ExxonMobil Funds "Misleading And Inaccurate Information" About Climate Change

The Guardian :

The world's largest oil company is continuing to fund lobby groups that question the reality of global warming, despite a public pledge to cut support for such climate change denial, a new analysis shows.

Company records show that ExxonMobil handed over hundreds of thousands of pounds to such lobby groups in 2008. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

Read the whole story: The Guardian

Comments

[niktish]

Oh ExxonMobil.... will you ever stop abusing your power? Corporate Accountability International nominated ExxonMobil for their Corporate Hall of Shame award - I'd say this is just one more reason they should be the winners! Go vote for ExxonMobil at their site here and see what other transnational corporations have been nominated: http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/hall-shame-campaign

[MGhamma]

I don't know a single person that confuses smog with carbon dioxide, or doesn't understand that plants need CO2 to live. I do however know quite a few people that are feeling increasingly insulted by the implication from you remaining deniers that they're too stupid to see through the increasingly blatent BS you all are trying to spread around. 75% of americans feel that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, according to the latest polls. We may not fully understand the science, but we sure as hell know bullshite when we see it.

[RomeoMD25]

In 1997, Enron set about to promote an international treaty to impose
cuts in CO2 emissions while allowing emission rights trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because
it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and it would help Enron’s growing commodity trading business.

As the push for a treaty gained more support around the world, Enron CEO Ken Lay and other business
leaders wrote to President Bill Clinton on September 1, 1998, asking him to create a bipartisan blue ribbon
commission that would essentially shut off the scientific debate on global warming and discredit those scientists
who opposed the treaty and did not support the global warming theory.

Exxon Mobile Funded latest climate bill(interesting)

Industries and individual companies with a stake in the landmark House climate and energy bill poured money into lobbying early this year

Exxon Mobil Corp. spent the most within that group, paying $9.3 million on lobbying the first quarter of this year.
Last year the company spent $29 million, its highest level ever.

Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas.!!

[RomeoMD25]

Now many of you may consider yourselves liberal, maybe not on all issues but at least on environmental ones.
So as liberals, you are supposed to be open minded.
Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

[RomeoMD25]

If CO2 were a pollutant, then why would our US submarines allow an environmental concentration of this
very same gas in the neighborhood of 8,000 ppm? It is unconscionable that
our government is demanding that we try to regulate the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere,
knowing full well that concentrations more than 20 times that amount produce absolutely no ill effects on American sailors.

[RomeoMD25]

75% supported the Iraq War,BUSH

[DavidTheroux]

Are you and The Guardian then also posting articles on the enormous funding by numerous government agencies and major corporations that are pushing the climate alarmist/corporatist view, including the gigantic wealth-transfer and cartelization schemes that will directly benefit them?

In this regard, I would suggest the following

"The Climate-Industrial Complex"
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=2217

David J. Theroux
Founder and President
The Independent Institute
http://www.independent.org

[RomeoMD25]

Exxon mobile not only funded but wrote this bill,that's why you cant read it
why would more than 140 corporations lobby for this bill?

its all about making money

most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change,
not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2
emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modeling that is required
and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

[blueskybigstar]

David Rockefeller's Exxon? Duh.

[blueskybigstar]

Read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rockefeller

[RomeoMD25]

Exxon Funded GB Bill (interesting)
Industries and individual companies with a stake in the landmark House climate and energy bill poured money into lobbying early this year

Exxon Mobil Corp. spent the most within that group, paying $9.3 million on lobbying the first quarter of this year.
Last year the company spent $29 million, its highest level ever.

CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas.

[RomeoMD25]

Now many of you may consider yourselves liberal, maybe not on all issues but at least on environmental ones.
So as liberals, you are supposed to be open minded.
Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas.

[Exusian]

Your "dilution argument" was flat out wrong before, and it is still flat out wrong, not to mention dishonest.

Carbon dioxide from human activity makes up ~27% of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or virtually ALL of the ~100 ppm increase since the start of the industrial revolution (ca. 1750).

This is how the global warming/climate change denial disinformation game is played.

And you don't even play it very well.

[alvdh1]

Your stats are bogus from the get go and I could easily find the correct numbers with very little effort. The fact remains that we are altering the atmosphere with toxic and nontoxic gases from human activity which there is zero scientific dispute. If you want to believe that scientists who look at the composition of atmospheric gases and don't differentiate between toxic and nontoxic then that is your choice even if it is summarily wrong.

A wise approach would be to make analysis based on fact which would include evidence from both sides of the issue so that you understand all of the arguements. Perhaps you could start with looking up the definitions of a couple concepts before you commence with your research. Specifically, the planet's albedo effect and synergistic effects of gases and human activities.

I would encourage you to take a look at the ice record going back 600,000 years as it relates to the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in PPM and correlate it to climate conditions in 50,000 year segments. When you are ready to commence your research, please try to incorporate it into deforestation, melting permafrost and oceanic methane ice and relate all of it to synergism and the albedo effect and does this create a positive or negative feedback loop. Then take this information and condense it into the past 150 years and explain the 100 PPM increase in CO2.

[MGhamma]

Romeo oh Romeo, you're the only one that's confused.

[JohnnyWalkerBlueLabel]

Alan Carlin of the EPA, the author of the 98 page report, showing that global warming is a complete sham, was suppressed by the Obama disinformation police.
Read it for your self:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

[Ice9]

You already posted this questionable link, why bother again? The Competitive Enterprise Institute is happy to publish whatever supports their agenda.

The point of this article is the fact that ExxonMobil continues to support Denial Groups in private while publicly saying they'll stop. It's not about whether Global Climate Change is occuring or not.

[Exusian]

You mean the report that cites several well-known climate loons and cranks including Ernst-Georg Beck, Anthony Watts, Joseph d'Aleo, Christopher Monckton, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer, and has entire sections plagiarized from well known corporate climate change denialst Pat Michaels' World Climate Report website?

See: http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/30/suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/

Not only does this dog not hunt, it's been shown to not even be the guy's own dog.

[andj]

JohnnyWalkerBlueLabel - so does that mean its okay to pollute the earth and poison ourselves in the process.

Irrespective of any report surely you can see that damage is being done to the environment, to wildlife, and to our selves.

There should be corporate responsibility for damages to the environment. There should be transparency.

[WillWilson]

Humans have profoundly changed local and global environments. Global warming is a term that describes the planet-scale trend; climate change includes examining local scale variation against that trend. If you simply want to deny reality, it's a right that represents one of the great things about our country!

For those seeking an actual understanding of the issue, I've posted our energy use from various sources over the last two centuries (from the US DOE's 2006 Annual Energy Review) online at:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=116

I've also posted information showing the reality of global warming, and some consequences measured in other organisms:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=95

Plots showing increasing sea levels, too:

http://www.sciencetime.org/blog/?p=125

We need to separate the fact of human-caused climate change from the compromises needed to ameliorate it's future problems. What shall we do to ameliorate future problems? Some people say we should do nothing, others urge a complete ban on fossil fuels today. Our large-scale food production depends on the climate staying constant where our food is grown today. As the climate changes, insect pests and plant pathogens find new habitable areas of the globe, perhaps in these agricultural areas. Humans have experienced potato famines and droughts. Climate change brings on new risks. If you argue for minimal responses to address climate change, how confident are you that no problems will arise? What is an acceptable risk?

Will Wilson

[crablover]

And this is NEWS? Who do you think funds the various "think tanks" and "research councils" in DC?

Exxon won't be satisfied until they siphon off every last drop of petroleum in the earth, then they'll become a solar and wind energy company.

[SimJack]

Can corporations be tried for genocide and/or crimes against humanity?

[JanBjernfalk]

So ... ExxonMobil, a company with over $400 Billion annual revenue, spent "hundreds of thousands" on lobbying. Big whoop.

Meanwhile, Al Gore is spending $100 Million / year on a campaign to promote his alarmist agenda:
http://video1.washingtontimes.com/fishwrap/2008/03/gore_kicks_off_300m_climate_ch_1.html

Hundreds of thousands versus hundreds of millions. Hmmm. Yes, this really does seem terribly unfair.

[Ice9]

You missed the point entirely. ExxonMobil says one thing, does another and continues to do it after being exposed. They said they'd stop funding the Denial Groups, but secretly continue to do so.

The NCPA and Heritage Foundation are mouthpieces being funded for public consumption, as you say for a measly $125,000. See, our opinion doesn't count for too much. But that's not where the real action is, the big money is paid to lobbyists to influence governments to keep the status quo. If the public is confused over the issue, they won't call their congressman when he votes with Big Oil against our interests.

Confusing the public is the goal and you can stop posting Off Topic links to the Washington Times.

The question is "who do YOU work for?".

[JanBjernfalk]

No need to remind me of the point of the article; it is clearly about funding "misleading and inaccurate about climate change".

In 2007, a U.K. High Court ruled that Al Gore's movie contained several material errors in fact, and that it was misleading:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485336/Schools-warn-Gore-climate-film-bias.html

As a result, schoolchildren in the U.K. are now required to be warned that the Al Gore movie is "political propaganda" before any showing in school.

So tell me, just who is trying to confuse the public?

[rogerthat21]

what a joke...

good political & economic articles: http://iamned.blogspot.com

[fumes]

so who's afraid of CO2 anymore lol?

[RomeoMD25]

ruth: Follow the money. In Science there is a saying “No Problem, no funding.”

I’ve read what the Royal Society has published about anthropogenic global warming. It’s an embarrassment: nothing but conjecture, glad-handing, postulates and guesses. Where is the Science?!? Where is the evidence that concretely demonstrates that an X increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to a temperature increase of FunctionX on a planetary scale? Nowhere! Because this type of evidence simply does not exist. All we have are rigged computer models that fail at even the most rudimentary attempts to predict climate or weather changes and “scientists” referencing those models as if they were somehow bastions of truth and authority.

[marinade]

Why does it seem so improbable to you that the massive emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by 650 million cars and untold numbers of coal power plants would affect the atmosphere?

Most people would draw the opposite conclusion. Of course it will have an effect. And considering that the numbers of cars and coal plants are going to double in ten years, it is easy to conclude that the effect will get much worse.

[JohnnyWalkerBlueLabel]

Alan Carlin of the EPA, the author of the 98 page report, showing that global warming is a complete sham, was suppressed by the Obama disinformation police.
Read it for your self:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

[B-Dog]

Did you hear the one about smoking causing cancer?

[RichZ]

Among real scientists, questioning ambiguous results is actually a key principle of science vital
to finding the truth not 'denial'.
Otherwise Galileo 'denied' the geocentric model of the solar system
Darwin 'denied' creationism.

The use of the word exposes how scientifically illiterate believers are.

In this case Exxon mobile is very much akin to Galileo- a very small independant practical entity - one of the very few private oil companies in a world where 95% of the industry is under corrupt governmenmt control

They are up against behemoths of political power and ideology, just as Galileo faced the Catholics,
eventually the science wins out.

If alternative energy worked, it would be able to compete with oil fairly, not through political brute force.
This was tried decades ago in Denmark and was a complete disaster,they are way ahead of us and are turning back to real energy. Oil is the miracle fuel of the future!

[Wheels76]

Poor little exxon, getting picked on by the mean scientists and liberals.