ADVERTISEMENT

Shell Joins Exxon as Proven, Lying Scumbags

Nov 28, 2010
87,543
42,363
113
Maryland
The Los Angeles Times has reported that in 1989 Shell Oil announced it was redesigning its natural gas platform in the North Sea in the Atlantic in order to deal with rising sea levels caused by global warming. Yet, despite this admission, Shell continued funding groups denying the existence of climate change for decades.

Oil giant ExxonMobil is already facing a criminal investigation over similar charges that it misled investors and lied to the public about the risks of climate change.

http://www.democracynow.org/
 
Here's my personal story of Shell scumbagism:

As a college student, I elected to spend a summer studying in Guatemala City, living with a host family. The families would sign up to host kids, because they were paid about $1000/mo. to do it, which goes a long ways in Guatemala city. My family was dirt poor by our terms, and I lived in a home with aluminum walls and roof, no running water, and slept with a chicken coop about 2 feet from my head on the other side of the aluminum. All rooms in the house opened to the outside air, to give you an idea.

The father of the house worked at a Shell station down the street, which was considered a good job. He pumped gas and washed people's windows for a living. While I was there, the local Shell office changed general managers at his location. The new general manager waited until the end of a 2 week pay period, and on payday, let the entire staff go, replacing them with his friends. He did not pay them. The employees, my host father included, went to the Shell corporate office in Guatemala City to complain and hopefully get their paychecks, knowing that getting their jobs back was probably hopeless. Well, I was only there for about another 6 weeks after this took place, but by the time I left, no reparations had been made. While I was there, I contacted The US Shell HQ 3 times to tell them what was going on (by email only, which I had access to about 1/week), and was ignored.

I've had a little place in hell for Shell ever since. I don't know the details of how their offices are structured globally, but their name/logo are all over it.
 
Surprising it took 27 years to reveal this. Can not say I am surprised. these same companies have lobbied intensely against the use of natural gas engines in the transportation industry and of course in consumer auto industry. Same difference. Everyone knows about this and yet no one seems to make a huge deal about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Here's my personal story of Shell scumbagism:

As a college student, I elected to spend a summer studying in Guatemala City, living with a host family. The families would sign up to host kids, because they were paid about $1000/mo. to do it, which goes a long ways in Guatemala city. My family was dirt poor by our terms, and I lived in a home with aluminum walls and roof, no running water, and slept with a chicken coop about 2 feet from my head on the other side of the aluminum. All rooms in the house opened to the outside air, to give you an idea.

The father of the house worked at a Shell station down the street, which was considered a good job. He pumped gas and washed people's windows for a living. While I was there, the local Shell office changed general managers at his location. The new general manager waited until the end of a 2 week pay period, and on payday, let the entire staff go, replacing them with his friends. He did not pay them. The employees, my host father included, went to the Shell corporate office in Guatemala City to complain and hopefully get their paychecks, knowing that getting their jobs back was probably hopeless. Well, I was only there for about another 6 weeks after this took place, but by the time I left, no reparations had been made. While I was there, I contacted The US Shell HQ 3 times to tell them what was going on (by email only, which I had access to about 1/week), and was ignored.

I've had a little place in hell for Shell ever since. I don't know the details of how their offices are structured globally, but their name/logo are all over it.
I am sure that if regulations in the us were relaxed like righties want, something like that wouldn't happen here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2facedboonefan
I am sure that if regulations in the us were relaxed like righties want, something like that wouldn't happen here.
Um no, something like that would not happen here. People have recourse here in many forms, while there (in 2001), they did not. There, the government, and society, was truly corrupt (maybe still is), and people truly didn't have a chance. Our "corruption" and "injustice" is laughable compared to theirs.
 
I am sure that if regulations in the us were relaxed like righties want, something like that wouldn't happen here.
People lose their jobs all the time because of upper managers wanting to have friends and/or relatives in place. But in the USA, they usually get their pay.
 
Surprising it took 27 years to reveal this. Can not say I am surprised. these same companies have lobbied intensely against the use of natural gas engines in the transportation industry and of course in consumer auto industry. Same difference. Everyone knows about this and yet no one seems to make a huge deal about it.

Lobbied who? The government? The auto industry? Shell told Ford or GM what engines they could use? If they control the auto industry why did hybrids make it to the market? I remember a few farmers converting over in the seventies and the tank took up a fourth of the truck bed. You're probably one of those that think they kept buying up those carburetor patents in the old days that got 100 miles to the gallon.
 
Lobbied who? The government? The auto industry? Shell told Ford or GM what engines they could use? If they control the auto industry why did hybrids make it to the market? I remember a few farmers converting over in the seventies and the tank took up a fourth of the truck bed. You're probably one of those that think they kept buying up those carburetor patents in the old days that got 100 miles to the gallon.
Does OiT know about those patents?
 
Acknowledging that the oceans are rising and believing that the only cause is man made global warming are two different things.
 
Surprising it took 27 years to reveal this. Can not say I am surprised. these same companies have lobbied intensely against the use of natural gas engines in the transportation industry and of course in consumer auto industry. Same difference. Everyone knows about this and yet no one seems to make a huge deal about it.

I strongly recommend Oreskes & Conway's Merchants of Doubt. They walk us through several familiar denial campaigns including cigarettes, ozone, DDT, acid rain, second hand smoke and a few more. Fascinating stuff. Amazing how many of the same liars show up again and again, funded by major corporations trying to cover their asses and protect their profits while people are harmed or die.

41kjl5H2WhL._SX332_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
Acknowledging that the oceans are rising and believing that the only cause is man made global warming are two different things.

When all but a small minority of scientists say that the cause IS man-made, what reason is there to base policy off what the small minority says? Profits, profits, profits. Get it while you still can.
 
When all but a small minority of scientists say that the cause IS man-made, what reason is there to base policy off what the small minority says? Profits, profits, profits. Get it while you still can.
Do you have a link of where the scientific community was on the issue in 1989?

Different period of time than now.
 
Acknowledging that the oceans are rising and believing that the only cause is man made global warming are two different things.
Logically sound. But then there's the science.

Do you honestly believe they decided to reengineer their platforms to protect against rising sea levels on a hunch - or some other reason that has no connection to CO2-driven global warming?

It's simply not believable that they actually think climate change isn't driven by the overuse of the products they sell.
 
A company that would say, take us to court. It will cost you 500 to get you 300 final paycheck. Yes it would absolutely happen here.
 
Logically sound. But then there's the science.

Do you honestly believe they decided to reengineer their platforms to protect against rising sea levels on a hunch - or some other reason that has no connection to CO2-driven global warming?

It's simply not believable that they actually think climate change isn't driven by the overuse of the products they sell.
I don't know why they did it.

We are talking about 1989 - was CO2 driven global warming science something that was on your plate 27 years ago?
 
Do you have a link of where the scientific community was on the issue in 1989?

Different period of time than now.
What are you trying to say?

The main difference between then and now is the massive increase in data supporting what was thought then and a worsening of the predicted outcomes. We understand it better now, but we understood it quite well in broad strokes back then. Scientists and well-educated laymen and science popularizers have been on this page even longer than that.

This is NOT an example of "we didn't know any better then."

The date you asked about is just 3 years before the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change
 
Logically sound. But then there's the science.

Do you honestly believe they decided to reengineer their platforms to protect against rising sea levels on a hunch - or some other reason that has no connection to CO2-driven global warming?

It's simply not believable that they actually think climate change isn't driven by the overuse of the products they sell.
I will add the following to my post above pulled it from a History of the Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming Article. It may not be a coincidence or not that in 1988 it was acknowledged that the climate was warmer driving Shell's response while at the same time they funded research into the causes.

In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940's to the 1970's. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950's and 1960's in favor of global cooling.

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming. The press also gained an interest in global warming. It soon became a hot news topic that was repeated on a global scale. Pictures of smoke stags were put next to pictures of melting ice caps and flood events. A complete media circus evolved that convinced many people we are on the edge of a significant climate change that has many negative impacts on our world today. Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world's leading global warming experts.

In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. The greenhouse effect theory was named and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. This organization tries to predict the impact of the greenhouse effect according to existing climate models and literature information. The Panel consists of more than 2500 scientific and technical experts from more than 60 countries all over the world. The scientists are from widely divergent research fields including climatology, ecology, economics, medicine, and oceanography. The IPCC is referred to as the largest peer-reviewed scientific cooperation project in history. The IPCC released climate change reports in 1992 and 1996, and the latest revised version in 2001.

In the 1990's scientists started to question the greenhouse effect theory, because of major uncertainties in the data sets and model outcomes. They protested the basis of the theory, which was data of global annual mean temperatures. They believed that the measurements were not carried out correctly and that data from oceans was missing. Cooling trends were not explained by the global warming data and satellites showed completely different temperature records from the initial ones. The idea began to grow that global warming models had overestimated the warming trend of the past 100 years. This caused the IPCC to review their initial data on global warming, but this did not make them reconsider whether the trend actually exists. We now know that 1998 was globally the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001 and 1997. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.
 
Do you have a link of where the scientific community was on the issue in 1989?

Different period of time than now.

You're stretching to defend them. Do you think there's LESS evidence now that climate change is influenced by man? Why would anyone who is neither a climate scientist nor has any ties to Big Oil come down on the side of Big Oil? That's team mentality politics at its finest. Ignore the profit motive and pretend they're all a bunch of good people who don't need any regulations because the market will punish them.
 
I don't know why they did it.

We are talking about 1989 - was CO2 driven global warming science something that was on your plate 27 years ago?
No. Why is that important?

We are talking about organizations that put a lot of money into the science surrounding their product. We know that Exxon knew exactly what was going on. Do you honestly think Shell didn't but was willing to spend a lot of reengineering money anyway?

If you don't think global warming is behind rising sea levels, there is no other good reason to think oceans will rise. If you don't think human activity is driving the global warming, there is no other good reason to think there will be global warming.

It really is that simple.
 
What are you trying to say?

The main difference between then and now is the massive increase in data supporting what was thought then and a worsening of the predicted outcomes. We understand it better now, but we understood it quite well in broad strokes back then. Scientists and well-educated laymen and science popularizers have been on this page even longer than that.

This is NOT an example of "we didn't know any better then."

The date you asked about is just 3 years before the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change
I am trying to say that drawing conclusions on what Shell was thinking in 1989 is influenced by what we know in 2016.
 
You're stretching to defend them. Do you think there's LESS evidence now that climate change is influenced by man? Why would anyone who is neither a climate scientist nor has any ties to Big Oil come down on the side of Big Oil? That's team mentality politics at its finest. Ignore the profit motive and pretend they're all a bunch of good people who don't need any regulations because the market will punish them.
I view it not as a defense, more like I am not going to find them guilty without knowing more of what they did.

IMHO as a society we tend to jump straight the conclusion we like before we know what all the facts are of what they did.
 
I will add the following to my post above pulled it from a History of the Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming Article. It may not be a coincidence or not that in 1988 it was acknowledged that the climate was warmer driving Shell's response while at the same time they funded research into the causes.

In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa. These curves have become one of the major icons of global warming. The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940's to the 1970's. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950's and 1960's in favor of global cooling.

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast. Environmental NGO's (Non-Governmental Organizations) started to advocate global environmental protection to prevent further global warming. The press also gained an interest in global warming. It soon became a hot news topic that was repeated on a global scale. Pictures of smoke stags were put next to pictures of melting ice caps and flood events. A complete media circus evolved that convinced many people we are on the edge of a significant climate change that has many negative impacts on our world today. Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world's leading global warming experts.

In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. The greenhouse effect theory was named and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. This organization tries to predict the impact of the greenhouse effect according to existing climate models and literature information. The Panel consists of more than 2500 scientific and technical experts from more than 60 countries all over the world. The scientists are from widely divergent research fields including climatology, ecology, economics, medicine, and oceanography. The IPCC is referred to as the largest peer-reviewed scientific cooperation project in history. The IPCC released climate change reports in 1992 and 1996, and the latest revised version in 2001.

In the 1990's scientists started to question the greenhouse effect theory, because of major uncertainties in the data sets and model outcomes. They protested the basis of the theory, which was data of global annual mean temperatures. They believed that the measurements were not carried out correctly and that data from oceans was missing. Cooling trends were not explained by the global warming data and satellites showed completely different temperature records from the initial ones. The idea began to grow that global warming models had overestimated the warming trend of the past 100 years. This caused the IPCC to review their initial data on global warming, but this did not make them reconsider whether the trend actually exists. We now know that 1998 was globally the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001 and 1997. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.
Other than restating and exaggerating the frequently debunked notion that scientists agreed on global cooling back in the 1970s, this is an OK overview. But I don't know what point you are trying to make with it or how it is responsive to anything I or several others here have been saying.

Global warming IS REAL.

We've known it is real for a LONG TIME.

We know for certain that Exxon knew it in the 1980s and probably the late 1970s.

It is much more reasonable to believe that Shell also knew it - because they acted upon it - than to think they had other good reasons for spending that money, since there weren't any other good reasons then and still aren't.
 
I view it not as a defense, more like I am not going to find them guilty without knowing more of what they did.

IMHO as a society we tend to jump straight the conclusion we like before we know what all the facts are of what they did.

Fair enough, but do you really believe that Shell has never truly felt that climate change was man-made when they had scientists on top of the climate change issue back in the 80s?

When it affects their bottom line, they do something about it. That's what's been revealed here. Giving them the benefit of the doubt repeatedly is a good way to get taken for a ride.
 
Fair enough, but do you really believe that Shell has never truly felt that climate change was man-made when they had scientists on top of the climate change issue back in the 80s?

When it affects their bottom line, they do something about it. That's what's been revealed here. Giving them the benefit of the doubt repeatedly is a good way to get taken for a ride.
Maybe, but it is also possible that they were not going to make big changes based on the information they had over a 10-15 year period. I don't think we could say in 1989 what the effects of Global Warming were going to be in 2016.
 
I view it not as a defense, more like I am not going to find them guilty without knowing more of what they did.

IMHO as a society we tend to jump straight the conclusion we like before we know what all the facts are of what they did.
We know they did and continue to do great harm.

Are you actually saying they should be allowed to continue to do great harm until we "know more about what they did"?

All we really need to know more for is to know who belongs in jail and for how long and whether Shell and Exxon and others even deserve to continue in existence.

Both of those companies should almost certainly be immediately nationalized. Yes, the shareholders who looked the other way while they pocketed their blood money should lose their investment. If operations are to continue, those orghanizations should be run to meet America's energy needs while we transition away from fossil fuels. Not for profit. And we should spend what it takes to begin undoing the harm their lies and delays have caused.
 
Maybe, but it is also possible that they were not going to make big changes based on the information they had over a 10-15 year period. I don't think we could say in 1989 what the effects of Global Warming were going to be in 2016.
Nor do I know how badly you'll be hurt if I shoot you. But is that a reason to say I should be allowed to shoot you?

Please. You aren't even earning your pay with arguments this weak.
 
Nor do I know how badly you'll be hurt if I shoot you. But is that a reason to say I should be allowed to shoot you?

Please. You aren't even earning your pay with arguments this weak.
My opinion is different than yours so please don't shoot me for it.

My arguments are always weak for you but I will just throw them out there and take the beating anyway. It gives you a great opportunity.

The goal posts always get moved in these discussions. I made a simply point that decisions that Shell made in 1989 may not have been as sinister as you believed.
 
The Los Angeles Times has reported that in 1989 Shell Oil announced it was redesigning its natural gas platform in the North Sea in the Atlantic in order to deal with rising sea levels caused by global warming. Yet, despite this admission, Shell continued funding groups denying the existence of climate change for decades.

Oil giant ExxonMobil is already facing a criminal investigation over similar charges that it misled investors and lied to the public about the risks of climate change.

http://www.democracynow.org/
Even your statement doesn't content that they admit culpability. So the water was going up and they adapted?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT