ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public

[uscitizen]

Group: ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public


Jan 3, 9:49 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in an effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

Many scientists say carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice and alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil called the scientists' report Wednesday "yet another attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion of the serious issue of CO2 emissions and global climate change."

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed any link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or emphasizing only selected facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

The company said its financial support doesn't mean control over any group's views.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070104/D8ME6MM80.html

 

[LadyT]

i haven't had my coffee yet, but
#1) what's wrong with giving $ to ideological groups.
#2) I didn't see any evidence in the article that pointed to them encouraging groups to come up with answers that benefit them. They simply support groups who come up with answers they agree with.

Is that really wrong?

 

[uscitizen]

Legally no, It is just capitalism and misleading the public at it's finest.
Morally is misleading someone wrong ? ie lying ....

 

[LadyT]

Technically they aren't the ones misleading. If anyone is "wrong" its the scientists they support. I don't think its really fair to label them as deceptive on this issue. Research is supposed to be unbiased and results are not supposed to influenced by politics or big business. If they are letting big business dictate what their findings are, they are the ones at fault.

Regardless of nature of research I don't think that funding science should be considered deceptive unless there is clear evidence that would indicate willful misguidance.

For instance if 2% of oncology PhDs claimed deodorant caused cancer and 98% claimed it didn't would you consider the donor funding those 2% to be misleading the public even though most felt as though it didn't? In the end I think if their claim is successful in maligning them for donating $, it may just end up hurting research grants in general.

 

[Care4all]

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups.

exxon/mobile DISTRIBUTED the FALSE information to these groups who THEN promoted their view.... is what it says, no?

 

[LadyT]

exxon/mobile DISTRIBUTED the FALSE information to these groups who THEN promoted their view.... is what it says, no?

They distributed results of research conducted by experts. If the experts did something wrong or deceptive and the wishes of Exxon mobile then by all means throw Exxon under the bus, but if its research its research.

 

[Care4all]

They distributed results of research conducted by experts. If the experts did something wrong or deceptive and the wishes of Exxon mobile then by all means throw Exxon under the bus, but if its research its research.

I would agree if Exxon Mobile did not hire these Scientists and pay their salary, if these Scientists had these supposed hypothessis' and worked independently for someone else and were paid by someone else not involved in the industry.

If they paid these Scientists, then I do not agree with you.

care

 

[Cypress]

i haven't had my coffee yet, but
#1) what's wrong with giving $ to ideological groups.
#2) I didn't see any evidence in the article that pointed to them encouraging groups to come up with answers that benefit them. They simply support groups who come up with answers they agree with.

Is that really wrong?

Its not illegal.

Its the same thing the tobacco companies did for decades: fund junk science to deny the link between tobacco and lung cancer.

Nothing wrong with scientists pointing out they are misrepresenting the science, either.

 

[LadyT]

Well, like we've excepted that smoking causes cancer, I think we've all for the most part (with the exception of Dano) accepted that global warming is caused by man and its having negative effects on our environment (Good effects in Jersey this winter).

Weak opposing results give credible scientists an opportunity to bring the issue to the forefront. Like the harvard doctor is doing.
I just think if anyone is to really blame its the scientists for putting out crappy work and they should really be the ones that are maligned here. I'd expect nothing less of Exxon than what they are doing: promoting what's in their best interest.

 

[Cypress]

Well, like we've excepted that smoking causes cancer, I think we've all for the most part (with the exception of Dano) accepted that global warming is caused by man and its having negative effects on our environment (Good effects in Jersey this winter).

Weak opposing results give credible scientists an opportunity to bring the issue to the forefront. Like the harvard doctor is doing.
I just think if anyone is to really blame its the scientists for putting out crappy work and they should really be the ones that are maligned here. I'd expect nothing less of Exxon than what they are doing: promoting what's in their best interest.

I'd expect nothing less of Exxon than what they are doing: promoting what's in their best interest.

Some major oil companies have realized its a waste of time to spend their money on junk science and a lost cause:


The Shell Oil Co. president, addressing a group in St. Louis Thursday, said as far as the company was concerned, the debate over the science of global climate change is over. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?" “This country should be embracing the issue [of managing greenhouse gases].”

“It’s a waste of time to debate it,” he said. “Policy-makers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We’ll adjust.”

 

[LadyT]

Okay,
That's weird. I swear, a couple of minutes ago when I clicked on the Exxon corporate site that was listed in the article, there was an article dated from this week that stated that they realized green house gases were a problem and they were working with the world to address it, but its gone now.

Oh, well. My point is Shell's doing the right thing and who cares what grants they give for research, most reasonable people think that its happening and its happening a faster pace because of pollutants that people are putting into the air.

 

[TRGLDTE]

Well, like we've excepted that smoking causes cancer, I think we've all for the most part (with the exception of Dano) accepted that global warming is caused by man and its having negative effects on our environment (Good effects in Jersey this winter).

Weak opposing results give credible scientists an opportunity to bring the issue to the forefront. Like the harvard doctor is doing.
I just think if anyone is to really blame its the scientists for putting out crappy work and they should really be the ones that are maligned here. I'd expect nothing less of Exxon than what they are doing: promoting what's in their best interest.

I do not accept the premise that global warming is caused by man.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I do not accept the premise that global warming is caused by man.

Neither do I . . . but I do accept the premise that we're contributing to it to an unknown but potentially high degree.

 

[LadyT]

Well, I thought it was implied that when we talk about problems related to "global warming" we are talking about the recent abnormal increases in temperature outside the earths normal temperature fluxuations.

However, I'll be sure to be more specific next time.

 

[TRGLDTE]

Neither do I . . . but I do accept the premise that we're contributing to it to an unknown but potentially high degree.

You are one of the few who would pick up the nuance - I do accept global warming, but not necessarily that man's actions are the main factor. Part of the problem that I have with a lot of science is that it is a single factor experiment - those tend to be OK at best because they ignore all other factors as well as factor interactions.

That said, if you (generic) really want to help the environment, then going vegetarian is as effective as, if not more effective than, giving up a vehicle. Production of animal protein is tremendously expensive in terms of energy consumption.

 

[Cancel7]

You are one of the few who would pick up the nuance - I do accept global warming, but not necessarily that man's actions are the main factor. Part of the problem that I have with a lot of science is that it is a single factor experiment - those tend to be OK at best because they ignore all other factors as well as factor interactions.

That said, if you (generic) really want to help the environment, then going vegetarian is as effective as, if not more effective than, giving up a vehicle. Production of animal protein is tremendously expensive in terms of energy consumption.

Really? That's interesting. You've made me feel all righteous Trog!

 

[TRGLDTE]

Really? That's interesting. You've made me feel all righteous Trog!

Yes, farm raised animal protein is very costly to the environment.

In a similar vein, but not directly on topic here - Have you read Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation"?