On Wednesday I spent an hour belatedly viewing the first part of BBC2’s documentary, “Big Oil v the World“. My initial intention was to view all three of its episodes before commenting here, but the task began to weigh heavily. The Guardian keeps mentioning programme 1 in glowing terms and I began to feel deprived. Nevertheless I’m so glad I didn’t watch it when it was first broadcast, deep in the midst of the heatwave. Having read a number of published reviews of the first episode, it seems clear that the reviewers suffered greatly from heat-stress, and as a bunch now hold the Oil Industry to blame for their own discomfort as well as that of the planet. Heated brains might also partially explain their common view that that the programme was so very, very important. I have a more jaundiced view.

The first programme of the series, Denial, intended to show that Exxon in 1978 (then the biggest company in the world) paid for and encouraged research into global warming. It then, according to one review, when “faced with a choice between saving the planet or enjoying another three decades of profits chose the latter. It spent huge amounts on lobbying.” I find it difficult to constrain my outrage at the unfairness of this comment and the ignorance of the reviewer. At this point I must stress that I have never worked for Esso or Exxon (now ExxonMobil) nor have I ever received monies from them.

The false impression is given that Exxon did its research on the greenhouse effect and climate change in secret, so when it chose to close down its efforts in this field they were buried and lost for decades. This is highly unlikely. Even in the programme it slips out that Exxon was funding climate research at Columbia University, and I heard frequent references at UEA that CRU was partially funded by Exxon (and other major oil companies). The Climategate emails, for example, include discussions on how CRU might extract ever more funding from American oil companies and BP.

Exxon staff attended meetings and spoke at some. There are even publications. Those outside Exxon knew what was happening, where do you think Exxon researchers got their data from?

Exxon closed down its climate research because of massive falls in income caused by drastic reductions in the price of crude oil. Around this time (1980s) I visited Shell’s research lab in the Netherlands, seeking funding for my research. Quite the wrong time to do this. As I walked in the front door I passed a notice board giving the latest oil price. I had chosen the very worst time to visit. On that board was the lowest price ever – 0.13$/bbl. Even the mighty Exxon could not survive at those prices.

So Exxon’s choice was not really between supporting climate research and enjoying profits; instead it was between simple survival and continuing to fund extraneous projects not essential to its business. I know of several research geologists who voluntarily left Exxon and other big American oil companies at around this time, reading the writing on the wall. Even geological and geophysical research, at the heart of its exploration business, was on rocky ground. Research with universities definitely dried up for years.

I think the programme correctly assessed Exxon’s interest in climate; they were concerned, and thought they might become part of the solution. They were looking at alternate sources of energy. Later in the programme was a bit of unvarnished truth. Exxon had examined all the alternative energy sources, and nothing came close to petroleum. From that time on Exxon became exclusively a fossil fuel company.

The programme then moved away from its focus on Exxon to consider the founding and growth of a collection of major companies that either produced fossil fuels or used them. This group collectively founded and funded the American Petroleum Institute (API). It was concerned that the extensive hype given to climate change would result in political action that would adversely affect its members. It focussed upon the uncertainties inherent within climate science, and especially the IPCC which was increasingly coming to conclusions that humans were responsible for climate change by burning fossil fuels. The API set about becoming a counterweight, stressing uncertainties and promoting individuals, like Pat Michaels, to speak on their behalf.

Usually when an individual is featured in person within a documentary: someone who has died between recording and broadcasting, as Michaels was, this is acknowledged. Not so the BBC. Very poor.

The plot moves from the API seamlessly to Koch Industries, a truly major company that deals extensively with the transportation of oil and its multitude of by-products. This final part of the programme was, for me, the most worrying but it’s on a subject that I have least knowledge about. The programme argued that because the political aim of reducing emissions was being promoted by successive U.S. presidents, Koch Industries set about displacing Republicans who had voted for reducing emissions and replaced them with people who questioned climate change dogma. Eventually this resulted in the greater polarisation of American politics that we live with today. Certainly statements made by the surviving Koch brother substantiated the programme’s claims.

Between the three main parts of the programme are episodes of weather porn – forest fires, flooding in China – which were meant to be interpreted as consequences of climate change. No doubt there will be more of these in later programmes. There were no attempts to substantiate the climate links, they were just thrown into the mix likes plums in a pudding.

I doubt that Denial (the programme) was meant to convince non-believers. In fact the programme assumes the viewer has absolutely no doubts whatsoever about the reality and cause of climate change. So obvious is this that viewers are even expected to believe that in the 1970s when Exxon scientists were first researching the possible effects of increased CO2 that it was indisputable that there was a significant effect. There was no doubt whatsoever, so any questioning by oil company management must have had nefarious motives. But oil company management, in my experience, works with major uncertainty and questions everything. As soon as other research showed that petroleum had no viable competitors, Exxon never went back to examining energy alternatives or climate. It even ignored shale gas for a time and I was told by my then manager that this was probably a deliberate decision. If fracked gas became significant the “Big Boys” would simply buy themselves into the action.

The title of the series is Big Oil v the World and from the first episode you would be led to believe that all our climate woes can be laid at the door of Exxon and its oily buddies. By my count, coal is mentioned (as a word) only four times in passing. Keeping coal miners in employment has been on the political must-do list, yet is totally ignored by the programme in its desire to brand big oil as the baddies.

There is little doubt that the first episode is grossly biased, but also that it is very effective, especially when, by chance, it was shown in the midst of a heatwave that most people immediately attributed to climate change. Only one review (in the Telegraph) questioned anything about the programme. (My estimation of the Telegraph has risen significantly). What is noticeable about all reviews I read was their concentration on the “culpability” of Exxon. Nary a mention of the API or Koch Industries, yet to my mind these were more significant topics.

Should you expose yourself to Big Oil v the World? On balance I would suggest you do. You might wear down your teeth somewhat, but the programme is full of interest. I learned much, for instance that Exxon equipped one of its tankers with measuring equipment which contributed climate data from otherwise remote areas along its routes.

Only two more programmes to view. I cannot claim to be excited by the prospect, but such are the tribulations of becoming a Cliscep henchman.

13 Comments

  1. Advocates of the “Exxon knew” (in 1978) conspiracy theory never seem to remember that the White House ‘knew’ in 1965.

    1965 President’s Science Advisory Committee Report on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” is a comprehensive report by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee which warns of the impacts of pollution and humanity’s role in addressing the future. The panel suggests “economic incentives to discourage pollution” in which “special taxes would be levied against polluters.” The Committee reports on a wide range of pollution issues such as soil contamination, sewage, agricultural waste, and solid waste. President Johnson found the report to be pertinent enough to not only be distributed to government agencies and officials, but also, due to its “general interest,” the public. The selected excerpt below focuses on the hazardous increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide due to humanity’s production and combustion of fossil fuels.

    The Committee begins the section by quickly acknowledging the “measurable” effect that fossil fuel combustion has on the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Linking that increase directly to humanity’s behavior, the Committee reports “[c]arbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year.” They report that fossil fuel combustion is the only major new producer of carbon dioxide, increasing the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean from roughly 1860 to 1960 by 7%. Focusing on a smaller interval of time, the Committee found a 1.36% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from 1958 to 1963. Throughout the selected section, the Committee makes forward-looking predictions, warning of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, acidification of water sources, and more. They conclude with a prediction and a warning of what could come:

    “By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere.”

    https://www.climatefiles.com/climate-change-evidence/presidents-report-atmospher-carbon-dioxide/

    The White House document:

    Click to access PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Aaaah. Twice I’ve just tried to post the same comment with (only) two links. Neither appeared. If they’re both trapped in spam, maybe the duplicate can be deleted?

    Like

  3. Joe P. Sorry about that. Yes, both in spam for some inexplicable reason. I have released one and deleted the duplicate.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Alan,

    You’re not selling it to me 🙂

    Even so, I am grateful that you are saving me the effort of looking it up myself. It looks like the BBC is still running with the same conspiracy/fantasy they were peddling back in 2020:

    “How the oil industry made us doubt climate change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382

    Back then, a certain Dr Martin Hoffert was their star witness. According to the BBC he was the man who first discovered climate change in one of his mathematical models, but when he reported this to his Exxon bosses they shocked him by covering it up. There again, the same Martin Hoffertt is on record as saying:

    “So I was invited to join a research group at Exxon and one of my conditions to join was that we would publish our scientific research in peer-reviewed journals…We had eight scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals…”

    So, tell me again about this big cover up!

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/02/scientists-climate-crisis-big-oil-climate-crimes

    I was just wondering, Alan, does Hoffert get a mention in this latest BBC effort?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh yes Hoffert, now in his eighties, not only was mentioned, he appeared.

    I have always wished to know what my opposition is saying. Big Oil v the world provides such an opportunity and helps identify when they are wrong.

    Like

  6. Alan,

    When you say ‘helps identify when they are wrong’, I presume you mean as identified to yourself. This stems from your privileged viewpoint from which the average viewer does not benefit. I am worried how much damage this sort of thing does. Many (most?) people still trust the BBC implicitly. What had Hoffert got to say for himself? Is he still bigging up his contribution to climate science? Is he still a bit miffed that his bosses didn’t respond by making him head of whatever?

    Like

  7. John. To be honest John Hoffert’s contribution wasn’t that noticeable, I had to check that he even appeared when you asked about him. As to what he said …. ? I just can’t view it all again, but I’ll watch out for him when I view the next two episodes.

    I no longer really worry. Even several years ago I and several contributors here concluded that the contest was lost: it will require a change in climate away from predictions to overcome the forces ranged against us -even then those forces will claim victory because of their actions and warnings.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Alan,

    Yes, ‘worried’ was perhaps the wrong word to use. I don’t think any of us blog here because we expect to change the world. But it is a fascinating, albeit depressing, world to observe and your observations are always valuable.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I wouldn’t be so sure of that … Daniel Hannah has a good article on the Torygraph this afternoon that is generating a lot of comments, which show quite a degree of knowledge in varying directions. And there are other articles like that appearing elsewhere, as the realisation about the winter ahead sinks in. Remember the old saw ‘things look darkest before …..”

    Like

  10. Sorry Heriotjohn but I don’t understand if it is I that shouldn’t be sure, and if so what I shouldn’t be sure of. Could you explain?

    Like

  11. Hi Alan,
    I meant it is people like you who are gradually getting the message over that there is far too much alarmist propaganda about so called anthropogenic climate change. Some of the comments I have seen recently are from people who are clearly “lay” but have read enough to push back against the alarmism.
    Or in other words, dont give up …..

    Like

  12. Heriotjohn, I wish I could agree but my pessimism is as strong as ever. A 40oC heatwave occurs and seemingly the whole of England goes stupid, signing up for climate chaos (or whatever the latest fad monicker is). Scepticism is now treated as mental illness or as an aberration or contamination that needs to be controlled (and will be?). But I won’t give up, I have spent more than 35 years touting sceptical views; why should I stop?

    Like

  13. The Daily Sceptic is now on the case:

    “The BBC’s “Big Oil vs The World” Documentary Failed to Provide a Shred of Evidence to Support its Alarmist Claims”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/07/the-bbcs-big-oil-vs-the-world-documentary-failed-to-provide-a-shred-of-evidence-to-support-its-alarmist-claims/

    “…The Attorney General of Massachusetts was interviewed and it was detailed how Exxon Mobile was going to have to answer in court to the allegations. It was detailed exactly what they were going to accuse the company of and footage of the team discussing the wrongdoings was shown.

    That segment finished with the fact that the New York State Attorney General had tried the same thing but Exxon Mobil had won that case. Nothing further was said, no reference to the court documents, nothing to suggest that the company had pulled the wool over the court’s eyes. Nothing.

    I would imagine that if I had bothered to complain to the BBC I would receive a response along the lines of them not having to provide evidence because the science is settled, but you have to ask the question, why?

    If there is so much evidence and they know that the oil and gas giants have had evidence for four decades, why, in a three hour documentary, can they not produce one single piece of evidence?

    How many more decades will we have to live with this constant barrage of doom-mongering before they finally see that the climate changes and there isn’t much we can do about it but continue to adapt and mitigate as we have been?”

    Like

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.