# Big Oil are not Climate Change Denialists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303 "2014-07-03T21:32:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/41 "2014-07-04T03:24:07Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Wait a minute, we sure don’t want someone speaking with any relevant experience around here. No, we’d much rather jerk off in an echo chamber. So far I’m not impressed at all, your OP was an exercise of pointing out what many others in climate change sites that look at the deniers noticed for years already. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Your wall of text here shows me that you are not too familiar with oil and gas companies. Let me clue you in, they sell a commodity. As a result of that very simple statement, everything you just typed is now invalid. That commodity will not end or stop being used, the issue is to control the emissions of that commodity. Otherwise it would be hard to use that commodity in the form of gasoline when the roads in many coastal cities will be gone if not much is done to increase the development of alternative technologies or better ways at capturing emissions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/42 "2014-07-04T03:35:03Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I don’t know if I saw any in the previous discussions. Frankly your discussions with FXMastermind (did I get that right?) were also hard to follow due to esoteric comments and verbose wording. If you could link to some I would appreciate it. A lot can be found in the first link I posted in the next link; of course, even the moderators had to reign on the ones like FX that attempted to make it hard to follow because for contrarians it is on their bests interests to make it hard to follow. > **[What can be done (climate change debate)?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=717980)** > > We have a lot of debates about climate change on the board. To be honest, I’m not interested in another one debating whether or not it’s happening or whether or not humans are the cause. Let’s take it as a given that climate change is happening,... As one article from Blomberg pointed out in that thread: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html) > [@](#): > > Politicians Who Deny Climate Change Cannot Be Pro-Business There is that and other issues that we are ignoring, issues that their costs should be added to the actual price we have to pay for continuing to depend on fossil fuels: > [@](#): > > Here’s what makes the general silence on climate and the mocking from the self-identified pro-business party so absurd: tackling climate change is the smartest thing we can do for both our public health and our private sector. Reducing carbon emissions from our power plants, cars, and factories cleans the air and saves a lot of money. At the macro level, the burning of coal alone costs the U.S. about $350 billion per year in health (asthma, heart attacks, and so on) and pollution costs. At the micro level, from companies down to households, the opportunities to get lean and save money are vast. > > But more strategically, tackling carbon is an immense economic opportunity. Here’s billionaire and entrepreneur Richard Branson on the upside potential: > > “I’ve described increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as one of the greatest threats to the ongoing prosperity and sustainability of life on the planet. The good news is that creating businesses that will power our growth, and reduce our carbon output while protecting resources, is also the greatest wealth-generating opportunity of our generation. [There is no] choice between growth and reducing our carbon output.” > > This quest will drive innovation and create millions of jobs for some lucky companies and countries. Is this multi-trillion-dollar opportunity something we really want to miss out on? The other major economies are not sitting this one out. Germany is quickly moving its electric grid to renewables. China is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to energy efficiency and much more to the clean economy in general. > > But let’s say you don’t buy the argument that fighting climate change keeps us competitive globally, saves trillions of dollars, and generates new wealth. Then how about the overwhelming national security rationale? Using less oil, for example, reduces funding to petro-dictators around the world. The former head of the CIA, James Woolsey, puts is very bluntly: “Your gas money funds terrorism.” ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/43 "2014-07-04T03:44:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, that’s what they say **openly.** They also fund denialist think-tanks, somewhat less openly. Even if they do, I don’t see how unambiguous pro-AGW statements on their websites are a problem. It would be interesting to get the reaction of an anti-AGW person regarding the statements. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/44 "2014-07-04T03:48:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > A lot can be found in the first link I posted in the next link; of course, even the moderators had to reign on the ones like FX that attempted to make it hard to follow because for contrarians it is on their bests interests to make it hard to follow. > > [What can be done (climate change debate)? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=717980) > > As one article from Blomberg pointed out in that thread: > > [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/politicians-who-deny-climate-change-cannot-be-pro-business.html) > > There is that and other issues that we are ignoring, issues that their costs should be added to the actual price we have to pay for continuing to depend on fossil fuels: You’re avoiding the answer: what are our alternatives? We don’t have any alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/45 "2014-07-04T03:54:49Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > You’re avoiding the answer: what are our alternatives? We don’t have any alternatives. Well, I think there should be an alternative as only showing to others that you are not looking at the links. 🙂 The following BTW was the first one I linked to in the linked previous discussion. [http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/](http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/) Denmark and, as pointed in the thread too, regions in Texas are showing how one can become carbon neutral and to continue to develop with no emissions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/46 "2014-07-04T03:57:20Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Even if they do, I don’t see how unambiguous pro-AGW statements on their websites are a problem. It would be interesting to get the reaction of an anti-AGW person regarding the statements. That is what I wondered too, when the fossil fuel companies are agreeing that there is a problem one wonders what was all that hot air all about that comes from many contrarians. Of course, as the guy from Murray Energy shows, he did not get the memo. [http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=9603](http://www.governorswindenergycoalition.org/?p=9603) And also several Republican Governors. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/47 "2014-07-04T04:05:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, I think there should be an alternative as only showing to others that you are not looking at the links. 🙂 > > The following BTW was the first one I linked to in the linked previous discussion. > > [http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/](http://denmark.dk/en/green-living/) > > Denmark and, as pointed in the thread too, regions in Texas are showing how one can become carbon neutral and to continue to develop with no emissions. Pfff. Get real. What about planes, trains, and automobiles, and coal fired electricity plants, and plastics and tarmac and… Fuckkkkk. A few hundred windmills won’t make air travel possible. All of this shit is touchy-feely politics to make you think a difference is being made: it’s not. The world lives on oil and we do not have alternatives right now. Fucking windmills, bicycles, and solar panels. Yeah. That might make a 3% difference. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/48 "2014-07-04T04:13:16Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Pfff. Get real. What about planes, trains, and automobiles, and coal fired electricity plants, and plastics and tarmac and… Planes are a big one, but trains, automobiles and many others are and can be made to have less emissions, the big sources of pollutions are still the power plants. And indeed, I did offer solutions while you \*\*repeated \*\*the \*\*mistaken \*\*idea that I had not offered any. But that was a reply for your sorry query, not to follow the high jack that you want to do so as to avoid the subject of the OP. The rest of your potty tirade doesn’t deserve a reply. Suffice to say that you only showed that you only are willing to ignore past information and sound insulted when you were wrong about me not mentioning solutions before. And more links and demonstrations of progress were also linked to in the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/49 "2014-07-04T04:20:44Z")
RE: the OP, I have to say I’m surprised. If Big Oil was secretly trying to undermine AGW I don’t see what they have to gain by these public proclamations. It doesn’t seem like public opinion for AGW is strong enough to force the companies into admitting the role of fossil fuels. If I recall correctly, the tobacco companies fought the cigarette-cancer link to the bitter end and I would have expected the same from Big Oil. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/50 "2014-07-04T04:32:42Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > RE: the OP, I have to say I’m surprised. If Big Oil was secretly trying to undermine AGW I don’t see what they have to gain by these public proclamations. It doesn’t seem like public opinion for AGW is strong enough to force the companies into admitting the role of fossil fuels. If I recall correctly, the tobacco companies fought the cigarette-cancer link to the bitter end and I would have expected the same from Big Oil. It is not strange, most of the denial tactics observed came from the tobacco industry, some of the same scientists and think tanks that defended big tobacco and funded friendly politicians are the same that now support the polluters. The same front of accepting the science officially is there, while at the same time any regulations that would follow after accepting the science are stalled at the legislative level. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/Py2XVILHUjQ/maxresdefault.jpg "32000 Scientists") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ) (Short Video on how Dr Seitz and groups like the Heartland Institute supported both) BTW, even today tobacco and the fossil fuel industry know what kind of politician to support that will prevent any more regulations from coming to both tobacco and global warming gases emissions. That is what I mean by the corrupting effect that companies (or to be more precise, the owners and CEOs) have over the most influential of governments. > **[Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/climate-of-doubt/transcript/?)** > > FRONTLINE explores the massive shift in public opinion on climate change. (Link to the transcript of the investigation made by Frontline of how groups like Americans for Prosperity are influencing and organizing the defeat of even Republicans that dare to accept the science, financed in good part by fossil fuel CEOs or owners). ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/51 "2014-07-04T04:46:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is not strange, most of the denial tactics observed came from the tobacco industry, some of the same scientists and think tanks that defended big tobacco and funded friendly politicians are the same that now support the polluters. The same front of accepting the science officially is there, while at the same time any regulations that would follow after accepting the science are stalled at the legislative level. > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ) > (Short Video on how Dr Seitz and groups like the Heartland Institute supported both) > > BTW, even today tobacco and the fossil fuel industry know what kind of politician to support that will prevent any more regulations from coming to both tobacco and global warming gases emissions. That is what I mean by the corrupting effect that companies (or to be more precise, the owners and CEOs) have over the most influential of governments. > > [Climate of Doubt | FRONTLINE](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/transcript-31/) > (Link to the transcript of the investigation made by Frontline of how groups like Americans for Prosperity are influencing and organizing the defeat of even Republicans that dare to accept the science, financed in good part by fossil fuel CEOs or owners). Honestly. You link to a 10 minute video and a gazillion page wall of text interview without providing insight. I don’t have time for that. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/52 "2014-07-04T04:48:26Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Honestly. You link to a 1o minute video and a gazillion page wall of text interview without providing insight. I don’t have time for that. Sorry. The insight is in the short descriptions I made, it is not my problem if even those short insights are troublesome to some. Here is more information of the shenanigans that Americans For Prosperity are up to and the ones paying for it: [http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/03/18/americans-for-prosperity-distorting-climate-change-science-and-economics-in-well-funded-campaign/](http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/03/18/americans-for-prosperity-distorting-climate-change-science-and-economics-in-well-funded-campaign/) > [@](#): > > Though the distortion of climate change science and economics is very important to AFP’s climate initiatives, the core objective is to undermine public support for government intervention in the market. That central ideological basis for AFP’s initiatives is evident in the comments of Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) upon being awarded the Washington Award by AFP Foundation Chairman David Koch at the “Defending the American Dream” Summit on 15 October 2008. Senator Inhofe, the leading climate change denialist in the Senate, said: “I appreciate the opportunity to join thousands of free-market conservatives who are willing to stand tall against those in Washington regardless of party who appear ready to abandon our American capitalism. Those of us gathered here today must be ready for the assault against reason and be prepared to stand our ground in protection of our free-market economic principles.” > > Ironically, by distorting the science and the economics of climate change, AFP and its allies are unwittingly exposing the American economic system to the much greater threat of catastrophic climate change impacts against which we are dangerously unprepared. And by contributing to political delay in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they threaten the economic benefits of U.S. leadership in the transition to 21st century clean energy technologies ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/53 "2014-07-04T05:00:25Z")
I still don’t see the alternatives to petroleum right now. There aren’t any. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/54 "2014-07-04T05:03:04Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > I still don’t see the alternatives to petroleum right now. There aren’t any. Repeating it will not change the fact that you were wrong. As for comments on what groups like Americans For Prosperity are doing with the money from fossil fuel owners we can see only silence coming out so far. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/55 "2014-07-04T11:47:02Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Honestly. You link to a 10 minute video and a gazillion page wall of text interview without providing insight. I don’t have time for that. Sorry. > [@Leaffan](#): > > I still don’t see the alternatives to petroleum right now. There aren’t any. Then drop out of the thread and stop hijacking it. The thread is not about whether we need fossil fuels or petroleum. The OP explicitly made the claim that Big Oil must not be opposed to climate change science because they posted some bland text on their web sites. Regardless whether or not we need petroleum now or in the immediate future, chanting “we need oil” provides no evidence that the petroleum companies are supporting or opposing the science (and attendant political efforts) regarding climate change. If you do not have the time to look at sources and you simply want to complain that we need oil, go open a new thread to discuss that issue and ask that everyone post in short paragraphs. What you are doing here is hijacking the thread and then complaining when others have responded to your hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/56 "2014-07-04T12:10:57Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > I completely disagree. It seems incredibly meaningless to compare one product that is purely recreational in purpose to another that fills a basic human need. … which is also, in very large part, recreational as well. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/57 "2014-07-04T12:25:16Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > RE: the OP, I have to say I’m surprised. If Big Oil was secretly trying to undermine AGW I don’t see what they have to gain by these public proclamations. It doesn’t seem like public opinion for AGW is strong enough to force the companies into admitting the role of fossil fuels. If I recall correctly, the tobacco companies fought the cigarette-cancer link to the bitter end and I would have expected the same from Big Oil. First of all you’re mistaken if you think tobacco companies have given up the fight, in any way shape or form, and there are lessons here in how the coal and oil companies operate, because they are equally malignant industries with very similar methods. Indeed it’s been said that the tobacco industry is really two industries, one that makes and sells cigarettes, and one that works to undermine criticism of tobacco, fosters doubts about science and government, neutralizes opposition and harasses its opponents, and coerces and coordinates allies. Philip Morris just recently ended a ten-year internal effort called the Regulatory Strategy Project that successfully got them exactly the FDA tobacco bill that they wanted – indeed one that they pretty much wrote themselves – passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2009, which pretty much prevents the FDA from doing anything to interfere with cigarette design, manufacturing, or marketing. As far as the pious gibberish that oil companies are spouting on their websites is concerned, this is par for the course, and tobacco companies did it, too, all the while fighting science and knowledge and spreading FUD. It’s the “we’re not the problem, we’re part of the solution” PR technique. A particularly sordid example of this was the tobacco industry’s supposed “youth access” program in the early 90s, ostensibly designed to limit youth access to tobacco through carding and other means. In reality the program had nefarious motives. Like the oil industry, the tobacco industry tightly controlled legislators at the federal and state levels, so anti-smoking campaigns had moved to local levels and the strategy of creating smoking bans. The youth program not only generated goodwill and helped to undermine anti-tobacco efforts, but it gave the industry a pretext for visiting retailers and paying them to report back to the Tobacco Institute (the industry’s former lobby group) on any political anti-smoking activities that they could then mobilize against – a strategy that was made public in an internal Institute document many years later. And so these things go, unknown and unseen by the public. It’s a three-pronged strategy: control the political process, undermine the public’s confidence in the relevant science, while all the while making yourself look good. > [@Leaffan](#): > > Honestly. You link to a 10 minute video and a gazillion page wall of text interview without providing insight. I don’t have time for that. Sorry. > [@Leaffan](#): > > I still don’t see the alternatives to petroleum right now. There aren’t any. It seems to be your strategy to either ignore evidence or, when you can’t ignore it, to fall back to the refrain “there’s no alternative” to oil and coal. Aside from that not being relevant to the topic here, perhaps you’re not aware that the very province you live in generates 85% of all its electric power from clean energy, more than half from nuclear power and more than a third from hydroelectric, and has also been one of the Canadian epicenters of wind power development. You mention planes, trains, automobiles, coal power generation, and plastics. It’s not useful to lump all uses of oil into one long run-on sentence and pretend that there’s no solution. Some of these are far more problematic than others, and petrochemical manufacturing, like plastics, isn’t a climate issue at all. Coal power generation and cars represent a huge proportion of the problem, and your own province’s power generation is ample proof that there are indeed clean alternatives. And electric cars and hybrids do exist, and with enough will and demand and further refinement major transition to electric vehicles can be very much sooner than “50 or 100 years”. The trouble is that people are still being heavily influenced by tobacco-industry style denialism and FUD about the magnitude of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/58 "2014-07-04T12:47:00Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > If I’m Carmelo Anthony, why would I want to take a pay cut to sign with the Miami Heat. Wait, am I Exxon or am I an NBA all-star? Oh, wait, I’ve just mastered an elementary writing technique. You obviously haven’t. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Wait a minute, we sure don’t want someone speaking with any relevant experience around here. No, we’d much rather jerk off in an echo chamber. I never said any such bullshit. If you want to feel persecuted, stick words into someone else’s mouth. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > So, let me guess you stopped paying attention to business trends around 1970? I’ll clue you in, conglomerates were a fad. Investors figured out they could get diversification in better more efficient ways. We like focused companies now with clear direction. Even small investors can take part in this new world of easier more efficient diversification methods. If you get a chance, read up about the mutual fund. Mutual funds are invested as the fund owner sees fit. Some of them do concentrate on singular purpose companies, but by no means all of them. As for “not since the 1970s” I’ll be sure to let Boeing, Comcast, Parker Hannifin, Procter and Gamble, Johnson Controls, Eaton, 3M, Kimball Industries, General Motors, General Electric, Lockheed, and Raytheon that they are fads and aren’t around, anymore, or buying companies to add into their groups. And those are just the ones I know off the top of my head. And it’s not “investors looking to diversify,” it’s companies that buy other companies that diversify their holdings to continue to give profits to their shareholders, usually hoping to keep a record of high returns intact, and to guard against their primary product or service dropping revenue and making them less attractive to shareholders. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Your wall of text here shows me that you are not too familiar with oil and gas companies. Let me clue you in, they sell a commodity. As a result of that very simple statement, everything you just typed is now invalid. Oh, goody. Authoritarian hand-waving with no evidence. You have used none of your proclaimed expertise to show I am wrong. Please, educate instead of hand-waving. And suggesting commodities aren’t sold on a contract basis is…just plain confusing. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/59 "2014-07-04T13:27:15Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Oil and gas companies have absolutely no business in trying to become solar or wind or nuclear or whatever else companies. They have absolutely no expertise in those completely unrelated businesses. Utter bullshit. Sometimes the difference between long term success and failure is having the foresight to recognize the larger true business that a company is really in – for example, an oil company might conclude that it’s really in the **energy** business. [BP, for instance](http://www.bp.com/en/global/alternative-energy.html), has interests in biofuels and is an operator of wind farms. ExxonMobil, by contrast, IIRC, sold off their alternative energy holdings under former CEO Lee Raymond, who was also responsible for some of their most notorious campaigns of denialism funding. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > Wait a minute, we sure don’t want someone speaking with any relevant experience around here. No, we’d much rather jerk off in an echo chamber. Experience in what? This isn’t a discussion about how to get oil out of the ground, it’s a discussion about the public relations industry. See my previous post. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303/60 "2014-07-04T13:58:49Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > Furthermore, that specific response doesn’t even address the specific point of the topic which is that Big Oil does not deny climate change. At best, the response was basically another way of saying, “so what.” “So what” is a legitimate response to the straw man of the OP. Different people say different things regarding the actions of the oil companies. Those people and their statements range from people who simply do not like large companies claiming “oil companies are evil” to people who actually invest large portions of their lives involved in the Climate Change debate who have made specific criticisms of specific actions by petroleum companies. Your OP pretends, (without providing a single supporting assertion), that only the haters of large companies have anything to say on the subject. A throwaway line indicating that large companies have a history of giving lip service to one good actions while engaging in actual efforts to derail those good actions is an appropriate response to the OP. Your desperate effort to try to break the analogy on the grounds that the companies you are trying to defend have a “necessary” product fails. Regardless whether oil is or is not necessary, if the companies (tobacco and oil) both make nice sounding statements about the need to change behavior while actively funding efforts to prevent such changes to behavior, the analogy is perfect. > [@LonghornDave](#): > > It’s not persuasive evidence that Exxon is not a climate change denialist to show a quote from them saying that climate change is real and man-made? Nope. Posting bland, single line comments on web sites that “recognize” that climate change occurs (so that people such as yourself come to believe that they are not in denial) while continuing to fund “science” and politicians who obstruct every effort to avert more serious climate change simply means that they have engaged in the practice of marketing. They want to encourage people to purchase their products. If Company A says, “climate change is happening” and Company B says "“climate is not happening,” Company A can use the statement from Company B to advertise “Buy from us!” so all the companies say the same sort of bland, content free stuff. Persuasive evidence would be a refutation of actual claims made against the oild companies rather than unsubstantiated claims that the straw man arguments you have posted are false. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/big-oil-are-not-climate-change-denialists/692303.md?page=4)