ExxonMobil muddies global warming science

[chaim]

You should do a little more reading - the natural carbon cycle is a net sink for CO2 not a source:

This "fear-mongering agenda" is almost universally agreed on by tens of thousands of scientists the world over and every reputable scientific institute. That is one hell of a conspiracy.....

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

 

[jgarden]

Oil funded Heartland pleads innocence
10 Jul 06

The Heartland Institute, a notorious US climate change skeptic group, responded to a letter the DeSmogBlog team recently penned for the Philadelphia Daily News. Creating a perception of impartiality is their theme on the issue of tobacco and climate change science. Is it then just a coincidence that the same groups funded by oil money, such as Heartland, are the same groups “skeptical” about climate change?

Here are the facts on Heartland’s funding. You be the judge as to their objectivity on the issue of climate change:

• $561,500 from Exxon Mobil
• Over $400,000 from oil money-backed foundations

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-funded-heartland-pleads-innocence

It must have slipped the minds of these supposedly "impartial" scientists, whose articles question gobal warming, to disclose their oil industry connections.

 

[jgarden]

White House plays down global warming evidence
September 21, 2003

The Bush administration conspired with industry to undermine the government's own research on global warming, according to an investigation by The Observer. Emails and other internal documents uncovered during the investigation confirm a cooperative arrangement between White House officials and oil industry lobbyists to downplay the impact of climate change.

One email (dated 3 June 2002) to a top official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality came from the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative "think tank" funded heavily by ExxonMobil. The email reveals how Bush officials wanted CEI to publicly discredit a report last summer by the Environmental Protection Agency that provides evidence for global warming and admits that human activities contribute to the problem.

Other documents, such as a confidential EPA memo, details White House efforts to suppress research that shows the world's climate is warming -- by insisting on major revisions to the global warming section of an agency report on the environment. Some information was deleted and other material was watered down to the point that EPA staff warned that the section "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."

Despite the overwhelming evidence, White House and industry officials denied the obvious collusion.

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/airenergy_warming.asp

Its one thing for "Big Oil" to fund "phony" research under the name of science - but its quite another when the Bush Administration subverts and underfunds the government's own EPA when its research failed to support the Republican's political agenda.

 

[Voegelin]

Maybe this is all part of the Cosmic Plan. The earth heats up. We all evolve into 100 ton reptiles such as the now departed Argentinosaurus hinculensis, something (maybe a comet) wipes us out, our carcasses and the plants we ate turn into oil, the earth cools down, humans re-evolve, build SUVs and recreate Hollywood so movie stars can fly around the world on private jets lecturing everyone about environmentalism.

 

[SallyNow]

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

Just for a second here, let's forget the questionable logic used in statements that say "climate change at this rapid rate are not caused by humans at all" when there has been a LOT of evidence showing that climate change, without human intervention, isn't as, well, quick or dramatic.

Instead, let's focus on facts that no one can deny: fumes from oil, smog from oil, the use of huge vehicles when a small hatchback will do... the underuse of solar and wind power... etc, etc... leads to respiratory diseases and other serious, often even deadly illnesses.

Ah, but those are things that even the staunchest anti-enviromentalist can deny. So they ignore 'em.

 

[JoshuaW]

Exxon's policy was the same as the tobacco industry....to maintain an atmosphere of indecision regarding the causes of global warming.

Interestingly, most mentions of climate change on Exxon's website were changed today, January 4. One article not changed yet demonstrates the "confusion" over climate change which Exxon has been promoting for its own advantage.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

i've never understood the controversy here. The science is clear, and its also clear that those who own businesses have an agenda here, if they are polluters.
I can understand their reason to lie- but to paint this as an agenda of those who are AGAINST global warming? What do we possibly have to gain from this? It's clear what could be gained by lying to deny it- but lying to promote the idea? There is no gain, so a conspiracy theory is pure bunk.

 

[AirPo]

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

They ended naturally.

 

[Vylo]

In other words, it's natural

I missed have missed that ice age we are busting out of.

 

[DieHappy]

<b>Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

This is what gets me about global warming, though. I don't fully understand the science behind it, and unadulterated data is hard to come by. So I wonder if the comparison to smoking is apt. I do understand epidemiology and the raw data behind medical studies and I know the junk-science claim for second hand smoke is right on. The tobacco companies are fighting against ignorance, lies, and prejudice when they claim that second hand smoke is not harmful. I wonder if Exxon is simply doing the same thing? If the raw data is incomplete, hard to make sense of even by a climatologist, and in dispute, whom do you trust?

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.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6546 Here's one. There's a 30 page greenpeace pamphlet that I have buried in my file cabinet and can't find on line right now that screams about global cooling and the coming ice age. And it's all man's fault.

 

[chaim]

The basis of global warming is really quite simple -
- CO2 absorbs strongly in the Infrared
- atmospheric CO2 levels are rising dramatically due to land use changes and fossil fuel burning
- As a result the earth is warming
Not that hard to understand and the data is freely available:

CO2 cross section:
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Formula=co2&NoIon=on&Units=SI&cIR=on

Atmospheric CO2 levels:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf

Temperature data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

If you really want to get into it you can even download the climate models and run them yourself.

To address the point about global cooling - still no one has provided a single reference to the scientific literature. Newsweek and a forgotten greenpeace flyer is not exactly proof that this was the prevailing view of climate scientists. Secondly - why does what people may or may not have thought in the 70's matter?

As to whom do you trust, tens of thousands of PhD scientists and respected scientific institutes who have collectively done millions of hours of research, or the oil companies and politicians who have done no research? The decision is pretty easy for me. Or even better - go read the papers and look at the data yourself.

This is what gets me about global warming, though. I don't fully understand the science behind it, and unadulterated data is hard to come by. So I wonder if the comparison to smoking is apt. I do understand epidemiology and the raw data behind medical studies and I know the junk-science claim for second hand smoke is right on. The tobacco companies are fighting against ignorance, lies, and prejudice when they claim that second hand smoke is not harmful. I wonder if Exxon is simply doing the same thing? If the raw data is incomplete, hard to make sense of even by a climatologist, and in dispute, whom do you trust?
http://newsbusters.org/node/6546 Here's one. There's a 30 page greenpeace pamphlet that I have buried in my file cabinet and can't find on line roight now that screams about global cooling and the coming ice age. And it's all man's fault.

 

[jgarden]

"We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."
--Secretary of the Interior James Watt
------------------------------------------------------
"A left-wing cult (environmentalists) dedicated to bringing down the type of government I believe in."
--James Watt
------------------------------------------------------
"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"
--Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------
Testifying before Congress, Watt was asked if he agreed that natural resources should be preserved for future generations. His response:

"I do not know how many future generations we can count of before the Lord returns."
--James Watt, February 5, 1981
------------------------------------------------------
I always wondered why the Christian Right has shown such little interest in stewardship of the environment. James Watt argues that long term concern for the environment runs counter to the belief that the Second Coming is imminent.

Many Christians are willing to gamble that mankind will never have to face the consequences of ignoring environmental issues.

 

[CCGirl]

"We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."
--Secretary of the Interior James Watt
------------------------------------------------------
"A left-wing cult (environmentalists) dedicated to bringing down the type of government I believe in."
--James Watt
------------------------------------------------------
"A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"
--Ronald Reagan
------------------------------------------------------
Testifying before Congress, Watt was asked if he agreed that natural resources should be preserved for future generations. His response:

"I do not know how many future generations we can count of before the Lord returns."
--James Watt, February 5, 1981
------------------------------------------------------
I always wondered why the Christian Right has shown such little interest in stewardship of the environment. James Watt argues that long term concern for the environment runs counter to the belief that the Second Coming is imminent.

Many Christians are willing to gamble that mankind will never have to face the consequences of ignoring environmental issues.

It has often been said that the reason for the terrible policies of this administration on the environment is because hey, with Jesus's return just around the corner, who cares?

 

[Rotator]

It has often been said that the reason for the terrible policies of this administration on the environment is because hey, with Jesus's return just around the corner, who cares?

"Often been said"? By whom?

 

[FilM]

Looks like many science teachers aren't too happy about the influence Exxon has on the National Science Teachers Association (NTSA).

The NTSA executive have declined an offer for free DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth to be sent to 50,000 science teachers because the NSTA does not want to jeopardise the funding it gets from Exxon.

Link to NSTA discussion board: http://www.nsta.org/main/forum/showthread.php?t=1867

There's a lot of mudslinning about who has what agenda, etc., but the one thing that does stand out is that the NTSA did say accepting the DVDs would place &#8220;unnecessary risk upon the capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.&#8221;

 

[Voegelin]

"An Inconvient Truth" has no business in a science class.

 

[chaim]

"An Inconvient Truth" has no business in a science class.

Why is that?

According to the climate science community it does a good job of portraying the science:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20060706_goremoviefaq.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

I have seen the movie, and as someone who is quite familiar with the science I will attest that it does a good job on conveying the science in a way understandable to the general public - including school kids. The screening I saw was followed by a discussion panel of climate scientists and science policy analysts who all agreed the science in the movie was sound.

Have YOU seen any inaccuracies in it?

 

[Risen Tree]

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

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

"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".

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

All of you: Post proof or retract.

 

[jgarden]

If Exxon truly believes that global warming is not a scientific fact, then why are they mysteriously setting up and financing supposedly independent scientific "think tanks" to support their position. If they were confident of their message why the subterfuge - unless they have something to hide?

 

[jgarden]

"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."

--Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei

"Big Oil" denying the existance of global warming is the scientific equivalent of arguing that the earth is flat.