Slashdot Mirror
How ExxonMobil Funded Global Warming Skeptics
Erik Moeller writes "According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a 'global warming controversy' exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?"
ExxonMobil's Response to a Report by the Union of Concerned Scientists ExxonMobil believes the Union of Concerned Scientists' paper is deeply offensive and wrong. ExxonMobil engages in public policy discussions by encouraging serious inquiry, analysis, the sharing of information and transparency. Our support of scientific research on climate change is made public on our web site and it includes more than 40 peer reviewed papers authored by ExxonMobil scientists, and our participation on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous related scientific bodies. While there is more to learn on climate science, what is clear today is that greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions. With regard to contributions that ExxonMobil provides to various public policy organizations, our support is transparent and appears on our web site. The support extends to a fairly broad array of organizations that research significant domestic and foreign policy issues and promote discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company. These groups range from the Brookings Institution to the American Enterprise Institute and from the Council on Foreign Relations to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As these organizations are independent of their corporate sponsors and are tax-exempt, we don't control their views and messages, and they do not speak on our behalf. In many cases and with respect to the full range of policy positions taken by these organizations, we find some of them persuasive and enlightening, and some not. We annually review our support of tax-exempt organizations and make appropriate adjustments. In addition, we publish the complete list of such organizations on our web site - and we update this list once per year. Supporting scientific and public policy research leads to better informed and more open discussion of options to address such a serious, global issue as climate change. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsR eleases/corp_nr_mr_climate.asp
They provide me with an income. I'm happy with them. But this doesn't I agree with all their policies. I just fix their computers!
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
UCS is only biased towards science. They are non-partisan and far less political than any of the other environmental groups like Sierra Club or NRDC. Their reports are always thorough and fact filled, they don't hesitate to criticize or commend all political parties. This is why they can usually get hundreds of leading scientists and Nobel prize winners to sign onto their statements.
What is their agenda? I'm not that familiar with it, so I'm interested to know where they deviate from widely accepted science?
Another poster mentioned their global warming FAQ, but I read it and thought that most of what I read was pretty uncontroversial among qualified climate scientists (apart from a few counter-views, which almost always seem to be oil-funded).
Given that you assert UCS is a special interest, how do they profit from acceptance of their assertions? It's obvious how oil companies profit directly from the rejection of a theory of human-generated climate change.
Absolutely.
Regarding the effect of solar forcing, check out the wikipedia article. It's got good links to studies that have shown that solar forcing only accounts for about 25% of the recorded increase in global temperatures.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Here is the wikipedia on Union of Concerned Scientists. They are basically ideological twins of Greenpeace - hard-line peace activists and hard-line environmentalist. All the standard left-wing stuff. The main difference between the two are their tactics - UCS cloaks itself in scientific respectability and issues whitepapers while Greenpeace pulls protest stunts to gain publicity. The other difference is that UCS tolerates nuclear energy while Greenpeace is totally opposed to it. UCS is based in the "People's Republic of Cambridge"
Wait, so you mean to tell me that maybe, just maybe, Exxon has a good reason to fund investigations that would otherwise go undone because of the irrational bias towards the catastrophic models of climate change? I'm stunned.
Look, privately funded science isn't automatically bad and twisted to prove a conclusion. Does it happen? Yes, of course it does, but it also happens in publicly funded research, and there's a lot less accountability there. That Exxon, or any oil company, has dumped money into disproving the high pitched hysterics of the climate fascists isn't nefarious in any way, it's their duty to their shareholders, and to the rest of us. Should we just blindly accept anyone's ideologically motivated declarations on the science of climate change, or should we, i dunno, do some experiments and try to arrive at real conclusions, based on empiricism and reason?
If this work were getting done by the "establishment" climate scientists, Exxon wouldn't have to kick start it itself. But establishment climate scientists _aren't_ doing the research on their own, and those who try are often run out of the field. As Italian climate scientists Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza what happens when you question the global warming orthodoxy.
So there's no mistake, I'm open to the possibility that the alarmists are right, that the sky is falling, that human activity is the main cause of climate change, that the temperature is going to raise by a billion degrees tomorrow unless we all revert back to some pre-industrial anti-humanist cave society. I'm also open to the possiblity that there really isn't a problem, that everyone's freaking out about nothing, and that, in fact, dumping tons of pollution makes my skin softer and more huggable. The fact is, we don't have enough data either way to draw CONCLUSIONS yet. We can hypothesize, we can speculate, but we simply don't know enough to declare, in big red letters, THE END IS NEAR.
Unfortunately, that's what the alarmists are doing, and it's a disservice to the field and the world itself to declare that debate is over, no more discussion is allowed, and anyone who questions becomes verboten. It's stupid to pretend that somehow, climate scientists are the only pure, unbias thinkers in the world, and everyone else is a stooge of the Big Scary Mean Capitalist Oil companies.
The Royal Society recently issued a fairly unprecedented public warning to Exxon to stop perverting science in the name of $$$. I'm sure the UCS are a very worthy body, but the Royal Society are somewhat more prestigious and authoritative (what with having been founded by Newton, Boyle and Hooke, amongst others, being the oldest such learned body in the world, and still representing the elite (in a good way) of UK science. Exxon ("Esso" here in the UK) are still, as the Greenpeace campaign from 5 years ago pointed out, "#1 Global Warming Villain".
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
This is the best treatment of Hansen's 1998 predictions that I have seen. It discusses Hansen's forecasts of emissions and temperature back in '88 (this was testimony before Congress; Pat Michaels and Michael Crichton have since lied quite bluntly about this testimony only by talking about scenario A, which is not relevant given actual CO2 emissions).
The verdict: Not perfect, but pretty damn good.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Livestock methane - which has higher AGW impact than C02 due to longevity - is a large component of yearly greenhouse emissions, as reported here
Well the Chinese government is now pro actively trying to counter the threat of climate change. Government reports are saying this is a real threat that must be countered immediately. Can the same be said for this administration? I'm not saying that America is to blame for everything, but your straw man argument claiming that because some people blame everything on America it must not be true doesn't fly either.
"There is almost no dissent in the scientific community as to whether global warming is man made, and even less that it exists."
These guys might disagree with you, from an open letter to the Canadian PM calling for a second look on the science of global warming
(but I am sure they are all either industry shills or quacks):
sorry for the long list, but the whole "there is no debate" statement always makes me angry. I do not know who is right in this, but there is definitely not a consensus.
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William
Kevin Vranes from the University of Colorado at Bolder has this to say
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archi ves/climate_change/001030so_what_happened_at_.html
"..."
"I will grant that talking to the people I did at AGU represents a small fraction of all the attendees. I will grant that there is no way to know whether my averaging of attitudes in the climsci world, as sensed by talking with a few people over a few days, scales up to represent the true feelings of the collective. But I will tell you what I found, and what I felt, and whether you think it might represent the current attitude of climsci world is up to you."
"To sum the state of climsci world in one word, as I see it right now, it is this: tension."
"..."
"What I see is something that I am having a hard time labeling, but that I might call either a "hangover" or a "sophomore slump" or "buyers remorse." None fit perfectly, but perhaps the combination does. I speak for (my interpretation) of the collective: {We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.}"
"..."
"None of this is to say that the risk of climate change is being questioned or downplayed by our community; it's not. It is to say that I think some people feel that we've created a monster by limiting the ability of people in our community to question results that say "climate change is right here!" It is to say that a number of climsci people I heard from are not comfortable enough with the science to want our community to push to outsiders an idea that we have fully or even adequately bounded the risk. I heard from a few people a sentiment that we need to stop making assumptions and decisions for decision-makers; that we need to give decision-makers only the unvarnished truth with realistic bounds on our uncertainty, and trust that the decision-makers will know what to do with it. These feelings came of frustration that many of us are downplaying uncertainties for fear of not being listened to."
"..."
"I realize that many of you will disagree with the notion that we are overplaying our hand, or are not giving full voice to our uncertainties. I'm not sure the answer to this question myself. But I write all this because I sense a sea change in attitudes amongst climsci people that I know as good scientists without agendas. These are solid scientists, and some told me in no uncertain terms that we are not giving full voice to uncertainties; others implied as much. Therein lies the tension. Where we go from here
This is the best part of the debate. Someone like me (a liberal, as it turns out, but that really doesn't matter) announces that they think the politics of science have gotten out of hand, and we're immediately told, "what you read on Free Republic does not count as experience" (as if I read any such publication, but hey it makes for a great straw-man) and the vauge "loopier and loopier ideas" concept, which isn't even a refutation.
As for real-world examples... it began long ago. For example, the primary author of "Sun, Weather, And Climate" (1978 NASA special publication), John R. Herman was subsequently shunned by his peers as, during the early 80s, the data from that book was used as a counter-point in the greenhouse gas debate.
Any solar observatory these days sees this. They either talk about other topics, or only publish data that fails to contradict the "facts" as accepted by the current consensus. Violating that has one observatory mentioned in the congressional floor debate record as, "an enemy of the planet," I kid you not.
There's also a great article about the modern implications of the "climate of fear" surrounding climate research, but of course, you can't listen to Richard Lindzen because he takes money from those people... but of course, that's self-perpetuating because anyone who speaks up in Lindzen's defense is branded with the same iron, and must seek funding elsewhere... which further invalidates their voice.
I'm not saying that CO2 doesn't cause babies to cry and angels to lose their wings, I'm just saying that there's no way to extract meaningful information from the "consensus" of a community that's scared for their jobs about saying the wrong thing. I would consider Bill Gates a national, even international hero if he invested a large chunk of the Gates Foundation money in funding the best research that tried to assail current climate theory on all fronts. Not because that theory is bad, but because I want to see the research done and done well, so that we really get to find out what the hell is going on on planet Earth.
Let me ask you this: if you did research that suggested that, for example, ground-cover water vapor from irrigation had a strong hand to play in surface warming (that's arm-waving, but it's an example for sake of argument), do you think that you would continue to get funding? Would you be called an "enemy of the planet?" Would you have to go looking to oil companies to support further research and pretty much guarantee that no one listened to you? What if some republican picked up your work and started waving it around, taking it out of context and saying that fossile fuel is as safe as houses because of what you said? Would the community circle around you and defend your reputation from such gross misuse of your work, or would you just find yourself too "controvercial" to continue to work in the field?
We know the answer to these questions because it's been played out for nearly 30 years. You would be asking Slashdot, "what's a good tech job?"
According to Michael Sheridan in a recent article in the Australian "The Chinese plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, adding to some 2,000, most of them unmodernised, that spew smoke, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere". "..... there are 21,000 coal mines in the country and coal output has doubled in the last five years. China's Shanxi province produces more coal than Britain, Russia, and Germany combined". I know this is a shock for Americans (especially liberal ones), but you guys will soon no longer be the cause of the planet going to hell (if it indeed is). Truth is the investigation of the root causes of global warming has moved from scientific investigation to a kind of religious cult - people like Lomborg attempting to simply clarify the discussion are villified and even investigated for not using 'proper scientific method'. Almost a modern version of the inquisition where even questioning the received wisdom is viewed as scientific blasphemy.
Well the Chinese government is now pro actively trying to counter the threat of climate change
They certainly are. They're building and opening coal-fired power stations at the rate of one per week. They have also said they will never sign Kyoto or any successor economic vice. Which means that as soon as 2009, China will overtake the US in carbon emissions.
Never mind.
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
China needs to open coal plants. They can't open much else. What they -are- doing, is using the best available technologies, like Doosan Babcock boilers, to try to *reduce* emissions from those coal plants, and they have no choice but to continue to do so until a cleaner, efficient, financially viable power source becomes available.
The weather around here has certainly been disconcerting, I'm in South Eastern Michigan, it's raining in January which isn't unusual, but what is unusual is I'm seeing Earthworms! That means the ground is unfrozen which is very strange this time of year. Even so this is weather not climate, climate is averages over decades, centuries and millenniums.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yeah, but that's the problem, and it's not just cost. If the anti-oil crowd wins, we'll be half castrating ourselves by dropping the current most-efficient energy transfer mechanism. Of course, if I were to guess it's all just academic and we'll continue to use oil until we get a more efficient all purpose means of energy generation.
I've got this love affair going on with the market, see, so I know all about the way they'll pass on costs to consumers. I do disagree with the tone of the whole 'expensive gas during record breaking profits' mantra most of the time that I hear it. As a student of the market, I wasn't surprised that gasoline costs went up drastically short term when an oil refinery was taken out of commission.
Of course the frustrating thing is the whole monopoloy economy that we get in various small segments of life. It's still way preferable to the alternative (socialism, and all that that entails). And yes, I would call almost any monopoly breakups 'socialist'. Nothing about justice promises a static playing field for all time. The oil companies provide energy to the consumers at an excellent price and I thank them for it. I lived in Ireland for a bit, where petrol was 3.5-4.5 times as expensive as here. Yikes. THAT's price gouging.
-knewter