“Chicken Little” and the news from 1922 OR it pays to dig deeper

Chicken littleOriginally I posted this and I would like to thank one of my readers for showing me the last two lines were an inaccuracy.  As a result I dug deeper and found a copy of the original article.

It really does pay to dig as deeply as possible and try to find the original source so as not to be caught out by fake news.

Judging by the news since New Year, 2018 will be full of claims of “record weather events” caused by “global warming.”  Is it true, or is it an agenda?  

Here’s a news report from 1922:

“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report
to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north
as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north are being encountered.

The above part is true.  You can read the entire article by clicking on the Anchorage Daily Times.

The part in red had been added to it, which I retract, although it is what the UN is claiming.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”

* * * * * * * * *
The report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 96 years ago.

This must have been caused by the Model T Ford’s emissions.


Headline from 1922

And now for that facts …

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

Govt funded scam science

Why is fake news always bad?  Here’s the good news:

Despite What You’ve Heard, Global Warming Isn’t Making Weather More Extreme.

Extreme Climate Change: The 1933-1938 Period Was One of Very Severe Weather Events, Including Global Heat Waves.

Taxpayer funded climate-doomsday scientists and the mainstream media ambulance chasers perpetuate the myth that today’s severe weather events are a result of human-CO2 caused extreme climate change – actually, today’s bad weather seems rather mild to similar events decades before large human CO2 emissions.

Climate change is a hoax

My advice, turn your TV off and don’t be myth-taken.  I wish you all the best for the New Year.  Here’s some wisdom from the Bible:

 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.” Genesis 8:22 (NIV)

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ – Colossians 2:8.

Freedom, 2018


  1. Hello,
    I have a feeling that you are a willing victim of a con. While the 1922 article is true, it referred to a local weather event in a tiny part of the vast artic. The last sentence of the quoted newspaper article concerning sunken cities is an add-on, or lie to be exact.
    That fabrication was included to heap ridicule on the current consensus among scientist re: Global Warming. (When 97% agree and 3% have a different view, that is NOT a disagreement).
    The New Yorker did what, admittedly, you cannot do due to lack of resources – they made a dig on the story. From the New Yorker:

    “Playing Climate-Change Telephone
    By Jerry Beilinson
    April 29, 2014
    Last week, Craig Rucker, a climate-change sceptic and the executive director of a non-profit organization called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), tweeted a quotation supposedly taken from a 1922 edition of the Washington Post: “Within a few years it is predicted due to ice melt the sea will rise & make most coastal cities uninhabitable.” The intent, of course, was to poke fun at current headlines about climate change.
    There is no stronger rhetorical tool than ridicule.
    In this case, Rucker’s ridicule seems misplaced. After spending a few minutes poking around online, I was able to find both the Washington Post article and the longer source material that it came from—a weather report issued by the U.S. consul in Bergen, Norway, and sent to the State Department on October 10, 1922. The report didn’t say anything about coasts being inundated. This isn’t surprising. Scientists were smart back then, too, and they knew that melting sea ice wouldn’t appreciably raise sea levels, any more than a melting ice cube raises the level of water in a glass.
    Rucker ultimately corrected his tweet once commenters pointed out the misquote.
    Through Twitter, he informed me that he had taken the line from a Washington Times op-ed by Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. When I contacted Rahn’s office, a press representative acknowledged that Rahn had copied the quote from other bloggers and columnists; the fabricated sentence appears in articles at reason.com and texasgopvote.com. The fabricated line seems to have been inserted around 2011, but the original article has been circulating online since 2007.”
    These are the traits of the Deniers – fabricate and distort. Once the lie is out there, many thousands of deniers delight in forwarding the lie to others – without ever checking if the claim is true or not.
    The lie is repeated so often that it becomes fact for many people.
    I have learned that if someone lies to you, or withholds information, then not only are they hiding something, but they are trying to manipulate you so that your money will flow into their pockets.
    I believe that you are an honest Christian. I believe that you will check what I have said. I believe that you will see the truth, and by so doing will see the lie you have innocently given more life to.
    I hope you will do as Christ would want you to do: admit the lie; apologise for your part in it; correct the record of your post to your readers; and promise that before you Chicken-Little ridicule anyone else of being misled, blind, fear mongering, or dishonest, you will check what they have said, then publish your view.
    That would be the Christian thing to do.
    As far as we know this is the only habitable planet in all Creation. It is an enclosed planet with a thin atmosphere that God designed to protect us and to keep us alive.
    Do not let the voices of greed manipulate you (consider scientists lying for the funding to buy more laptops and test tubes and a 15-year-old car to drive to work in, versus the billion$ polluters make and the political power that provides them).
    God gave us Eden and our first parents abused the gift. We have been given a chance to redeem ourselves by respecting that gift as we would respect our own homes. This only Eden in all creation was given to us to care for and to enjoy; not to abuse and destroy.
    As you quote/say above “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,”.

    1. Thanks for visiting my blog and pointing out the fabrication I had in error passed on to my readers.
      I am glad you pointed this out to me.
      I was not a willing victim of a con, I was an unwitting one.
      I’ve been considering what you say about climate change. We’ve always had climate change. It’s the narrative Maurice Strong, Al Gore, the UN, media and the scientists frame around it that I object to. C02 is not a pollutant and the impact on climate change by humans is negligible. This whole thing is a man-made crisis designed for wealth transfer.
      The “climate models” produced by the scientists at the University of East Anglia completely discredited the whole climate change “issue” for me, and I believe they’re still trotting them out! I have as much regard for them as I do Al Gore.
      I wish the attention was switched to the big corporates who produce all the plastics with impunity.
      I do all I can in the house and business, our small business has kept tons of e-waste out of the landfill. We do it because God has called us to be good stewards. But big corporates are getting away with wrecking the environment. Why don’t the UN and national governments come up with a tax on the manufacturers who produce and use plastic? Because they’re looking in the wrong direction!
      Consensus for me is not fact. Is it possible to send me the source for the 97% consensus?
      I do appreciate your visit to my blog and the time you took to write to me.
      Obviously we’re not going to agree on everything but I am willing to listen.
      Kind regards, Joanne

      1. “Obviously we’re not going to agree on everything” Why can’t we agree when there is a vast amount of evidence? One of us has difficulty in seeing things as they are. Which one of us is blind?
        Now, no line in the 1922 report refers to global warming; nor is there any line provided to explain the local and temporary warming – so who put in the joke about Model Ts to denigrate that which was not even referred to nearly 100 years ago? You make up something then denigrate it – is that the basis for your world view? Is that how you supply reason to dismiss climate science?Further, why have you crossed out the last lines that were an invention intended to deceive by a modern day member of the right-wing Cato group (founded by billionaire Koch Bros of oil, mining and chemical fame) which is funded by large Corps and very rich individuals, yet continue to have that false claim at the start of your copied video proclaiming Global Warming predictions are wrong – the video immediately follows your heading “Why is fake news always bad? Here’s the good news:” ? (BTW the rest of that video neglects the simple fact that warnings are valuable since they prompt people to act to avoid the danger. If you slow down when seeing a sign warning of road ice, and you survive as a result of your common sense actions, that does not make the sign a lie! The improvements outlined in that video were all based on people acting to avoid the dangers pointed out by the warnings. BTWW – all of those improvements were all due to science!
        Clearly, History proves that different locations will have short term heat waves at different times, but 24 of the hottest years around the globe, since the start of records, have occurred since 1995, Maybe in historical terms that is temporary.
        You appear to be someone who agrees with all climate change deniers regardless of what they say. You should really follow your own advice by ‘digging deeper’.
        If you did you would know that Exxon-Mobil have carried out 30 years of research (1970s to 1990s) showing that CO2 causes global warming. They changed their tone – as did the tobacco companies whose own research linked cancer to smoking (big tobacco donates to Cato! Mmmmm) when they realised that lowering CO2 to help people and the planet would harm their profits. Dig up that fact for the benefit of your readers.
        Also, you did not print my reply to your last comment which I had hoped would clear up some of the mistakes you were influenced by.I wrote it to help you.
        Last, I do not read your blog – I came across your site while doing a search and thought I should correct your errors since you liked to portray yourself as a Christian.
        Here is one point that you and I will never agree on – the real message of Jesus concerning honesty and the need to do good.

      2. Hi Thomas, I don’t like your tone but I will reply when I’ve got the time and the energy. Right now I have neither.
        Thanks for visiting my blog.
        Kind regards,

  2. Dear Joanne,
    My apologies for not viewing your reply earlier. I only came upon it today when I began cleaning up a word doc folder I call “MIX” where I place all items that do not have a ready made folder such as ‘tax’, ‘family’, ‘kids’, ‘house’, etc.
    I am glad you agree that your initial article contained a deliberate fabrication from the original reporter. I take it on trust that you have alerted your readers to that distortion.
    I also take it on trust that you have now changed the whole article to reflect the truth – or have deleted the article, though that is not necessary if you can use it to demonstrate how some people will lie to manipulate others to their cause.
    Now, I do not understand the remainder of your response: especially since you can search the veracity of your points for yourself. But here goes…
    1. “C02 is not a pollutant”. I do not want to bog down in distractions regarding CO2 as a pollutant or not. Its relevance to this issue is not as pollution, but its nature as a greenhouse gas. For a better understanding please see:
    For me, without knowing the precise definition of what a pollutant is, or should be, I have long been influenced for CO2 being harmful since I was a kid discovering that traffic pollution in Rome, Athens and Cairo were damaging the stones in Ancient Monuments.
    After reading about the deaths of thousands of Chinese kids and adults as a result of their poor air quality, I would consider CO2 as a pollutant – though I realise that industrial and car emissions contain many more chemicals than just C02.
    The Murdoch press – especially the Wall Street Journal, London Times and The Australian – were quick to promote the idea that it was not a pollutant, and therefore not dangerous, as a means to convince that buring more coal and oil could not be harmful.
    But I well remember my lessons on the morals of Wall Street, Corporate London (The biggest launderer of African and East European illegal money in the world) and on Murdoch in particular, and am not persuaded by the message.
    Here is a concise counter view:

    2. “The “climate models” produced by the scientists at the University of East Anglia completely discredited the whole climate change “issue” for me, and I believe they’re still trotting them out! I have as much regard for them as I do Al Gore.”
    That is horrendously inaccurate. I well remember the UEA scandal as my local commercial news in Australia made much noise about it. It did concern me greatly as I took it as an affront that I had been the victim of deliberate manipulation.
    However, over the following months investigations revealed the truth that the hackers into the university’s files had cherry picked, quoted out of context and lied in their few paragraphs “release” from the thousands of articles stolen. 8 different world bodies examined the case and found that there had been no cover ups; no threats to anyone’s employment; no falsifying of data; etc.
    That is, the Uni East Anglia climate scientists and researchers believe that climate change is happening AND that humans have played a role in the event.
    (The eight major investigations: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel; Pennsylvania State University; United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).
    It is clear that the break-in to the Uni’s files (Nov, 2009) and the subsequent fraud released to the press was designed to embarrass the climate change mitigation meetings in Copenhagen, Dec, 2009.
    The best article I found to refresh my memory of the hoax is:
    Other great articles:
    (I only read one of those, and not all the way through)
    Please do not also unwittingly help to propagate that lie, which when you consider the ramifications can be viewed as a crime. If you have published any material on the UEA scandal, please do some research and rectify falsehoods in your blog.

    2. “I wish the attention was switched to the big corporates who produce all the plastics with impunity.”
    I am also against the overuse of plastic and the damage it does to our wild life, to us and to the environment. (As a man I am scared of its effect on sperm production. If you want to get a bloke’s attention, just point out the effects of something to his genitals! Easy.)
    I do not want the focus to “switch”, but to be redoubled on both issues.
    I see global warming as the major-immediate problem, but that does not mean that other negatives should be ignored.
    3. “But big corporates are getting away with wrecking the environment. Why don’t the UN and national governments come up with a tax on the manufacturers who produce and use plastic? Because they’re looking in the wrong direction!”
    I agree that big business, and us humans, are wrecking the environment. The biggest corporations in Australia are the miners and their cheer squad, the commercial media.
    Many Govts and the UN do decry the plastic problem, but democracies are slow to move when the people are slow to protest. And, unfortunately, people are slow when the media do not fire them up.
    So, in Australia, when the SMH newspaper reported on the rorts and criminal activity of our big banks as unearthed by the Royal Commission, the banks withdrew their advertising revenue from that paper. The banks increased their funding to the larger Murdoch press which ignored, and in fact argued against, the Royal Commission.
    Murdoch does not want to lose any revenue from any big corp advertisers. Further, he has investments in many pies and will not broach any interference in the operations of big complexes where his money lies.
    At the start of the 21st Century people in UK, Aust and USA were among the highest surveyed in the world for believing that humans contributed to Global Warming. 15 years into the century, that all changed with those 3 nations re-polled on the issue to discover that people in S-E Asia and Russia now have higher belief rates in the issue.
    One PhD paper put it down to the aforementioned English speaking nations being dominated by Murdoch papers and paid TV news. That is, when Murdoch media hopped on the anti-Global Warming wagon, he changed the perceptions of his readers-viewers. (A billionaire does not own vast media just to have a population, and therefore a Govt, make laws or regulations that are not favourable to his interests!)
    However, with increasing temperature records being set almost every year; with bush fires starting earlier every year for the last 6 years in Australia; with video of shrinking glaciers around the world; with recorded breaking floods and Hurricanes/Cyclones every year from different parts of the world; with droughts lasting longer and occurring more frequently over the last 70 years; etc, it is hard for even a media to make you see white when all you can see is black. That is, when your own eyes see something continually, it is difficult for a newspaper to make you believe something different.
    Media is extremely powerful – but that does not mean it is absolute or perfect in its power.
    In short, when the media spend as much time on the plastics problem as they do on the Kardashians or the young Royals, then people will move and Govts will have to follow.

    4. “Consensus for me is not fact.” Agree, but if 97 doctors said I had cancer, I would not disbelieve them if I found 3 who made me feel better by saying I did not cancer. The 97 would give me serious cause for thorough examination and a serious desire to see proof. For me, that has been amply done regarding climate change and humans.
    Regardless of how much funding a scientist gains, it is small peanuts compared to the billions accruing to Big Business. Further, a scientist can make much more working for a fossil fuel think tank by arguing against climate change.
    97% is not fact, true, but what does that say about 3%?
    And by itself, 97% certainly carries weight, especially when the minority refuting human links to climate change are funded by the fossil fuel band, or by Conservative financial interests.
    5. “Is it possible to send me the source for the 97% consensus?”
    Certainly, though again, you can do that yourself.
    As an Intro I give you an anti-97% article from the rich-list finance magazine, Forbes:
    It is written by Earl J. Ritchie, a retired energy executive who now teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil. He clearly has an interest, but that does not automatically make him a dishonest broker.
    “Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”
    Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent.
    The conclusions of the IPCC are the other most often cited support for anthropogenic climate change. These conclusions are consensus results of a committee with thousands of contributors. Although this is often viewed as a monolithic conclusion, the nature of committee processes makes it virtually certain that there are varying degrees of agreement, similar to what was shown in the Bray and von Storch survey. The Union of Concerned Scientists says of the IPCC process “it would be clearly unrealistic to aim for unanimous agreement on every aspect of the report.” Perhaps this is a subject for another day.”
    So even he agrees that the consensus is high, though I give him credit by admitting that even a !00% view would not convince disbelievers to change their views.
    Here is one site that shows their evidence for believing the 97% claim: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
    Another in-depth review of the consensus is from NASA who do a lot of fact and evidence finding given their terrain and space infastructure:
    I had trouble opening the above and was successful with:
    Probably the most humourist article demonstrates the limitations of politicians in a democracy. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
    The embarrassing attack on the 97% claim emanated from a Republican Presidential candidate, Santorum. The best he could do was to reference a “thin air” quote from a Professor Tol’s testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
    “I mean it is pretty clear that most of the science agrees that climate change is real and most likely human-made,” Tol said on during a 2014 hearing on the IPCC. “But the 97 percent is essentially pulled from thin air. It is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”
    Tol was specifically referring to a 2013 survey by John Cook, who studies climate communication at the University of Queensland.
    Cook’s study found that among over 4,000 studies that took a position on man-made climate change, 97.1 percent “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global phase” and 97.2 of 1,300 authors who responded agreed with the position.
    Tol takes issue with Cook’s methodology. By his analysis of Cook’s data, the real figure is around 91 percent. (Cook replied critiquing Tol’s methodology and standing by his survey’s original finding of 97 percent.)”
    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans,” Tol writes in his analysis. “I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this.”
    6. “Obviously we’re not going to agree on everything but I am willing to listen.”
    Likewise, though I am a little embarrassed to admit that too often I put more research into disproving a view I do not readily take to, than in proving one that I do take to.

    Interestingly, there is a growing school of psychology making a new field in beliefs and politics, especially the way people will not be convinced by any evidence, even if it means following choices that may do them financial or health harm. Look it up – you could do a blog on it.

    I do not believe that fossil fuel is bad in itself – though when battery storage improves we will mostly all be off the grid.
    What has made CO2 harmful is not just its increasing use, but the accompanying felling of trees. Trees eat CO2 for us and themselves, but with the massive destruction of forests in Africa, Sth America and SE Asia, we are failing to absorb the gas in a helpful way.
    If fossil fuel is to be burnt, them 100s of billions of trees need to be not just planted, but magically matured over night into greenhouse gas lungs.
    That can’t be done – and as long as there is a big dollar in felling forests, it won’t be done.

    All investments are a bet, essentially, as is every decision about anything. The stakes widely vary for each decision bet we make.
    Big Corps have at their ready amazing resources to attract data on which to ensure their investment bets are winners.
    I do believe that big smoke companies know about human links to global warming. They are not stupid. Just like Big Tobacco hiding cigarette links to cancer, yet stating publicly that there was no relationship between the two, Big Smoke continues to lie in order to continue to thrive.
    Tobacco bet they could make 100s of billion$ before they were found out – and that their profits would more than cover any fines/compensation orders. They have been found to have won that bet – though those who believed them have mostly lost (in health and money, if they are still alive).

    Fascinatingly, the anti-global warming club have employed the same tactics as big tobacco – search for the correlation, it is interesting how they use techniques that politicians employ (or vice versa).
    The big wager for our discussion issue is:
    Do we forgo scores of trillions of dollars over the next 50-100 years by leaving coal and oil in the ground, or do we discredit climate change scientists and continue to mine both resources?
    Big commercial interests have clearly chosen the latter.
    If the Earth heats to a point where famine is widespread, millions will die, not just from starvation, but from wars as nations invade neighbours for their lands. The super wealthy have bet that they will not be in danger…just the wretched 3rd world buggers.
    As our Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Govts (and Trump) deny global warming, both the USA and Aust military have been planning for it for nearly a decade. Not just on how environmental immigration/invasion will affect security, but how will weapons need to be modified, how will home nations conditions alter, up to date maps for changing water courses/terrain…
    The military do not muck about, and if the military take it seriously, then so should we all.
    Aust conservative Govts have not embraced global warming because it would dislocate them from their big business donations. It will rob them of a point of difference from their opponents. A willingness to admit one error in core belief will open the possibility that other beliefs are in doubt.
    Govts only bet by looking to the next election. Politics always beats policy. What is good for the nation may not be good for a political party.
    Politicians also look to life after politics where the really big money is made from being appointed to boards, and – at least in Aust and USA- from being employed as a lobbyist. They will bet that millions can be personally made after they leave by working for a few big interests’ groups. They earn their stripes in Parliament by doing favours that are repaid once office is left.

    Big Corps also bet on the discredited science to save them, eventually. Clean coal and fracking are just two simple ways business and conservative politicians tried to convince that fossil fuels could be made harmless. Genetic engineering of plants to intake more CO2 is another.
    In the future I would not be surprised if science does find ways to “pacify” fossil fuel burning that are not even considered now.
    Last, even if, for arguments sake, the world decides in 2050 to stop burning coal and oil, and to rely on renewable, then who will have the hundreds of billion$ at the ready to take advantage of the new technology – if only by purchasing those companies that have founded renewable energy?
    Big oil and coal, that’s whom.
    In the great gamble that is life, put your money on greed. The only down side is that many who are not wealthy will get hurt.
    BTW I am a very comfortable capitalist. It is just that I can see where it – and we – can be greatly improved with a little intervention based on common good rather than selfish greed.
    I often wish I had the chance to ask our “God obeying” PMs the simple question: “What would Jesus do if he were in your shoes today?’

    Now, Joanne, you can please do me a favour. I must admit that I have not heard “This whole thing is a man-made crisis designed for wealth transfer.”
    I also do not know what it means: transfer wealth from the corporate class to those ‘below’? Transfer wealth from poor countries to rich nations, or vice versa? Transfer wealth from the people to Govts?
    Would you mind taking me to the date of one of your blogs on that matter – or to the source of your information, please?

  3. Hello again, Joanne.
    Did you receive my reply to your above?
    Thank you for making the correction.
    It is interesting to note that there are still many people who do not know the difference between weather and climate. That is, it may be chilly where an individual is at one particular time, but that does not mean that the rest of the planet is not warming.

    Here is something else to consider. In my last email to you I pointed out the way modern fossil fuel companies have copied the methods of distortion used by Big Tobacco – who knew about the links between cancer and cigarettes, but decided not only to keep their research secret, but to deny any such links. How many people have had early deaths as a result of those lies? How many have led damaged lives as a result of continuing to smoke in the belief that it would not damage their health? How many smokers have been a burden to their families as a consequence of those lies?
    How many hundreds of billions of dollars in tax payers’ money have been spent on caring for those affected by those lies? Certainly, the taxes collected from Big Tobacco do not cover those “lost” funds.
    Well, here are some articles that show Big CO2 producers also knew of the links of their product to climate change, but also kept that knowledge secret, and to deny the link:
    (Heading – “Harvard Study Finds Exxon Misled Public about Climate Change”), and
    The bad publicity forced Exxon to hit back with:
    From that article the last paragraph is telling on a number of levels:
    “ExxonMobil continues to take action through research into technological innovation and by participating in constructive dialogue on policy options. We have pioneered research in advanced carbon capture and storage, cogeneration, methane emissions reduction and algae-based biofuels, all with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. ExxonMobil supports a revenue-neutral tax on carbon and we urged the United States to remain in the Paris Climate Agreement. These actions demonstrate our commitment to reducing the risks of climate change.”
    1. They finally publicly declare the link between CO2 and climate change.
    2. By so doing, they not only state that climate change is real (Incredibly, there are many who deny such change despite the over whelming evidence for it!) they believe it is caused by humans.
    3. They fall back on scientists to find a “cure” for this – after demonising science to continue their harm to our planet in the pursuit of immediate profit.
    4. Never does Exxon disagree with what their opponents have said: they just try to blemish their opponents by making insinuations against their methods. That is, Exxon does not admit they lied – they just attack their opponents in the way they ‘forced’ Exxon to admit to the knowledge that their product does cause climate change.
    When the lion admits to being a meat-eater, it would be foolish to continue believing that lions are all vegans.
    Other fuel companies who copied the methods of Big Tobacco in shooting the messenger, can be found in:

    PS You made mention that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is interesting to follow the way the Murdoch empire promoted that point, while ignoring that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    However, the following is most important to explore.
    “In addition to carbon dioxide, discussed below, coal plants all produce the following pollutants:
    Sulphur dioxide, which leads to acid rain. Coal combustion is the leading source of US sulphur dioxide emissions.
    Nitrogen oxides, key contributors to ground-level ozone (smog) and respiratory illnesses.
    Particulate matter (soot), which produces haze and can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death (both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides transform into particulates in the atmosphere).
    Mercury, a neurotoxin that can contaminate waterways, make fish unsafe to eat, and cause birth defects. As with sulphur dioxide, coal burning is the leading source of mercury emissions in the United States.
    Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), arsenic, lead, cadmium, 8and other toxic heavy metals.
    After the coal is burned, the remaining ash and sludge is often disposed of in unlined and unmonitored landfills and reservoirs. Heavy metals and toxic substances contained in this waste can contaminate drinking water supplies and harm local ecosystems, and failed reservoirs can flood coal waste into surrounding areas.”
    “When coal is burned to generate electricity, the combustion releases a combination of toxic chemicals into the environment, and thus the human body. A November 2009 report on the effects of coal by the Physicians for Social Responsibility found that coal combustion affects not only the human respiratory system, but also the cardiovascular and nervous system.[1]

    A 2011 report by the American Lung Association found that coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources.[2] A 2004 report by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that soot pollution from power plants contributes to 24,000 premature deaths, 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks, and tens of thousands of hospital visits and asthma attacks each year.[3]”

    1. Hi Thomas,
      Here is my reply. It’s been a tough year with my daughter having serious health issues since last December – so climate change was bottom of my priorities this year. That’s why you han’t heard from me. But I hadn’t forgotten about you. I doubt we’ll never agree on this issue but I did take the time while on holiday in September to watch a film I’d like you to see. I don’t expect you to watch it – so over the last three months I’ve taken some notes for you as to what the dissenting scientists had to say. Have a skim over my notes and if any of it interests you please watch the film in it’s entirety.
      You have an interesting idea of what a Christian should be. We are to have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them. I’m not interested in the battle between the “left” and the “right,” these are differences that are exploited by those in power. My advice is investigate Al Gore and energy trading, learn about Agenda 2030 – the 17 goals and 169 sustainable development goals. Giving a billion each year to the UN is not going to altar the climate one whit. It’s just going to ensure a socialist worldwide dictatorship where you will be tracked, analysed and monitored for your energy usage. The Bible does contain warnings about this system.
      I hope you had a happy Christmas and all the best for 2020.
      Kind regards,

  4. Forgot to mention a book that may help you see things in a clearer manner: “Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right” by investigative journalist, Jane Mayer.
    You might wish to alert your readers to your view of the information contained in that text.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s