". . .That is why I am particularly disappointed in the recent commentary by Henry Payne (The State Journal, Feb. 9), which seems to focus on ExxonMobil and its discredited scientists rather than focusing on what I see as West Virginia's opportunity to be part of the global solution."

What discredited scientists? By whom?

What West Virginia "opportunity"?

For our state's senator to make a statement like that without credible supportive evidence is dishonest, Chicken Little alarmism.

That is a strong statement, but I know that he knows better. That does not excuse his further outrageous and uninformed statements this week.

The lead Rockefeller family critic this time around is Neva Goodwin, who states: "We believe our company is now lagging in creative solutions for the looming climate and energy crisis . . ."

Where did she get this information? She is criticizing the best-managed energy corporation this world has ever seen.

Beginning with retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lee Raymond, Exxon-Mobil has done well under his successor, Rex Tillerson, who should be recognized for handling this difficult job.

Instead, Sen. Rockefeller has pressed the Federal Trade Commission "to support a special windfall profits tax" on their family company.

Once again, Rockefeller does not do his homework. A simple check of oil companies' record profits this year will show that they compare favorably to similar large companies.

What percentage profit on equity or sales do the Rockefellers think Microsoft makes? Or Intel, or Apple, or Kellogg's, ad infinitum?

If the Rockefeller family cannot be bothered with such details, they should leave the public forum to those people who understand energy, the truth, and what it takes to finance and build wells, pipelines, refineries, etc. around the world.

For guidance, they could reference an expert they themselves fund - the director of research at Rockefeller University in New York City, Jesse Ausubel.

Well-published for many years in the energy world, Ausubel reported in the July 2007 New Scientist that today's government-subsidized alternative energies will lead to the "rape of nature," meaning that nuclear power should be developed instead.

Renewables are "boutique fuels," says Ausubel.

Agreeing with him, I have published many stories in Florida and West Virginia since 1999, detailing why there is no viable "alternative energy" for this country.

Why not listen to Ausubel?

Cornell's David Pimentel wrote in the Dec. 2002 issue of BioScience that the land-use requirements of "alternative energies" were too severe to replace any meaningful amount of our nation's energy sources, which are dominated by West Virginia's lowest-cost electricity - generated by West Virginia coal.

Neva Goodwin should read this letter from union chief Chuck Canterbury. He is president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, whose 324,000 members have plenty of pension-fund dollars invested in Exxon, more than the Rockefellers.

In a May 17 letter to Tillerson, Canterbury made clear he and his members don't agree that Exxon should be used to promote social goals if that means putting worker retirements at risk.

"ExxonMobil is an example of how hard work, efficient management and innovative entrepreneurism breed success," Canterbury wrote, noting this was why many union pension funds have invested in the oil company.

"The Rockefeller resolutions threaten to degrade the value of ExxonMobil."

"The family would impose "rigid, ideologically-based conditions on the company's future," would nullify "the judgment of a highly successful management team," and would "undercut every project and business operation."

"This would "hamstring ExxonMobil's profitability and growth, thus directly harming the police officers, firefighters, teachers and public employees whose retirement savings are invested in the company," he said.

Canterbury seems to understand how capitalism works better than the Rockefellers. His letter is a reminder that Exxon's legal obligation is to maximize returns to shareholders, and that over the years it has done that by taking calculated risks in drilling for fossil fuels.

Many investors put their money into Exxon because the company does that so well.

Governance changes haven't helped the returns of other oil giants. Royal Dutch Shell and BP have both split the roles of chairman and chief executive without any discernible benefit to shareholders.

Since 2006, when Tillerson assumed the top roles at Exxon, the company's stock has climbed 57 percent, compared with 12 percent for Royal Dutch Shell and 4 percent for BP.

Over the past 10 years, Exxon has consistently outpaced those rivals and the industry average in annual average returns on investment.

Rockefeller and his family have so much wealth that they have no concept of how to run a profitable business, and how this nation's great middle class is able to create the new "Silicon Revolution" technology that is overwhelming the rest of the world.

Judging from their press release, they do not care, either, about the health of W.Va.'s public employee pension funds for teachers, police, firemen, etc.

The Rockefellers' problem is simple: They do not do their homework, and they cannot face the truth.

When the West Virginia president of the Sierra Club, longtime critic of the 670-megawatt Longview coal plant, could not answer my simple question - Where will you put 1,500 modern wind turbines in the Morgantown area to replace the 600-megawatt coal plant? - I knew there was a "truth problem" with these people - all of them.  Source