Slashdot Mirror
Exxon CEO: Warming Happening, But Fears Overblown
Freshly Exhumed writes "In a speech Wednesday, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. The risks of oil and gas drilling are well understood and can be mitigated, he said. And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said. Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations."
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press
Yes, the public is about as smart as a rock. But that doesn't mean you need to spin it. Desertification of wide swaths of land as well as the acidification of the oceans will be pretty hard to deal with.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain
Not a concern for Exxon, he means.
Deny
Undervalue impact
Disassociate
Imply fix.
On the plus side,now that the CEO of Exxon has also said that the increase in temperatures over standard cycles i.e. Global Warming, is man made, I'm sure all you deniers will now apologize fro being wrong.
haha, of course you want. You entrenched into an emotional opinion, so actual facts will never change you mind.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
if the public were not illiterate then opposition to wars for oil would not let them happen, threatening the easy access to oil created by the safety given to drilling operations by the us military
The natural progression:
1. There is no such thing as global warming!
2. Global warming is theoretically possible, but it's not happening.
3. Global warming is happening, but it's no big deal.
4. Ok, we should probably do something about this global warming before it gets worse.
5. We're really f*cked now.
Apparently we're past denial and anger, and are now in the middle of bargaining.
This is going to get rough. Before we get to acceptance, we have depression to go through first.
Ahem, sorry. I meant Fr1st!!!!
He will continue to defend his business model even as it is dying (oil supplies dwindling). In the year 2100 this guy's descendant will probably still be saying there's plenty of oil even when it's as rare & costly as silver.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The CEO of an oil company tells us that burning oil isn't such a big problem! Well, I guess we can all stop worrying about that then.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Are we on step 2 or 3?
1. First they ignore you
2. Then they ridicule you
3. ???
4. Profit!
We're actually entering an Ice Age.
Global warming isn't happening.
It's happening, but we didn't cause it.
It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it.
It's happening, and we're causing it, but there's nothing we can do about it at a price we're willing to pay.
We don't know what's going to happen, so we need to wait until more evidence is in.
The first few are often accompanied by:
It's just a liberal plot to destroy industry
(as if offshoring hasn't already destroyed it).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The coral reefs off Australia and New Zealand announced their Climate Transition Plans in Adelaide, Thursday. The reefs, known for their outstanding beauty and fragile ecosystems, have decided to move further south. They announced their plans, which involve a 600 mile hike, as Rex Tillerson, the ExxonMobil CEO, announced plans to survey the ground they abandoned each year for new oil and gas fields.
MAN MADE global warming is another hoax by the "earth first" marxist who still want their socialist utopia where
there is one world government. Sorry...until you can explain "man made global warming" before the industrial revolution, you
are talking to the wall.
4. Huh . . . well, look at that. Hurricanes in January. Hey, this is not a time to play the blame game. No one could have foreseen this would happen.
5. Something must be done. Level headed people like us. Introducing Exxon Atmospheric Engineering Associates.
6. OK, that didn't work. But hey, neon green sunsets . . . cool!
7. Look you'all knew for decades that our product could lead to this, but you CHOSE to ignore the warnings by scientists rather than taking responsibility and choosing to use renewable energy. We were just selling a product people wanted and freely chose to use.
Can we relocate this guy's mouth to 1 inch above sea level? If sea level remains the same, he has nothing to worry about. If not, well, the world will be less one asshole.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
be happy.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.
but it's not. if it were we wouldn't need to exercise our fifth freedom to ensure our oil-consuming way of life. case closed, exxon douchebag. this is, of course, forgetting that oil supply is finite, while biomass/solar fuels are sustainable.
Tillerson blamed a public that is "illiterate" in science and math, a "lazy" press, and advocacy groups that "manufacture fear" for energy misconceptions
why would advocacy groups do that? is there a profit motive? is it a bigger profit motive than exxon's?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Spoken by someone who is not up for re-election this year.
1. Society able to adapt. Yup. (Just build Dykes to hold back the ocean, grow food on the deserts that now get rain, etc. etc.)
2. Risks understood and can be mitigated. Yup, (just make sure it's not a shell company so you can sue if they aren't careful.)
3. Dependence on other nations for oil not a concern. Yup. (Have you noticed what happened to price of that oil substitute "gas".)
4. Public illiterate. Yup.
5. Lazy press. Yup.
6. Advocacy groups that manufacture fear. Surely not on Slashdot? (snigger).
What's really nutty about ExxonMobil is that on the one hand, they are spending millions on TV, radio and print ads on how the US needs to improve math and science education, but at the same time roughly two-thirds of their political contributions (corporation and employees) are to Republican candidates. To a person, Republicans have conducted an all-out war on free public education, teachers, and teachers unions over the last 30 years. The leading US scientists over the last 100 years did not, in general, attend tony prep schools or come from wealthy families. If ExxonMobil is actually serious about improving math and science education in the US, they'll stop funding Republican candidates and start funding Democrats, as well as making targeted gifts to grammar and high school math and science programs around the country.
"Last July I discussed another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite their public pledge to âoediscontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose positions on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner" link
AccountKiller
Of course the Exxon CEO thinks global warming is "overblown". How long do you think it's been since he's set foot somewhere that doesn't have air conditioning?
When he was 10 years old, his Dominican nanny was carrying him through Neiman Marcus and someone asked his mother, "Gee, your son is certainly too big to still be carried. Can't he walk?" and his mom answered, "Of course, he can walk. But thank God he doesn't have to".
You are welcome on my lawn.
I hate to say it, but sometimes the global warming topics get difficult to read. The topic is sort of an instant ticket to 800+ posts with high-tension opinions on both sides.
Obligatory subthread arguments include:
--the quality of the science (both for and against)
--who's evil (whoever authored the story the thread is based on is a given, but who else?)
--how dumb the public is
--alternative energy
Let's face it. Orson Scott Card was wrong. xkcd was right
And let's hope while he's spouting off all that BS, he's investing in solar and wind or he'll ride that company all the way to Juno and Kodak land. Those aren't drilling sites, I mean Juno that old dialup company and Kodak, the company that just declared bankruptcy lol.
This statement is coming from a company with a net worth in the billions and a vested interest in remaining profitable. Of course, they are going to downplay global warming fears. Hopefully more people see through this very thinly veiled reassurance.
I really don't understand the stubborness of oil companies. Oil is not infinite, they know it. They also know that, as time goes on, people are getting more and more conscious of their footprint on the environment AND/OR the footprint of fossil fuels on their wallets.
Oil companies surely understand that, just because oil may not be used as fuel, it's use as other products such as plastics will endure.
why can't they corner the market on alternative fuels? They're still going to gouge you, whether it's $1.50/litre of gas, or a $1.50/litre of hydrogen or $1.50/kWh or whatever.
Seems to me its in their best interests, and the shareholder's best interests, to do this.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
We're going to hear lots of lamenting and hating of Exxon, but they're just a business providing what their customers want. And sad to say... all of you that are bitching about them ARE their customers. I've got one question for you: Have you stopped driving you car yet? Stopped using busses? Stopped using electricity? No? The problem isn't Exxon, the problem is we the people. We WILL use all of the fossil fuels. We'll burn them till their gone. Even if the US and Europe banned their use tomorrow, China, Russia, and Africa would gladly take up the slack.
So the question isn't "How do we find alternatives to fossil fuels" because we aren't going to find anything nearly as cheap and easy in the near future. The question is "how can we deal with whatever problems using them is going to cause?" If they really are going to cause so much damage it ends the world, then we're fucked. Cause it's going to happen. If, instead, it's going to gradually raise the tempureture of the planet over the next 200 year, then we'll likely be able to come up with some technology to help mitigate the effects. If we can't we'd better at least learn to deal with them... because the fact is, it's going to happen... no matter how much you complain on an internet forum using your computer with it's 500 watt power supply that you left on all day while you were at work.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain [...]
And we will spend trillions of dollars of tax money to keep that access available.
...Anthropogenic Global Warming coalition.
I drank what? -- Socrates
about the general illiteracy of the public.
god damn communistic scientific community
If the same people who believe that creationism is a drop in replacement for science were also the ones objecting to unobstructed consumption, manufacture and/or sale of oil/gas products, and the global warming theory
However its generally, but not always the more scientificly aware people who come out against fossil fuel usage as a whole, and global warming. There has really yet to be a good scientific study against global warming other than soley industry funded research.(like a bunch of scared CEOs desperately trying to keep stock prices from tanking in a panic)
<quote>have you stopped driving your car yet</quote>
This argument is a fallicy, our society is set up around automobile usage, and it'd be difficult if not impossible in most places to continue your life without an automobile. A better argument would be why aren't people buying more efficeint cars. Many are, but I still see a steady parade of people communiting to office buildings in SUVs. The worst part, is since they consume more fuel, they increase demand driving prices up.
The man's favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged. All credibility voided by that fact alone.
And dependence on other nations for oil is not a concern as long as access to supply is certain, he said.
Of course not, it's not as if it's your boys who are going to get sent off to get killed, maimed for life, and left with memories that will haunt them forever, you goddamn plutocrat fuck. It's not as if nearly all of our current national security headaches (and nearly all the people killed by terrorism in the world for the last 20 years) can be traced to our meddling in the middle east AT YOUR BEHEST AND ON YOUR BEHALF. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick, don't you people pay handlers to prevent us from seeing just what massive assholes you are?
Notice how we never, ever hear this kind of despicable statement from people like Joe Biden, or the English royals, both of of whom have family serving? You will find no record of President Eisenhower blithely insulting the difficult job the men in Korea faced (I wonder why!). Yet there is a word that specifically refers to the kind of twunts who don't serve, then loudly cheer to have others sent to die (especially if they use privilege to avoid serving after being called to): chickenhawks. They are despicable and should be loudly shamed at every opportunity.
Think "Colorado Springs." Adaptation sounds wonderful but it'll be fueled by burning houses, with hopes damped by submerged homes. It's all part of the deal.
1) There is no Global Warming ...and maybe in the future...
2) There is Global Warming, but it's not manmade
3) There is evidence that Global Warming is manmade, but we can handle it
4) We didn't handle Global Warming so well, and fortunately, more of the deaths occurred in third-world countries than in more substantial and respectable ones, but these catastrophes came about only because we didn't give enough support for private industry by freeing them from taxes and oversight so that they could innovate to solve all environmental problems as they would like to do with their profits if only they didn't have to pay taxes and such extravagant wages to their workers.
5) Past temperature records are flawed.
His main point was that the quality of life for vast numbers of people would be greatly improved by access to fossil fuels. At present most rely upon burning animal excrement for cooking because they can't afford anything else. He's in the business of providing the means for improving their lives so they can afford to buy his product.
So the poor should remain poor so that the well off are protected from a hypothetical risk? The peasants in the Amazon should starve to death so people in New York can "save the rain forest"?
Complaining is not a solution. And solutions that are comfortable for a few at the discomfort of many are not solutions.
so what, nobody wants to mate with me anyways.
feminism? it's called femini$m!
Seems to me its in their best interests, and the shareholder's best interests, to do this.
Disruptive technologies cause problems. "Better" for the oil companies to pretty much stick with what they're doing until the oil runs out or they're not allowed to pump it any more. With that said, every oil company has some kind of biofuel program, many of them fairly multifaceted.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If I am correct, during Pangaea, the temperature was warmer than it is right now. The dinosaurs died off while the earth was cooling down. Does that mean if scientists want to revive dinsaurs and other *really old* creatures, then the world needs to heat up so they can survive/live?
Sadly, this was inevitable because the people trying to educate us about the reality of global climate change have a lunatic fringe which *does* overstate the situation, and that's as unhelpful and dishonest as the people pretending that there is no global climate change.
"It's an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution".
Duct tape was invented for just class of problem.
Tillerson cleverly attacks the weakest part of research about climate change: the prospective part, about its consequences.
In general, the short term projections that were included in the 'concensus' report by the IPCC show that the scientists underestimated the effects of global warming, so far.
Tillerson is combining PR and salesmanship. He acknowledged the objection, and then he minimized it. After which he went on to taught the strengths of his company and it's position and even called to question the intelligence of it's detractors. It was really quite masterful, in a pathological sense, since, if you view his assertions in light of the fact that climate change, if severe enough, could challenge humanity's ability to produce enough agricultural output to support the current population, require the re-engineering of all of our coastal facilities and population centers worldwide, and require the relocation of millions of refugees who exist at subsistence level to begin with.
Tillerson, on the other hand, is in the enviable of position of being able to outsource his move, off-shore his assets and afford to have staff make all the arrangements.
why can't they corner the market on alternative fuels? They're still going to gouge you, whether it's $1.50/litre of gas, or a $1.50/litre of hydrogen or $1.50/kWh or whatever.
I suspect they'll do just what you recommend, but not until they calculate that conditions are right to do so. Starting their transition to renewables "too soon" would cost them development and infrastructure money, while also decreasing demand for their current product, thus reducing their profits two different ways.
Or to put it another way, when you see the oil companies pushing energy technologies other than oil in a significant way, that's when you'll know the world's oil supply really has started to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Which produces more greenhouse gases? Two horses to power a cart, or an automobile?
How about the cow you ate last year? Why is it that so many are concerned about the CO2, rather than the methane, which is at least 40 times worse for the greenhouse effect?
I'm sure we will adapt. However, I'm much in doubt that the new world environment will be as pleasant as it was before.
The crime is not to change the world. The crime is to change it for the worse.
Video of some good progressive thrash music
I suggest you read the IPCC report: most of its conclusions are at best couched in terms like "likely" (meaning >66% probability estimate by experts). The fact that they need to determine probabilities by expert judgment, rather than by statistics on observations, tells you that they don't have much data to go on. The results are not independently reproducible because most of them are retroactive interpretations of data. "Rock solid" is five sigma results obtained in multiple independent experiments.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that in order for "expert judgment" to be worth anything, you need to test and verify that your experts are actually qualified and that they are unbiased, but the IPCC report has been created by a self-selected crowd of people with an ax to grind whose qualifications are all over the place, and whose conclusions were arrived at by negotiation and not statistics.
Here is one of the key conclusions from the IPCC report (Section 5.7):
In different words: we can't make a solid economic argument that it's better to do something about climate change now, rather than just letting it happen and deal with the consequences.
http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html
http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html
Als de Gunners kapitein, een kleine wet heeft meer dan twee weken uit de buurt van het stadion, en net een prachtig weer om een dergelijke prestaties hebben, hoe kunnen de fans juichten. De eerste vertegenwoordiger van een kleine wet Arsenal begint, of in het 28 oktober 2003 de League Cup derde ronde wedstrijd tegen Ross, billige free sko,wholesale nike free shoes in uk usa canada, Graham Wing. Na zeven jaar, hij heeft ingeluid in de eerste 250 keer voor de Gunners eerste gelegenheid, is na vijf opeenvolgende tegenstanders versloeg Chelsea zelf. Gezicht heeft een "haat" van Chelsea, een kleine wet niet alleen de song en Walcott de doelstellingen helpt, waren ze nog 51 minuten, billig free sko, scoorde een doelpunt. Naast de doelstellingen en helpt, een kleine wet te spelen 88 minuten een game-high 74 passen, billig max sko, het slagingspercentage van bijna 80%. 88 minuten, een kleine wet vervangen door Tomas Rosicky, Emirates Stadium, de fans stonden en applaudisseerde. Warcraft dutje Blues verloren en minder dan onoverwinnelijk jeugd, zullen 32-jarige Drogba niet oud geworden soort van gevoel? nike sko lilla,Had 13 keer tegen Arsenal, scoorde hij 13 doelpunten, de wedstrijd stuurde een vrije trap slechts assisteert laatste 10 wedstrijden, scoorde slechts twee doelpunten. Chinese fans zullen nog steeds liefkozend genoemd Drogba een "Warcraft", maar nadat de deur wordt genereus om hem afstappen. Lampard slaapwandelen, Drogba niet het doel te vinden, Terry werd een vergiet, is Chelsea is gevallen van de top van de vierde het huidige seizoen de laatste zes Premier League zonder een te winnen.
Because there is 227 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is methane? Also CO2 and methane absorb IR in different bands and the band that methane absorbs in radiated at a lower energy level than CO2's. Finally, most atmospheric methane breaks down into CO2 and water within a decade or two so in the long run one methane equals one CO2 anyway.
Seems to me that most overthrows its the politicians who find out they were the 1% society was rebelling against.
Considering that many of the money problems being experienced in countries around the world were caused by politicians promising the moon knowing full well it can never be delivered they best hope the people don't become smart enough to connect the dots.
Remember, the rich are only in such a position because they still have the ability to make the 1% look the other way - that 1% being the politicians who control the governments who have the police and military powers to get their way. Your only free until a politician decides they know better to do with you or what you produce than you do.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The article linked to the Council on Foreign Relations, but not to the speech itself. Here's the page about the speech by Rex Tillerson of Exxon Mobil, and here's a transcript. There's also a video.
10% of all oil in the US is used by the food industry.
New things are always on the horizon
The entire AGW and EPA scam/regulations need the Concept of a "GreenHouse" gas, and rather arbitrarily assign that role to CO2, and this, on turn is based on Sagan's failed TOA assertion of radiative asymetry aka CO2 FORCING. Heretofor the quick ways of debunking this BULLSHIT needed an understanding of quantum gas dynamics and detailed math to the PhD Applied Math level. Now Nasil Nahal has designed an experiment that a bright 12 year old cxan do which shows that the convention al wisdom is nonsense and there is NO SUCH THING as a GreenhouseGas.
The AGW Lefty Green scammers, their Academic accomplaces Mann, Hansen and Jones and the pols from Gore to Obama need to be tarred and feathered.
He's just reached the next step on the Climate Denial ladder:
1. There is no warming
2. There is warming, but it's not man-made
3. There is warming and it's man-made, but it's not bad
4. There is warming, it's man-made and it's bad, but we can adapt
5. There is warming, it's man-made, it's bad, we can't really adapt, but I don't care and/or refuse to act.
Some denialists have already moved onto step 5.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Nice hearing someone say it so bluntly.
Also, why link to some blog about what he said, instead of linking to the actual speech (somebody had already beaten me to it above, but just an AC, so invisible to much too many)?
Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
Does a famous quote from Gandhi apply here?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
It doesn't bode well for us, if it does apply.
You are a PARASITE. You are stealing the future from my kids. Fuck you in the face with a rake.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
The west is on fire because droughts happen. This Exxon CEO ought to tell this to the people in CO that have lost their homes. http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/fire/2012/05/total_dm_120529.png
www.itjerk.com
Reality is otherwise.
Merely from melt we see now (where the mass of ice is still mostly insulated from the change because it's miles thick) we'll see several feet by 2100. given it's take 50 years to even get to "Well, I guess it IS warming", that's a short time.
But if the greenland sheet is melting at the bottom enough, it will slide into the ocean pretty quick. Like a few miles a week.
Your first demand:
"Are you stopping driving your cars???"
Answer: "yes"
Then, rather than going "Good for you!", you whine and bitch and go "Oh, yeah, well, what about your grandad? huh? And your food, have you stopped eating? Huh? Huh?"
Why, on gods green earth, did you waste your time and everyone else's with a request you were never going to accept in the first place?
Are you really that much of a twat?
Or is "risk analysis" only possible when you don't have to take the blame for it?
Just move the cities, and piers to higher ground, problem solved.
The damages cause by the inaction you are causing.
I thought not.
Just like the cigarette manufactures we have been here before.
I know your product causes no harm what so ever.
Its absolutely AMAZING how you all blame the guy selling YOU something YOU need and use. Oil companies are corporations.. they make money selling products. They arent charities or role models.. they are for profit ventures that provide most of YOU a job.. so you have money to sit here and complain about them on the internet. We need oil.. there is no stable alternative. Our economy runs on it and until someone figures out fusion we're stuck with it. AND it has to be affordable for everyone or your going to see this house of cards come cumbling down as the hundreds of millions of little ants cant get to work or buy enough food because you all are screaming chicken little over climate change.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" It's funny because it's true. It's also sad because it's true.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Yes, I believe we'll be able to adapt. But we need to actually do that. Partially by limiting our fossil fuel consumption, partially by taking other measures. It's no good to just say "we'll be able to adapt" and then just carry on, as we were, and not actually do anything to adapt. Whatever we do, it's going to take time.
Hey, why not take this golden opportunity to learn to swim? Think of the health benefits of switching to a more aquatic lifestyle as we drown your communities beneath rising, sludge-filled oceans beneath soot-filled choking skies? Gills are a survival advantage, start working on them now!
And I don't care that the company he's now the CEO of works closely with the CIA to achieve needed energy security in the face of unpredictable geopolitical events. The executives of energy companies could perform that useful and patriotic function and at the same time not act as agents of denialism.
If this individual can't perform both of those functions , then someone else who is able both can and will be found.
Let's clear up a few misconceptions. One, if you work closely with US intelligence agencies then you have a free pass to do as you want in this world.
This is false. Ask Saddam Hussein. Ask Assad. Ask Mubarak. The US will work with despots, dictators, mass murderers and anyone else we need to in order to secure the national security of the United States of America and when the benefit of working with those people ends, so does the relationship, and a new relationship is defined, one that can end with the mass murderer and despot in jail or executed.
Another misconception is that a terrorist is someone who thinks of himself as a terrorist. The fact, most homegrown terrorists think of themselves as patriots, engaged in justly defending their version of reality from outside aggression. This was certainly true of alWalaki, McVeigh and the Unabomber.
It doesn't matter how you think of yourself, what matters is what actions you take. You cannot create a weaponized virus for any reason whatsoever and not be a terrorist. You cannot advocate, as alWalaki did, for the extra-judicial deaths of Americans for any reason and not be a terrorist. Similarly, you cannot act to deceive the public that a building is not on fire when it is and attempt to dissuade the fire department from going to the scene. You cannot act as a liar and a saboteur against the national security of the United States of America whether you think you're lying or not.
In this context, lying is not defined by your personal opinion of the veracity of your statements nor even by your intentions. Lying is defined as speaking contrary to an objective reality which impinges materially on the national security of the United States.
Sorry to have to tighten that definition up beyond what you feel comfortable with, but in the real world with one-way, one-time, permanent consequences which this nation will bear into all eternity, we really don't have time, interest or even much sympathy for "what you feel in your heart of hearts".
Whatever he believes in his "heart of hearts" is irrelevant to whether or not he poses a clear and present danger to the long term national security of the United States of America. He should be taken out just like any other terrorist- through whatever means are least disruptive and most conducive to the United States securing it's long term national interests.
I get these guys. They work with people from the CIA et. al. and as a consequence develop a delusion that they are somehow more or less permanently immune from being considered unpatriotic or a threat to national security. Just because your company's short term interests lined up with our nation's short term interest doesn't mean our nation's long term interest are not also in direct opposition to your company's long term interest as is almost certainly the case with ExxonMobil when it falls under the direction of deniers and minimizers who seek to through their deeds and words to forestall necessary action on climate change. Such people and the companies they direct can and will be treated as a the national security threat they compose.
Take him out. Let him find a job with the Heartland Institute. Leave him to his fate. He had a choice in life and he made it. Let him bear the responsibility for the choices he made.