Each day Humble supplies enough energy to melt 7 million tons of glacier!

This giant glacier has remained unmelted for centuries. Yet, the petroleum energy Humble supplies — if converted into heat — could melt it at the rate of 80 tons each second! To meet the nation's growing needs for energy, Humble has supplied science to nature's resources to become America's Leading Energy Company. Working wonders with oil through research, Humble provides energy in many forms — to help heat our homes, power our transportation, and to furnish industry with a great variety of versatile chemicals. Stop at a Humble station for new Enco Extra gasoline, and see why the "Happy Motoring" Sign is the World's First Choice!

Who: Humble Oil (Exxon Company)
Advert: Life Magazine, 1962
Methane: 1238.50 ppb

Source: Life Magazine/Google Books

We'd like them to eat their cake and have it too

Does it have to be progress or environment? We think they go hand in hand. Here's one example. Demand for gasoline in the Midwest is growing, and Marathon sales are growing faster than demand. We're virtually rebuilding our Robinson, Illinois, refinery so 75% of its output can be gasoline. At the same time, we've spent millions on environment controls to make sure cleanliness matches growth. We're giving the same careful attention to clean air and water at our other refineries, too. And we've joined with 10 other companies in a research program to reduce contaminating emissions from auto engines.

For more about what an all-round, hard-working oil company can accomplish, write (Dept. E) for a copy of our annual report.

Who: Marathon Oil
Advert: Newsweek, 1970
Methane: 1351.70 ppb

Source: Newsweek/Pinterest

Why Are They Lying to Our Children?

"I don't have a future." With tears streaming down her face, a 13-year-old girl made this bleak assessment to her father. To back up her pessimism, she had brought home from school a mimeographed sheet listing the horrors that awaited her generation in the next 25 years: Worldwide famine, overpopulation, air pollution so bad that everyone would wear a gas mask, befouled rivers and streams that would mandate cleansing tablets in drinking water... a greenhouse effect that would melt the polar ice caps and devastate U.S. coastal cities... a cancer epidemic brought on by damage to the ozone layer. Moved by the girl's misery, her father, Herbert I. London of the Hudson Institute and New York University, wrote a book, Why Are They Lying to Our Children? The book documents how some of the myths of the 1960s and 1970s and some much older than that are being perpetuated and taught as gospel truth in some of our schools. And the book raises a question in our minds: Will the next generation have any better understanding of science and technology - both their merits and their problems - than our own?

Professor London's book is not a plea for unbridled technology. But it is a plea for balance. And school textbooks, he believes, are notoriously unbalanced. In dealing with environmental questions, for example, no textbook the professor could find made any mention of the following facts: Total automobile emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide in the U.S. are less than half what they were from 1957 to 1967.

The amount of unhealthy sulfur dioxide in the air has been steadily declining since 1970. The bacteria level in the Hudson River declined by more than 30 percent between 1966 and 1980. Textbooks, Professor London finds, mythologize nature as eternally benign until disturbed by man. It's a rare schoolbook that talks about volcanoes belching radiation into the air, floods that overwhelm river towns, and tornadoes that lift people into oblivion. Moreover, textbooks hardly mention the promise of a bright future already on the horizon-when average life expectancy may approach 90 years, when products derived from recombinant DNA research will eliminate most viral diseases, when we will enjoy greater leisure, and materials - especially plastics - will be better, stronger, and safer. Professor London's conclusion - with which we heartily agree - is that we should help our children think for themselves and reach balanced conclusions. Let's look at their textbooks, not to censor them but to raise questions. Let's give them different points of view and help discuss them. That way we can educate a new generation of citizens who aren't scared by science, and who won't be swayed by old mythologies. Our youngsters do have a future. We, and the schools, should help them look forward to it with hope, even as they prepare to deal with its problems.

Who: Mobil
Advert: New York Times, 1984
Methane: 1644.85 ppb

Source: The New York Times

Doomsday is cancelled. Again. In fact, evidence the Earth is warming is weak.

The twentieth century has seen many predictions of global destruction. In the 1930's, some scientists claimed we were in the middle of a disastrous warming trend. In the mid 1970's, others were sure we were entering a new Ice Age. And so on. It's the same with global warming. There's no hard evidence it is occurring. In fact, evidence the Earth is warming is weak. Proof that carbon dioxide has been the primary cause is non-existent. Climate models cannot accurately predict far-future global change. And the underlying physics of the climatic change are still wide open to debate. If you care about the environment, but don't care to be pressured into spending money on problems that don't exist, make sure you get the facts.

Write: Informed Citizens for the Environment, P.O. Box 1513, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206 or call (701) 746-4573. We'll send you the facts about global warming.

Who: Informed Citizens for the Environment (Oil Lobby)
Advert: Various outlets in ND, AZ, KY, 1991
Methane: 1724.78 ppb

Source: Desmog

Chicken Little's hysteria about the sky falling was based on a fact thar got blown out of proportion. It's the same with global warming. There's no hard evidence it is occurring.

Chicken Little's hysteria about the sky falling was based on a fact thar got blown out of proportion. It's the same with global warming. There's no hard evidence it is occurring. In fact, evidence the Earth is warming is weak. Proof that carbon dioxide has been the primary cause is non-existent. Climate models cannot accurately predict far-future global change. And the underlying physics of climatic change are still wide open to debate. If you care about the earth, but don't want your imagination to run away with you, make sure you get the facts.

Write Informed Citizens for the Environment, P.O. Box 1513, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58206, or call toll-free 1-701-746-4573.

Who: Informed Citizens for the Environment
Advert: Various outlets in ND, AZ, KY, 1991
Methane: 1724.78 ppb

Source: Climate Files

Cooling the warming hysteria... Media hype proclaiming that the sky was falling did not properly portray the consensus of the scientific community.

For the first half of 1992, America was inundated by the media with dire predictions of global warming catastrophes, all of which seemed to be aimed at heating up the rhetoric from the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro last June.

Unfortunately, the media hype proclaiming that the sky was falling did not properly portray the consensus of the scientific community. After the Earth Summit, there was a noticeable lack of evidence of the sky actually falling and subsequent colder than normal temperatures across the country cooled the warming hysteria as well. Everybody, of course, remembers the Earth Summit and the tons of paper used up in reporting on it - paper now buried in landfills around the world. But few people ever heard of a major document issued at the same time and called the "Heidelberg Appeal." The reason? It just didn't make news. Perhaps that is because the Appeal urged Summit attendees to avoid making important environmental decisions based on "pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data." The Heidelberg Appeal was issued initially by some 264 scientists from around the world, including 52 Nobel Prize winners. Today, the Appeal carries the signatures of more than 2,300 scientists - 65 of them Nobel Prize winners - from 79 countries. If nothing else, its message is illustrative of what's wrong with so much of the global warming rhetoric. The lack of solid scientific data. Scientists can agree on certain facts pertaining to global warming. First, the greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon; it accounts for the moderate temperature that makes our planet habitable. Second, the concentration of greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide) has increased and there has been a slight increase in global temperatures over the past century. Finally, if present trends continue, carbon dioxide levels will double over the next 50 to 100 years. Controversy arises when trying to link past changes in temperatures to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. And it arises again when climate prediction models are used to conclude Earth's temperature will climb drastically in the next century and-based on such models-to propose policy decisions that could drastically affect the economy.

According to Arizona State University climatologist Dr. Robert C. Balling in his book, The Heated Debate (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992), until knowledge of the interplay between oceans and the atmosphere improves, "model predictions must be treated with considerable caution." Moreover, models don't simulate the complexity of clouds, nor do they deal adequately with sea ice, snow or changes in intensity of the sun's energy. And they don't stand up to reality testing. Comparing actual temperatures over the last 100 years against model calculations, the models predicted temperature increases higher than those that actually occurred. Moreover, most of the earth's temperature increase over the last century occurred before 1940. Yet, the real build-up in man-made CO, didn't occur until after 1940. Temperatures actually fell between 1940 and 1970.

Sifting through such data, Dr. Balling has concluded, "there is al large amount of empirical evidence suggesting that the apocalyptic vision is in error and that the highly touted greenhouse

disaster is most improbable." Other scientists have an even more interesting viewpoint. Notes atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, president of the Washington, D.C. - based Science & Environmental Policy Project, "the net impact [of a modest warming] may well be beneficial." All of which would seem to suggest that the jury's still out on whether drastic steps to curb CO, emissions are needed. It would seem that the phenomenon - and its impact on the economy - are important enough to warrant considerably more research before proposing actions we may later regret. Perhaps the sky isn't falling, after all.

Who: Mobil
Advert: New York Times, 1993
Methane: 1736.53 ppb

Source: Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes

Americans work hard for what we have Mr President. Don't risk our economic future.

Generations of American families have worked hard to make America's economy the strongest in the world. But that success and the economic security of our future generations is suddenly at great risk. Because right now, our world competitors countries like China, India, Mexico, and Brazil are pressuring the United States to support a U.N. global climate agreement that would force American families to restrict our use of the oil, gasoline, and electricity that heats and cools our homes and schools, gets us to our jobs, and runs our factories and businesses. We'd have to pay more for energy, and, in turn, prices for goods and services would rise. The big countries that compete with America for jobs, trade, and economic security have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Because according to a prior agreement, they won't have to make the sacrifices Americans are expected to make. This also means America's sacrifices will not produce environmental gains. That simply isn't fair, or effective. The climate agreement that President Clinton is under pressure to sign has a big price tag mostly for American. families. It's a bad deal for America. Today. And tomorrow.

Who: Global Climate Coalition
Advert: New York Times, 1997
Methane: 1754.48 ppd

Source: Greenpeace

Scientists are unable to make reliable predictions about future changes.

Knowing that weather forecasts are reliable for a few days at best, we should recognize the enormous challenge facing scientists seeking to predict climate change and its impact over the next century. In spite of everyone's desire for clear answers, it is not surprising that fundamental gaps in knowledge leave scientists unable to make reliable predictions about future changes. A recent report from the National Research Council (NRC) raises important issues, including these still-unanswered questions: (1) Has human activity already begun to change temperature and the climate, and (2) How significant will future change be? The NRC report confirms that Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 150 years. Some use this result to claim that humans are causing global warming, and they point to storms or floods to say that dangerous impacts are already under way. Yet scientists remain unable to confirm either contention. Geological evidence indicates that climate and greenhouse gas levels experience significant natural variability for reasons having nothing to do with human activity. Historical records and current scientific evidence show that Europe and North America experienced a medieval warm period one thousand years ago, followed centuries later by a little ice age. The geological record shows even larger changes throughout Earth's history. Against this backdrop of large, poorly understood natural variability, it is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature increase to human causes. Moreover, computer models relied upon by climate scientists predict that lower atmospheric temperatures will rise as fast as or faster than temperatures at the surface. However, only within the last 20 years have reliable global measurements of temperatures in the lower atmosphere been available through the use of satellite technology. These measurements show little if any warming.

Even less is known about the potential positive or negative impacts of climate change. In fact, many academic studies and field experiments have demonstrated that increased levels of carbon dioxide can promote crop and forest growth. So, while some argue that the science debate is settled and governments should focus only on near-term policies that is empty rhetoric. Inevitably, future scientific research will help us understand how human actions and natural climate change may affect the world and will help determine what actions may be desirable to address the long-term. Science has given us enough information to know that climate changes may pose long-term risks. Natural variability and human activity may lead to climate change that could be significant and perhaps both positive and negative. Consequently, people, companies and governments should take responsible actions now to address the issue. One essential step is to encourage development of lower-emission technologies to meet our future needs for energy. We'll next look at the promise of technology and what is being done today.

Who: ExxonMobil
Advert: New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other publications, 2000
Methane: 1773.22

Source: New York Times

Reduce your carbon footprint. But first, find out what it is.

Call it your mark on the world. It's the amount of carbon dioxide emitted due to your daily activities - from mowing your lawn to vacuuming your home. Find out the size of your household's carbon footprint, learn how you can reduce it, and see how we're reducing ours at bp.com/carbonfootprint. It's a start. beyond petroleum.

Who: BP
Advert: Various publications, 2006
Methane: 1774.94

Source: Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes

Our climate target

Achieving net-zero emissions is part of our Powering Progress strategy. Our target is to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050. Find out more about how we are working to achieve this target and our progress so far. Tackling climate change is an urgent challenge. We want to contribute to a net-zero world where any greenhouse gas emissions entering the atmosphere are balanced by removal out of the atmosphere.

Who: Shell
Advert: shell.com, 2023
Methane: 1927.35 ppb

Source: Shell