Exxon paying "organisations" to falsely deny climate change

P

PeeNN

Guest
Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Read the letter in full here (pdf)[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday September 20, 2006
The Guardian


[/FONT]
exxon.jpg

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Royal Society is worried about climate change lobby groups, including those funded by Exxon. Photograph: Matt Slocum/AP
[/FONT]

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".

</IMG>In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate," it said.
In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.
The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.
Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."
Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.
ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.
Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil. The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. "It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that it's worse than we thought," he said.


Link

Go here for a comprehensive list of organisations paid by Exxon/Mobil to deny climate change
 
I cant imagine anyone being surprised by this....:dry:
 
Outraged was the emotion I was looking for. Check out the second link, it's ****ing crazy how many of these greased "scientists" are pulling this ****.
 
PeeNN said:
Outraged was the emotion I was looking for. Check out the second link, it's ****ing crazy how many of these greased "scientists" are pulling this ****.

ahhh, you're just one of those anti-oil nutjobs. :dry:
 
Your right. Anything that doesn't appear to be anywhere on an American "News" network isn't worth discussing. Sooo.....any new pictures of Suri Cruise or anything?
 
PeeNN said:
Your right. Anything that doesn't appear to be anywhere on an American "News" network isn't worth discussing. Sooo.....any new pictures of Suri Cruise or anything?

nope, but i heard jessica simpson is dating anna nicole smith's dead son.



too soon?
 
Denying climate change is just 'good business'.

Who really believes what an oil conglomerate would say the ensure the security of their resources?

Does anyone expect them to lobby for emission-free energy alternatives when Exxon is at the forefront of the companies who are making record profits?

Is it arguably sadistic and very short-sighted? Yes. But, is it fair? Yes.
Go figure.

With Oil/Fuel Co(s): contemporary business model isn't factored to include 1) self-preservation of man, 2) eco-systematic awareness, and 3) bio-friendly materials; they aren't really a major or even minor concern. It's more like a formality to keep people from making uproars while the revenue keeps coming in. Bean-Counters aren't taught to think about safety hazards or long-term security; they're cost-cutters/profit ensurers.

The head researcher for Nasa's top institute on Global Warming (James Hansen), has been saying that this is becoming a major problem - possibly an irreversible one - in time, and a solution must be presented.

[Clinton's administration tried to exxagerate the danger of the problem to scare people into action; advisors tried influencing Hansen into supporting claims that the problem was a lot worse than it actually was; Now Bush's incumbent 'hit squad' is downplaying it to appease and appeal to 'bigwig' corporate funding]

What did this current administration do? They put a 'gag' order on him(Hansen), and he's not permitted to speak any further on the basis of his findings.:whatever:

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public."
James Hansen​

Another excerpt:​

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen has a theory that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml






 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"