What Did #ExxonKnew and When Did They Knew It? - Question For Corbett #048

12/03/201939 Comments

As #ExxonKnew gains traction with the public, one Corbett Report listener writes in for more info on the subject. Today we explore the Rockefeller-funded beginnings of this push for prosecution, how it has disintegrated in the courts, and how it has succeeded in penetrating the public consciousness in the service of the technocratic agenda.

Watch this video on BitChute / Minds.com / YouTube or Download the mp4


Who Wants To Be A Carbon Trillionaire?

New York Attorney General Started RICO Planning Before Any InsideClimate Stories Were Released

SEC Investigators Decide Not To Punish Exxon For Alleged Climate Heresy

Bloomberg Government Ponders Collapse of #ExxonKnew

What They're Saying About New York's ExxonMobil Trial

Podcast - Examining Climate Change Litigation (Guest: Christopher Horner)

In Defiance of Judge's Ruling in Climate Cast, New York Attorney General Refuses to Comply With Discovery Requests

What Did Shell Know and When Did They Know It?

#ExxonKnew Epic Fail: Oil Companies DID NOT build “their rigs to account for sea-level rise”

1988: James Hansen And Tim Wirth Sabotaged The Air Conditioning In Congress

Filed in: Questions For Corbett
Tagged with:

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. m.clare says:

    – The Rockefeller Brothers Foundation announced their divestment of oil in 2014 after a decade of > $100/bbl.
    – Oil dropped precipitously to $25/bbl shortly thereafter (if only I had that kind of luck or foresight).
    – Rockefellers shell companies secretly buy up shares in the competition for a bargain (I suspect; why wouldn’t they? It’s one of the tricks they played to obtain their energy monopoly)

    – The world continues to burn 100 million bbl per day.
    – The unwashed masses demand their own austerity.
    – Less energy is used by the plebs without hurting the profits of the Big Oil Bastards

  2. zyxzevn says:

    Related source:

    Shows list of headlines/articles from 50 and 100 years ago.
    Just from a glance on these articles it is clear that 100 years ago people were also afraid of global warming. When Co2 was much lower.

    And 50 years ago they were afraid of global cooling.

    Almost as if there is a cycle.
    Like the sun has a energy cycle.
    Oh, wait.

  3. seaandslow says:

    Dear James, my apologies for being out of the loop but could you please let me in on why your Mac is wrapped in plastic?

  4. calibrator says:

    You are killing me!:

    Showing an image with a bald guy in the background and then narrating

    “…the kind of hair-hurting corporate accounting lawsuit…”


    As for Exxon: It’s days are numbered unless they quickly greenwash themselves.

    A rumor resurfaced on my home turf: They’ll completely leave Germany in the next three years. This will also reduce the E&P business as a whole in Germany as (US) supply companies will then reduce massively.

    The downsizing has begun, other “smart” corporations will take over.

    Perhaps we should call it (drumroll) an “exxoneration”?

    • manbearpig says:

      you mean we’ll soon be able to put an X on Exxon?? or no… We’re gonna X out Exxon?! uhhhh , it’ll soon be Ex-Exxon? It’s gonna Exxoff?…no forget it.

      • laugh says:

        Those aren’t x letters in the exxon logo it’s the Cross of Lorraine also known as the double cross.

        • manbearpig says:

          Woa! Hadn’t noticed that! Here’re some posts from the comments section of the “logodesignlove” site:

          “…I still believe that the owners chose Loewy as the designer because of their common bond as Masons and that the linked x’s represent the Cross of Lorraine. Looking at some of his rejected design’s only fortifies this belief as two of them show the x’s as the square and compass.
          Thaddaus Clark
          March 21, 2019 at 15:09

          Very keen as this is often done in the past among travellers.

          Brian Troutman
          May 25, 2017 at 19:35

          Here’s why use of the “Esso” name was problem. Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, and an assortment of other companies were all split from what had been Standard Oil (which the federal government broke up in 1911). Each company had the right to use the “Standard” brand name, but only in its home territory.

          Standard Oil of New Jersey came up with the brand name “Esso” as play on the initials S.O. —as in Standard Oil. The company wanted to expand “Esso” nationally, but other “baby Standards”—particularly Standard Oil of Indiana (Amoco)—successfully argued that the name was a thinly veiled infringement on their rights to the name Standard Oil and the initials S.O. As a result, Standard Oil of New Jersey used a patchwork of other names (Humble, Carter, Enco) elsewhere in the country. To combine all marketing efforts under a single, national identity, the company had only one choice: Drop the well-known Esso name and create something that could be used without restriction.

          The other Standards had “home” and “away” names, too. Standard Oil of California was known as Chevron outside of its home territory. Out of the upper Midwest, Standard of Indiana was Amoco. Eventually, they all decided that their 50-state-legal “away” names were more valuable than “Standard”…”


          Branding: another powerful propaganda tool with a strong influence on the perception of reality…illustion of plurality

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            Very interesting post!

          • pearl says:

            Whoa! Fascinating information! Great find, my furry friend. And my thanks to Laugh for introducing the subject.

            • manbearpig says:

              Gee, super glad y’all find it interesting! but, uh,

              I feel compelled to point out that I haven’t actually checked this info for myself; I just quickly found these comments on the logodesignlove site… it conforms with what I’d already read about Standard Oil… butcha can never be too careful … convictions taket time and tireless checking…

              thanks for the enthousiasm though!

              • pearl says:

                Yep, as with everything, watch out for the fish bones.

                My scant knowledge of Standard Oil doesn’t go beyond what I learned in How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World, and as my memory increasingly fails me, I’d do well to review those documentaries together with its sources.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                I really like that phrase…
                “Yep, as with everything, watch out for the fish bones.”

  5. bigred says:

    James, Exxon bothers me more than most Oilagarchs, I’m old enough to remember this Corporation started selling folks on a vision of growing Algae and/or Plankton as a Fuel to replace the use of Oil, NOW, they have re-done the 1960s Commercial into ‘modern’ BS! Also, I’ve done a whole bunch of Research, came across the KOLA Deep Borehole Project, done as Intnl Experiment to see how deep we could Drill into the Earth, from the 1970s-1990s. In this Project, they found that Oil had nothing to do with Fossils, see the oldest Plankton Fossil was found at approx. 16K ft & Oil occurs at 33K ft. Didja know & could you speak on this?
    Loyal Fan Dan

    • Mintaka says:

      “they found that Oil had nothing to do with Fossils”.
      You are referring to abiotic oil. How oil is not produced by fossilization / pressurization of tiny little animals, but is in fact a continuous, geological process.
      This fact is well known within the oil industry itself. A client of my brother’s works in the North Sea oil business and he confirms this.
      And who brought this fossil oil fable into the world? Well, Rockefeller (or his masters) did of course. Who knew.
      All so they can push their scarcity meme, fear-porn.
      It’s right up there with the Greenhouse Effect, oops, Global Warming, oops, Climate Change meme.
      Oh, and the Overpopulation meme, that goes back to at least the 15th century. The “critical” number then? 2billion, we’re all gonna die. And yet here we are, 7.7billion and counting. Plenty of space left (with a bit of de-centralization out of the mega cities back into the country side).
      All these memes cooked up and propagandized by the same cabal.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      abiotic oil

      James Corbett had mentioned this “abiotic oil” topic in the past. I just don’t recall where.
      F. William Engdahl has written on the subject.
      Corbett has interviewed Engdahl on previous episodes.

  6. ktrammel says:

    Beautiful video documenting the science behind “climate change” and what is really going on with the calculations of the dominant viewpoint on it.


    James: Ben Davidson might be an interesting person for an interview? I’ve followed his work for years now and his intentions and results are impeccable in their scientific and ethical foundations. I think you might enjoy talking with him.

    His main point: All the scientists who support anthropogenic global warming have done all the math correctly. However, the data on which they did the math is missing the major factor in “climate forcing,” the natural forces that determine climate. They didn’t include the effects of the sun. They consistently ignore them, despite they completely reverse their conclusions and, when included, show that the planet is actually cooling.

    By the way there is an “executive summary” of that video as well, link below.


    This summary, while briefer, also includes some new info not in the original longer video.

  7. ktrammel says:

    Please excuse the additional message, but it is good to get “another opinion.” Here is a good nuts and bolts video that shows summers have been cooler in the US since the 1930s. It also hints at the tendency for pier review to fail to call out errors in research when the Global Warming viewpoint would be jeopardized by the real data.


    The presenter also covers that data doesn’t support the dogma that there is a directly proportional relation such that CO2 causes warming. The presenter, Tony Heller, documents his credentials on his site, here:

  8. Jed says:

    Tough for me to get beyond the NYS Atty Gen investigating anything since the days of Eliot Spitzer, who paid 10Gs to raw-dog a friends daughter’s keester, that episode ended his campaign to clean up the state. The irony there is that he most likely was, and that’s why he was outed. We have some real winners here in ny.

  9. Hi James,

    I came across Tony Heller’s videos a few months ago… I’m not sure if you have come across him also, as I’ve never heard you mention him. If you haven’t, please give his videos a look, the main thrust of his work is to show just how Bat-Sh– crazy the reporting on “Climate Change” has always been -using historical records, both scientific and the mass media that go back over a hundred years to the present. I believe you have done similar work, but he does it also in a somewhat different style. Showing actual images of historical climate charts, news paper and magazine articles to prove even more conclusively that so-called climate change “science”, as all of us Corbett Report readers already knew is just hokum. His videos are short and sweet…and he has this really nice calming voice. Highly recommend to you and all. See example link below:


    • danmanultra says:

      Corbett actually listed Tony Heller’s videos in a recent article under “Recommended Viewing”. As a result I am now a subscriber to Heller’s channel. He is quite intelligent and his sarcastic wit and delivery are quite amusing as well. I’ve already learned quite a bit from watching/listening to his videos.

      • Thanks, I didn’t know… yes, some good stuff on his channel.


      • calibrator says:

        I consider Heller’s videos not as “recommended” but “required” viewing.

        He may focus on one one-topic – compared to James – but he obliterates the climate change hoax. I’m only waiting for YT to kill his channel.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          I hear ya!

        • brian.s says:

          In the light of the nature of heavily reinforced propaganda as a front – I feel to say that demonstrating the fallacy of the climate assertions is increasingly an echo chamber that is walled out of others capacity to hear – in various ways.

          So it is one thing to become certain that lies and deceits are being passed off and interwoven with anything and everything as if genuine currency – but the background support and rolling out of its agenda is huge and pervasive.

          Regardless anything, the media circus continues while the global ‘guidelines and regulatory structures are ‘incentivised’ to national, governements and corporate levels right down to local councils and the bureaucracy of almost any process. And everything ‘official’ including published science is vetted for political correctness.

          So when I see a headline ‘climate destruction hurtling toward us like a freight train’ (ha – I typo’d fright train) – but with SHOUTING CAPS!!! I know they are at the tipping point and have to act now – because they cannot really get any more juice from persisting the fear – because in part numbness and indifference but also ‘believers’ becoming uneasy about the validity, worth or sanity when such extreme fear mongering replaces any pretence of reason.

          For my part the ‘devil’ is seeking to get a signature on the contract by which we give up our will for a destructive deceit of our own willing acceptance.
          Thanks – but No Thanks!

  10. thomas.j says:

    “In this edition, Mark talks climate change with Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat.com, and the two guys who dismantled the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.”


    • manbearpig says:

      Some interesting points in this video but something about this whole discussion made me feel… ill-at-ease… The following is not a very good example of my “malaise” but this bit struck me for some reason:

      An audience member stated “if you don’t tote the party line, you ain’t gonna get no grant!” and concludes with what he calls “grant prostitutes”…(“W*H*O*R*E*S”)

      The man had evoked “peer-review” but apparently, according to Steve McIntyre, the peer-review system “works” with the exception of the climate science industry which, in contrast to the hard sciences, includes qualitative data (lending itself to bias) and ambition (with some folks producing study results in hope of being cited in the next (inherently political) IPCC report (ah, you mean THOSE grant whores!?), but despite the required perorations and genuflecting towards the “Great Leader” (man-made climate change dogma), he agrees that the underlying science “can still be” as Steyn suggests, “quite sound”.

      Then Anthony Watts quotes Eisenhower’s farewell address and states that “the science has become very very beholden to grants”,

      to enthousiastic applause unlike the audience member who’d stated it 5 minutes earlier to generalized awkwardness…

      Concluding the whole discussion and referring to Watt’s being a constant target of rabid criticism, accused of “spewing his hatred everywhere” Steyn opines that “He’s the soul of geniality…He’s a complete non-spewer!”… (it’s the “alarmists” spewing the con?) Well that depends… Here’s a hockey-stick shaped spew by Watts who conspues the notion of chemtrails:


      Which did however allow for an interesting debate in the comments section (368 posts) that opens with:

      August 12, 2016 at 1:21 pm
      “You don’t believe in the government secretly spraying altering chemicals into the atmosphere? That’s how you know they’re working!!!! Lol.”

      with the most valiant and determined commenter being a certain JohnKnight who in this example begins by quoting another commenter to better refute them:

      August 12, 2016 at 5:12 pm
      “…“If this is a secret government program, why don’t they only fly at night and no one will see the evil chemtrails?”
      Trails exist, and you have no way of knowing none are “chem-trails”, yet you assume none are, as do many others here. So why “hide” them? The question is nonsensical coming from those who are in the process of dismissing the possibility, with the trails that could be “chem-trails” hanging the air, it seems to me. You folks are DEMONSTRATING why there is no need to hide them…”

      Here the Climate skeptics borrow the tone and tactics of the Alarmists and the “chemtrail Con-spi-racy Theo-rists” attempt cool-headed reason to shake up Watts’ anti-chemtrail dogma…

  11. bill_i says:

    Climate Change. Hmm.

    I frequently watch the Corbett Report. I’ve enjoyed the documentaries (even while being aware that the writing — or creation of video versions — of history is a creative act. No historian can possibly include everything so he or she must be selective and will select what to include and what not to include in accordance with their own beliefs and/or artistry). You may end up with the equivalent of huge opinion pieces, supported — hopefully — by selected facts.

    I read widely and this includes information from no end of websites, not just printed material.

    I’m also a Seth freak, owing to an unusual experience in which, meditating for the first time, I “saw” a persistent full-color image of the cover of _Seth Speaks_ then in print (1982), but I’m not a zealot.

    (My beliefs concerning the events of 9/11 are also connected with a minor “psychic” experience; they are why I first became aware of James and his report.)

    Anyway, Seth distinguishes between “primary” and “secondary” information when it comes to personal realities.

    Primary information is that which is accessible through your physical senses — in your immediate physical reality. (The fact that Seth’s teachings include the idea that you literally create your own unique version of that immediate “space continuum” isn’t relevant to this comment.)

    Secondary information is everything else — what you gather from the web, television, someone else, etc.

    I have obtained no evidence of climate change from primary information, even though I live close to the shore of the Atlantic Ocean. A chart published in a reputable business publication showed measurable ocean rise for a major U.S. city a mere 20 miles from me but it was clearly bogus as no such ocean rise is at all apparent when I walk down to the local cove.

    On the other hand, I bought a ’97 Saab from an oceanographer who had just returned from work in the Pacific ocean. She spoke to me of a most definite increase in the temperature of that ocean at the site where she was doing research. I have no reason not to believe her.

    Not so long ago, I spoke with a friend, a science teacher. He had just returned from a cruise trip to Alaska. The “glacier walk” that was part of the package was cancelled, because the ice on top of the glacier had melted into slush, for the first time ever. I have no reason not to believe him.

    I’ve seen endless videos, read no end of articles, on melting ice and warming ocean temperatures. I can understand that, if this is happening, why I would see no immediate ocean rise when I walk down to the local cove — the planet is huge and its oceans are deep and cover close to 75% of its surface; it would take an awful lot of ice water for ocean levels to dramatically increase, aside from the various complex factors that feed into this (for example subsidence, equatorial bulge, etc.).

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. -JC]

  12. bill_i says:


    When I wrote: “If not, how can you say that what you believe about Climate Change is no more than your personal belief?”

    I should have written: “If not, how can you say that what you believe about Climate Change is anything more than just your personal belief?”

    • manbearpig says:

      “…how can you say that what you believe about Climate Change is anything more than just your personal belief?…”

      “…the planet is huge and its oceans are deep and cover close to 75% of its surface; it would take an awful lot of ice water for ocean levels to dramatically increase, aside from the various complex factors that feed into this (for example subsidence, equatorial bulge, etc.)…”

      How do you know? Or is that what you believe?

      What does “ever” mean in your following phrase?:

      “…the ice on top of the glacier had melted into slush, for the first time ever…?

      Have you ever wondered why climate “alarmists” resort to so much sophistry, lies, bullying and emotionalism?

    • manbearpig says:

      You write

      “…She spoke to me of a most definite increase in the temperature of that ocean at the site where she was doing research. I have no reason not to believe her.

      Not so long ago, I spoke with a friend, a science teacher. He had just returned from a cruise trip to Alaska. The “glacier walk” that was part of the package was cancelled, because the ice on top of the glacier had melted into slush, for the first time ever. I have no reason not to believe him…”

      which seems to imply that it bears repeating that

      nobody, but Nobody is contesting the fact that there has been warming for the last couple of centuries (until the Pause that began a couple of decades ago). What “skeptics” believe is that

      Human generated CO2 is not driving climate change.

      Have you ever wondered why many of the accredited scientists who adopt a skeptical stance with regards to supposed human-caused climate change

      do so at considerable personal expense?

  13. Greg Mucha says:

    How might we respond to those “anthropogenecists” who claim that, according to the climate record, the climate has NEVER changed this fast before absent a cataclysm, nor has the atmosphere contained as much carbon dioxide as it now does?

    I know I’ve heard James address at least the latter topic in the past, but not the former. Can you help a feller out?

    • manbearpig says:

      Tony Heller can offer them a bit of basic climate science addressing CO2 levels on temperature and touching on the lack of acceleration in sea level rise:


      then they’ll be slightly better prepared for Mr. Heller’s “Gift to Climate Alarmists”:


    • manbearpig says:

      Here is a post from the comments section of the article linked below. This post is a response to another post asking about purported acceleration in sea level rise that links misleading sea level rise as demonstrated by Mr. Hooffstetter:

      “…Louis Hooffstetter says:
      January 8, 2019 at 9:21 pm

      Scott: The Scientific American article you linked to is a classic example of how climate ‘scientists’ intentionally obfuscate the issue of sea level rise to alarm the public. Relative sea level rise has two components: 1) actual sea level rise (the amount the surface of the oceans is actually rising) and 2) land subsidence. But these two components are completely separate and unrelated. Subsidence has a number of causes (isostatic adjustment, oil/groundwater withdrawal, mining, compaction of sediments, etc.) but regardless of the cause, subsidence is NOT sea level rise and is in NO way related to sea level rise. There is NO sea level rise involved with subsidence whatsoever. Here’s a simple proof: Wade into the ocean up to your knees and then kneel down. The water rises up to about your waist. Did the sea level rise until it reached your waist? No. You simply sank down (subsided). There was no rise in sea level at all.

      This article discusses these two components, but then combines and comingles them to confuse the readers and sensationalize the “globally extraordinary rate” of sea level rise. The Climate Central graph shown in the article is ‘Exhibit A’. The first six columns show the rate of subsidence for different areas along the east coast, but then the last column shows the Regional (relative) Sea Level Rise. But notice the word ‘relative’ is left out. This is no mistake. The word ‘relative’ is intentionally left out of a data column that conflates actual sea level rise with land subsidence. This is how climate ‘scientists’ intentionally obfuscate the issue of sea level rise to scare people. It’s a deliberate lie that climate ‘scientists’ always tell whenever they discuss sea level rise. And in this article, Scientific American and Climate Central have colluded to intentionally mislead the general public about sea level rise.”


      Thanks Mr. Hooffstetter!

    • mkey says:

      The Fundamental Error Behind Climate Alarmism

      This recent video also discusses basic relationship between CO2 and temperature, based on the history record.

  14. calibrator says:

    As an update:

    Exxon Mobil Prevails Over “Politically-Biased” New York AG In Major Climate-Change Case

    Exxon Mobil has triumphed over New York State and its crusading Attorney General Letitia James in the largest climate-change-related case ever brought against a major energy company in the US.


    By the last day of the trial, it had become clear that the AG’s case was crumbling. During closing their closing statement, the AG dropped the two most damning of four charges without explanation – these were the charges claiming that Exxon’s misstatements were part of a deliberate scheme to mislead investors, and that the data were critical to investors’ decision-making when deciding whether to buy ExxonMobil stock (we’re not lawyers, but having purchased securities before, we can say with some authority that these seems extremely doubtful).



  15. PaulaPaalu says:

    Exxonknew is part of Greenpeace’s smearing campaign against Exxon, which they started 2001. They are running the website ExxonSecrets.org.
    Climate scientists Willie Soon and Family Connolly, and ex-Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore published this information Dec 2018 as part of their study on Greenpeace’s business model. Their Study is called: “Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model & philosophy: Greenpeace wants a piece of your green”. The whole study can be downloaded free of charge from Heartland institutes website. Here is the direct link to it. Exxon topic starts on page 13.


    Willie Soon’s presentation based on this research report can be found behind the link below. I recommend to watch this. Willie Soon is fun to watch. Lot of other useful information about Greenpeace and their way to operate.


    • PaulaPaalu says:

      I think it’s also good to read the 1-page executive summary on page 4 of the report by Willie Soon et al. in order to understand why Greenpeace picked Exxon. Authors believe that it’s just because Exxon makes a perfect “enemy”, which is needed for their business model (page 4 in the report):

      1.Invent an “environmental problem”, which sounds somewhat plausible. Provide anecdotal evidence to support your claims, with emotionally powerful imagery.
      2.Invent a “simple solution”for the problem which sounds somewhat plausible and emotionally appealing, but is physically unlikely to ever be implemented.
      3.Pick an “enemy”and blame them for obstructing the implementation of the “solution”. Imply that anybody who disagrees with you is probably working for this enemy.
      4.Dismiss any alternative “solutions”to your problem as “completely inadequate”.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top