ExxonMobil muddies global warming science

[chaim]

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, 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.


"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

 

[CCGirl]

Anyone who takes an oil company seriously for any information besides oil production needs their head examined.

 

[chaim]

True - that is why oil companies such as Exxon set up front organizations and fund "think-tanks" to disseminate their propaganda. Unfortunately a lot of people fall for this (including many in this forum).

Anyone who takes an oil company seriously for any information besides oil production needs their head examined.

 

[Zoot]

Yeah, it's not like "Climate Change Not Manmade!" is the headline of The ExxonMobil Times. It's more like little editorials here and there, citing little studies here and there, saying that there's nooooothing to worry about.

And, of course, they keep Michael Crichton in prostitutes and crack.

 

[CCGirl]

I guess I always look to see who is behind the little stories, and generally read scientific studies, with scientists, to find out about global warming. It is disgusting that they can mislead people this way though.

 

[JoshuaW]

January 3, 60 degrees today with no sign of snow this winter in the Northeast. Maybe Al was right?

 

[blueapplepaste]

The same people who say global warming doesn't happen and turn to these 'reports' are probably the same people who thought that tobacco was safe because the tobacco companies said so.

"Sure, smoke 5 packs a day; it's healthy for you and does no harm!"

"Sure, dump as much pollution into the air; there's no ill effects!"

 

[MachZer0]

Makes you wonder how the former ice ages ended when no oil wells existed and no SUV's polluted the air.

 

[chaim]

That is one of the major findings of the union of concerned scientists report. Exxon Mobile is using the same tactics as Phillip Morris and in some cases is even using the very same people who spread dis-information about the risks of cigarette smoke.

The same people who say global warming doesn't happen and turn to these 'reports' are probably the same people who thought that tobacco was safe because the tobacco companies said so.

"Sure, smoke 5 packs a day; it's healthy for you and does no harm!"

"Sure, dump as much pollution into the air; there's no ill effects!"

 

[chaim]

No need to wonder - orbital dynamics, namely the Milancovick cycle.

Makes you wonder how the former ice ages ended when no oil wells existed and no SUV's polluted the air.

 

[MachZer0]

No need to wonder - orbital dynamics, namely the Milancovick cycle.

In other words, it's natural

 

[Rotator]

January 3, 60 degrees today with no sign of snow this winter in the Northeast. Maybe Al was right?

Colorado's balancing you out.

 

[Voegelin]

"ExxonMobile muddies global warming science"

Global warming science?

By the description it appears research which might contradict a warming trend is excluded from this "science".

Don't recall in the 1970s ,when many thought the earth was in a long term cooling trend, that climatology was described as "Global cooling science".

 

[chaim]

Yes - previous ice ages (and recovery from ice ages) were natural, caused by the dynamics of the earths orbit around the sun. However based on this cycle we should t be seeing warming right now. The warming is due to another mechanism - largely anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

In other words, it's natural

 

[JoshuaW]

The Milancovich cycle is 100,000 years long, and cannot explain the rise of Earth's temperature over the past 10 years.

Antrhopogenic gases are those caused by man, including factories, aerosols and vehicle pollution.

 

[chaim]

The planet is warming - you would be a fool to try and debate that. So the term global warming science is entirely accurate - the science is figuring out just what is causing the warming.

"ExxonMobile muddies global warming science"

Global warming science?

By the description it appears research which might contradict a warming trend is excluded from this "science".

Don't recall in the 1970s ,when many thought the earth was in a long term cooling trend, that climatology was described as "Global cooling science".

How many times do we have to go over this? Please find me one reference to global cooling from the 70's in the scientific literature. I have looked and strangely enough can't find any.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes - previous ice ages (and recovery from ice ages) were natural, caused by the dynamics of the earths orbit around the sun. However based on this cycle we should t be seeing warming right now. The warming is due to another mechanism - largely anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

There are other sources of greenhouse gases as well, which are natural. This is nothing more than fearmongering to push an agenda.

 

[Zoot]

There are other sources of greenhouse gases as well, which are natural. This is nothing more than fearmongering to push an agenda.

I'm afraid that all of the people who know what they're talking about disagree with you. I'm going to go with them on this one.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm afraid that all of the people who know what they're talking about disagree with you. I'm going to go with them on this one.

Not all!!

 

[Zoot]

Not all!!

No, you're right. A small minority of people who know what they're talking about intentionally lie. To "push an agenda", as you put it. This thread is about those people, and the report about them.