashamed of his old company and their lack of accepting responsibility for the mess they left in Alaska and the people's lives that were never made right.  He also believes the company is making a huge mistake by not plowing back a substantial amount of their enormous profits into research and development of alternative energy sources.

        I try not to be gleeful in front of him at the thought that the company is headed for big trouble in the next couple of decades if they don't start planning for a green future instead of planning on the fossilized past.

        (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

        by SueDe on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:40:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ever notice how liars... (5+ / 0-)

    assume you lie too?

    I've always noticed that

    It's always a bad sign when someone acts like you're bullshitting....not only is it insulting....but I've found it's often a sign that you're dealing with someone who lies a lot.....if they lie easily, they assume other people do too

  •  hey this is great news! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib

    maybe Tillerson will start by contributing the first Exxon dollar towards the cleanup of Prince William Sound.

  •  Please. (3+ / 0-)

    "We are looking for fundamental changes, but that's decades away."

    Call me a cynic, but this tells me all I need to know about these guys. To them, global warming is not an immediate threat, and if "decades" from now they have to worry about it, at least by then they will have made trillions from the sale of fossil fuels. They do not and never have cared about the future. Their concern is more immediate: The Almighty Dollar.

    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

    by missLotus on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:30:25 AM PST

    •  Obfuscate until it's Too Late (4+ / 0-)

      OK, I've got to come clean.  I had been lauding myself on great returns in my 401K .. and had a very distressing moment when I looked through the drill-down to .... Exxon, Conoco, etc. as big representations in some of the 'best' funds' major holdings... I've always shied away from 'social awareness' funds, but I just don't think my measly returns are worth the damage and outright criminality involved in securing their profits.

      While on the good side, these are 2-4% of the total in those funds' baskets, but what else can be lurking below?  I will look to make some changes in how I'm invested.  I encourage others to check what 'major holdings' they may have without their direct knowledge... it was a fairly sobering moment for me.

      "What's in the name of lord, that I should fear; To bring my grievance to the public ear?" - The Crisis, January 13, 1777

      by TPaine on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:36:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tyrannosaurus Smile (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib

    All that this means is that Exxon is very afraid of the public learning that Bush's NSA spied on environmentalists and gave the info to Exxon. Bush is afraid of that, too. They're also afraid the public will learn about the bribes Exxon pays to BushCo for that info.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:32:59 AM PST

  •  In case you were wondering what this might mean (5+ / 0-)

    for our foreign policy

    Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

    by pontechango on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:35:01 AM PST

  •  Oh No!!!!? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plutonium Page, tlh lib, rabel

    Horrible. A long front page post, with some below the fold?

    Tsk Tsk, You should have used the whole front page for this.

    :P

    -Faux

    In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.

    by faux on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:35:38 AM PST

  •  Oh how sweet of our Exxon oligarchs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib

    to "recognize" the vast problems they have directly created on our planet. Will they soon be moving their corporate castles further inland before the oceans rise another 20ft?

    -6.25, -5.18

    "If you treat people right they will treat you right - ninety percent of the time" - FDR

    by assyrian64 on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:43:29 AM PST

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tlh lib

      Rising sea levels, melting glaciers, never-ending environmental contamination... hey, it's all good.

      If you're in charge, that is.


      fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

      by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:44:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know why our polluting plutocrats (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard

        don't recognize the fact that destroying our planet will affect not only millions of people they dont know, but will also harm their own children and themselves. Being an oil oligarch doesnt ultimately protect you from mercury and lead poisoning, rising oceans, etc.

        The only logical answer is that these greedists care only for the immediate "high" of record profits over the safety and well-being of even their own children. Basically a bunch of insatiable addicts running our country literally down the tubes..

        -6.25, -5.18

        "If you treat people right they will treat you right - ninety percent of the time" - FDR

        by assyrian64 on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:03:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They believe in God (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Raddark

          The weather isn't controlled by chemical processes (among other sorts) but by God. Likewise petroleum isn't provided by chemical processes, but by God. Therefore we can have an infinite supply of petroleum and infinite good weather, if we just stay right by God.

          There are some who view the melding of Exxon with the Fundi nuts as mere convenience. It's not; they really believe this stuff. The whole petroleum engineering thing is just a front; they're flying on pure prayer.

          •  it's worse than you think (0+ / 0-)

            These people see God when they look in the mirror.

            It appears that they've fallen into the same trap the Soviet bureaucracy fell into starting a generation before their government went into the shitter.

            They've gone beyond believing their own bullshit and now believe that their paid-off disinformation providers are creating future reality.

            Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

            by alizard on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 04:25:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Now come on Exxon (4+ / 0-)

    ‘n’ git yer thrill
    Lay some pipe and send ‘er the bill!
    Abu grab you, Tex’ state pen
    All the same – it’s ‘murikin!
    We’ll sell ‘er soul
    Dilate ‘er hole
    Tank ‘er up now watch ‘er roll!

    And it’s one, two, three
    What are we fightin’ for?
    Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn
    Next stop Eye-raqistan!
    And it’s five, six, seven
    No! No! Guantanamo Gate!
    Now who started this row?
    All Hat! No Cow!
    Whoopie! We’re all AWOL now!

    The name is not the thing named, the map is not the territory. -- Gregory Bateson

    by semiot on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:47:07 AM PST

  •  Bush is Whack (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib, vic ariel, greenearth, TPaine

    Bush is, in my opinion, a pathological liar.

    He's lied for so long that now even he believes his lies.

    Truth doesn't factor into his reality.

  •  Why can a corporation fund groups like this list? (4+ / 0-)

    It happens to also be a list of organizations that are associated with the "conservative movement" cult that has taken over the Republican Party and is working to overthrow our democracy, outsource our jobs, drive the country into debt, make war on the rest of the world, etc.  

    My question, why are corporations allowed to give money to harmful, destructive, anti-democracy propaganda organizations instead of to their shareholders?  And why do we perceive that Exxon "owns" the oil that they pump out of the ground?  Isn't that like saying someone "owns" the air or the water?  These are natural resources.

    Exxon is a corporation, an entity that exists on paper because the people of the United States have granted them a charter FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD.  We, the people, allow them to profit from extracting and refining OUR oil from OUR lands for the betterment of all of us.  WE allow the shareholders to make this money, and shield them from having to pay the debts if the company goes bankrupt, and provide lots of tax advantages and other benefits IN EXCHANGE FOR them doing certain things that benefit us.  I mean, why else would we charter a corporation, except for our benefit?

    -- Seeing The Forest -- Investigating how the Right is beating the Dems

    by davej on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:50:55 AM PST

    •  ah, you're an idealist (but that's a good thing) (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tlh lib, Caldonia, renaissance grrrl

      My question, why are corporations allowed to give money to harmful, destructive, anti-democracy propaganda organizations instead of to their shareholders?  And why do we perceive that Exxon "owns" the oil that they pump out of the ground?  Isn't that like saying someone "owns" the air or the water?  These are natural resources.

      No kidding - I ask myself similar questions, but I've also been jaded by the Bush administration, which is to say that nothing surprises me when it comes to government and/or corporate corruption and underhanded tactics.

      Is it dangerous to lose our idealism?  I think so, because then we won't work for change.

      But we also need to watch our backs.


      fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

      by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:55:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They're Allowed Because Elected Government (0+ / 0-)

        represents them. And in the information age, the public square is the private property of them & their ilk own.

        That's what Republicans mean when they say "my country" and "my government."

        It's a literal statement of fact.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:13:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  DaveJ - Your questions answered: (0+ / 0-)

      Q.  Why are corporations allowed to give money to harmful, destructive, anti-democracy propaganda organizations instead of to their shareholders?
      A.  Because it's not against the law to lie to the American people, and the shareholders give the suits permission to do whatever is necessary to increase the value of their shares.

      Q.  And why do we perceive that Exxon "owns" the oil that they pump out of the ground?
      A.  Because they do own it - they bought it from the people who actually own the "mineral rights" to the land and from whom they lease the drilling rights.

      Q.  Isn't that like saying someone "owns" the air or the water?
      A.  No - people who own "mineral rights" to whatever lies below the land are the rightful owners.

      See this country's definition of private property rights.  Now you're going to stir up a BIG hornet's nest!

      (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

      by SueDe on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:58:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We spent an evening there a year (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tlh lib

    ago when we went to Nordwyke just north of Amsterdam to be in a friend's wedding. I didn't notice the SUVs; maybe it was because we spent some time in the Bulldog.

    I can't imagine them getting around very easily. They would seem so out of place.

    -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:53:55 AM PST

    •  It's only been in the last few months... (2+ / 0-)

      ... that we've been seeing more than one or two per block in the center.

      I'm going to write a letter to the editor of de Volkskrant about the SUVs.  I'll flame, but I'll do it constructively and politely.

      It's ridiculous.  The owners should have to pay large fees just to own one.

      And you're right, there is very little room for them.  


      fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

      by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:03:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't give Exxon your business. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Plutonium Page, mungley, fgentile

    I haven't bought an ounce of gas from those evil bastards since a drunk wrecked one of their tankers into the rocks and ruined a portion of Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska forever.

    Life is what hap-pens to you while you're busy mak-ing oth-er plans. yoko

    by vic ariel on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:56:36 AM PST

  •  Slick talkin' oil men! (1+ / 0-)

    Sept. 17, 2003  
     
    Q Mr. President, Dr. Rice and Secretary Rumsfeld both said yesterday that they have seen no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with September 11th. Yet, on Meet the Press, Sunday, the Vice President said Iraq was a geographic base for the terrorists and he also said, I don't know, or we don't know, when asked if there was any involvement. Your critics say that this is some effort -- deliberate effort to blur the line and confuse people. How would you answer that?
     
    THE PRESIDENT: We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th. What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

    It's time to be a Democrat!

    by annefrank on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:59:43 AM PST

  •  Reminds me of a couple of jokes (1+ / 0-)

    Senator James Exon (D-Nebraska) used to distinguish himself from the oil company by saying, "Exxon's the double-crosser."

    And the National Lampoon once parodied the Esso-to-Exxon name change with the following ad: "America is Changing Its Name to Nixxon. We've Changed Our Name, But We've Kept Our Stars and Stripes."

    "Drink, and forget the law..."--Proverbs 31:5.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:03:28 PM PST

  •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

    Finally, speaking of money, the NYT article puzzles over one thing Tillerson brags about:

    [Tillerson] defended Exxon's record of investing in research for alternative fuels, citing a 10-year, $100 million contribution to the Global Climate and Energy Project [CGEP] at Stanford, which focuses on long-term technological research. "We are going to continue to use fossil fuels," he said. "We are looking for the fundamental changes, but that's decades away. The question is, What are we going to do in the meantime?"

    Well, that's nice, Mr. Tillerman, but some of us are onto you guys.  Is that Exxon astroturf I smell? (GCEP's name is clever, but they are not doing climate science research.  Sure sounds nice and "environmental", though.)

    What? He doesn't claim they're doing climate research. The research they're doing is related to how to lower or sequester emissions from hydrocarbon combustion - a VERY important thing considering our energy system depends on it. Criticize it if you want, but first show me how much BP and Shell have done besides having an exceptional PR team. Show me the money.

    •  It's the *name* of the group (0+ / 0-)

      Here's a link on astroturfing, if you don't know the term as it refers to politics.

      It's the name of the group that implies there is climate science research going on.  Yes, they are doing emissions-related research, but they are not doing research on climate change.  It's subtle but effective, and part of a pattern, as you'll see from the ExxonSecrets links I've posted (including the one for GCEP, which was the one that you didn't have in y our comment - must be a dKos bug).


      fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

      by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:17:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This research does have an effect on the climate (0+ / 0-)

        Still, you haven't shown how the other oil companies are any better, though you imply that BP and Shell are somehow environmentally-friendly (I would argue that they're much worse). I challenge you to back that up, because I'm pretty familiar with their work, and all I see is a fancy ad campaign. Lots of people seem to be falling for it, and soon, those companies will pay dearly from their investors for deceiving everyone.

        I'm familiar with astroturfing, and I don't defend it, but this one at least is not an astroturf group. This is a legitimate research program at Stanford.

        •  Where did I imply... (0+ / 0-)

          ... that they are environmentally friendly?

          Should I be more explicit than putting "supposedly" in there?  Should I boldface that?

          In no way are those other companies "environmentally friendly".

          The NYT says they're doing the research.

          I didn't.

          If you think I should, I will put "supposedly" in bold.

          I'm just emphasizing that Exxon does a hell of a lot of astroturfing.  The oil lobby does it in general, but Exxon does it more than the rest.


          fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

          by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:45:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you didn't (0+ / 0-)

            You just quoted it and I didn't go back to look if you were making that argument. I just left with that impression because I've seen the argument made in many other places.

            The NYT falls for it, too. Like I said, they have a good PR team, but that's about it. Look into BP and Shell's environmental record, corporate policies on environmental regulations for refineries around the world, and investment into technologies that make better use of conventional fuels or even alternative fuels, and you find that it doesn't stack up. But Shell's commercials of oceans and clean beaches, and BP's "carbon footprint" ads sure are pretty.

            •  Their commercials in Europe are pretty too (0+ / 0-)

              regardless of what language they're in.  I haven't seen one in a while, but I just remember they were very, very good.

              If I ever try to make the argument that any of these companies' ad campaigns are to be taken seriously, you are obliged to post a diary telling me that I need time away from the internets ;-)

              Off-topic, but didn't you used to post comments on Blog for America?

              (sorry if that was too random, it's midnight here and I'm pretty tired...)


              fight the greed and the federals / fight the need and the toxic spills / drink from that wishing well / but may it never quench your thirst...

              by Page van der Linden on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:52:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Will the US forgive Bush for lying? (0+ / 0-)

    The electorate finally caught up with him.

    W's a liar with no remorse.

    Do any of you have an aqauintance over 18 years of age who finally became honest? Good for them. I don't think Bush was ever anything but a liar and will remain so forever.

    Dyslexia...ADHD... America is under attack Mr. President...7 minutes to get the mind in gear...

    Woodrow Wilson was another President with dyslexia  who loved baseball. At least Wilson was able to talk coherently.

    Life is what hap-pens to you while you're busy mak-ing oth-er plans. yoko

    by vic ariel on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:22:13 PM PST

  •  With the world's most powerful Government working (1+ / 0-)

    for you, why change strategies?

    Exxon bought and paid for the Administration and this Congress.  Reality will work according to Exxon's designs until we get someone new in charge.

    Who would have tought that watching "The Land Before Time (IX)- Journey to Big Water" would become a subversive act?

    by mungley on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:26:16 PM PST

  •  Cmon PP (1+ / 0-)

    I just watched the Maher show last night and Dana Rohrbacher assured me that figuratively? literally? thousands of eminent scientists think that human caused global warming is a myth.  Sheesh, if you can't trust Dana who can you trust?

    Crawford, Texas' Lonestar Iconoclast needs anti-Bush mojo!

    by Bill O Rights on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:27:40 PM PST

  •  MoJo's Got the Great Skinny on the Boys of Exxon (1+ / 0-)

    For a great detailed review of how Exxon over the years has dumped literally millions of dollars into funding right-wing hacks who often seem to operate out of home offices under pleasant sounding non-profit guises and specialize in denigrating global warming, check the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones magazine.

    Here's a link to the table showing the connections between these "total lack of ethics" SOBs and their funding partner:

    http://www.motherjones.com/...

    and a link to the entire issue is on that same page.

    Exxon is probably one of the best instances around of a corporation which has virtually no social conscience.  It is focused only on making money and woe betide anyone who wants to in any way hamper that goal.

    My brother, who worked with major oil companies for many years in communications, once told me that of all the majors, Exxon was the one which didn't even bother to show its disdain for anything other than the bottom line.  One of the best examples.....YEARS after the Exxon Valdez incident, they were still dumping millions into legal efforts to try and "win" the case, despite the penalties levied against them.  They are NOT nice people and seem to be rivalled only by companies like Shell with their darkside dealings in Nigeria.

    Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

    by dweb8231 on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:29:03 PM PST

    •  Exxon will never change (0+ / 0-)
      and neither will any corporation until we change two basic concepts.  Money is not speech and corporations are not people.
      DavidJ maybe an idealist but he is spot on about the sitituation.  We charter corporations to do business in this country. They function at the mercy for the soveriegn, in this case the people.  We do have the power to revoke their charters.  The question is do we have the will?  If anyone is brave enough to take up that fight I would like to be named on their insurance policy.  It is the most revolutionary thing we could do and I believe they would kill without hesitation anyone who looked like they might be able to do it.   There are many examples of accidents happening to people who challenge corporate power.
  •  Is Reuters a division of ExxonMobil? (0+ / 0-)

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:33:54 PM PST

  •  Exxon, Exxon,Exxon (1+ / 0-)
    What can I say?  My brother has lived in the Prince William Sound area for about 30 years.  The oil spill devastated their fishing industry for quite some time and I don't think it ever fully recovered.  Oh, and in the last few years, the permafrost has been thawing.  Not a good sign.  Never done that before but it certainly is not global warming.  No, not that.  Probably just hot air coming from them thar environmentalists.  Yeah that's right.  The hotheaded radical environmentalists.  That's the problem.
  •  If Mr. Tillerson is serious..... (0+ / 0-)

    ....about changing the image of the company, but is unwilling to do so for their operational practices - he could at least change it in a different area: after the 1999 merger with Mobil, Lee Raymond:

    • Cancelled Mobil's sexual orientation category in its non-discrimination policy, and
    • Cancelled any new employees from receiving domestic partner employee benefits (although existing Mobil employees were grandfathered in).

     True, this would not change its environmental policies, which are their major impact on our world. Not a bit.

     But it would at least enable Mr. Tillerson to say that no longer is ExxonMobil the only Fortune 100 company to not include sexual orientation in its non-discriminatory practices. And he will be able to say that he is his own man, no longer Lee Raymond's protegé, and gain some credibility when he says that his company is changing.

    "We *should* pay attention to that man behind the curtain"

    by Ed Tracey on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 12:58:43 PM PST

  •  Thanks for calling attention to this! :-) (0+ / 0-)
  •  Oil is a Great Idea! (0+ / 0-)

    It's such a good idea to run the world on a substance that's finite. It forces people to lie, steal, and kill as the supply dwindles.

    That's why I propose research into an engine that'll only burn Vermeers...

  •  Boycott/March (1+ / 0-)

    Please join the boycott of ExxonMobil and participate/support the March to Redeem the Soul of America that started today at Exxon HQ in Irving Texas and will proceed to Crawford. On the 14th marchers will join up with protesters, including Cindy Sheehan, to spend Easter at Camp Casey. See Crawford Peace House website for more info.

    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
             ~George Orwel

    by outragemeter on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 03:21:25 PM PST

  •  BUSH IS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN WORST OIL COMPANY (0+ / 0-)

    The guy might be lying, but it's funny that the CEO of the most environmentally unfriendly oil company is actually more progressive on the global warming issue than Bush.

    Next thing you know, Bush will be saying the cigarette companies are wrong to admit that smoking causes lung cancer.

  •  Venezuela (0+ / 0-)

    sounds as if it is about to give Exxon the heave ho..I wonder if the scenario described in Confessions of a Hit Man has taken place yet.

  •  Saw this on a Kossain Tagline (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry, I don't recall who had this tagline, but it read:

    'You will lie to your grandchildren when they ask what you did to stop climate change.'

    "What's in the name of lord, that I should fear; To bring my grievance to the public ear?" - The Crisis, January 13, 1777

    by TPaine on Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 11:47:14 PM PST

    •  suits at Exxon (0+ / 0-)

      won't have that choice. Every history textbook their grandkids see will mention ExxonMobil by name, and given ExxonMobil lack of investment in alternative energy, a bankrupt company isn't going to stop anyone from printing anything.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 04:35:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Exxon buys influence on Capitol Hill (0+ / 0-)

    The day after Exxon/Mobil posted their quarterly report for Sept-Dec 2005, demonstrating that their profits went up by an obscene margin while we were paying more at the pump, I began researching the political contributions of the Exxon PAC. Some of their bought-and-paid-for GOP incumbents are vulnerable, this time, and some of this community's favorite Democrats are running against them.

    For a run-down on some of these races, see:

    http://www.actblue.com/...  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site