Exxon Duped Public Over Climate Concerns, Harvard Research Says

Hello, ATS. Here's an article that says Exxon "duped" the public on the seriousness of Climate Change for the sake of profits; putting profit(s) over anything. According to Harvard University researchers writing in a peer-reviewed journal,

“Exxon Mobil contributed to advancing climate science -- by way of its scientists’ academic publications -- but promoted doubt about it in advertorials,”

The study’s authors, Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, both scholars of scientific history at Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, reviewed 187 climate change communications issued by Exxon between 1977 and 2014. Their article, “Assessing Exxon Mobil’s climate change communications,” was published Wednesday. While 83 percent of Exxon’s peer-reviewed scientific papers and 80 percent of its internal documents acknowledge climate change is real and human-caused, 81 percent of its advertorials expressed doubt over the issue, according to the research. Internal documents accepted the risk of stranded assets caused by climate change, while the advertorials did not. The most important business stories of the day. Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter. Enter your email Sign Up The researchers point to the example of Exxon scientist Brian Flannery, who in 1985 helped the U.S. Department of Energy write a report acknowledging a scientific consensus on future warming trends caused by carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels. Despite that conclusion, company advertorials in 1997 and 2000 downplayed the human effect on climate change and instead promoted “natural variability” in the atmosphere, according to the research.

This is important and it should be a wake up call to those who still doubt climate change. I think some people have covered their ears to anything that is adverse to their way of thinking however this new information about Exxon should change that. What says ATS?

www.bloomberg.com... ampaign=headline&cmpId=yhoo.line&yptr=yahoo

People don't doubt climate change. It's obvious that the climate changes. Previous ice ages are evidence of that.

But the topic/debate isn't climate change, its global warming/climate influenced by man. I'd like to ask that people stop confusing the terms.

originally posted by: Kuroodo
People don't doubt climate change. It's obvious that the climate changes. Previous ice ages are evidence of that.

But the topic/debate isn't climate change, its global warming/climate influenced by man. I'd like to ask that people stop confusing the terms.

When I talk about the issue, I am focusing on Man-Made climate change. I know that the Climate changes non its own but the change should be gradual not accelerated.

originally posted by: Kuroodo
People don't doubt climate change. It's obvious that the climate changes. Previous ice ages are evidence of that.

But the topic/debate isn't climate change, its global warming/climate influenced by man. I'd like to ask that people stop confusing the terms.

Mostly this.

Nobody doubts climate change. It's been going on before mankind graced the planet. The only problem I have is giving away tax payer dollars to other countries that aren't going to change their ways. Hence my support for pulling out of the Paris Accord Agreement. That doesn't mean I'm against a clean and safe environment though. It just means I don't trust them to use the funding as they say they will.

I see the problem as people acting like hypochondriacs.

First it was the bankers out to git people.

Then it was corporations were out to git people.

Then it was gunz that are out to git people.

The planet is out to git people.

And today natzees are out to git people.

Good Hell people.

The way I see it.

The most dangerous thing to us right now is.

Epic stupidity.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Nobody doubts climate change. It's been going on before mankind graced the planet. The only problem I have is giving away tax payer dollars to other countries that aren't going to change their ways. Hence my support for pulling out of the Paris Accord Agreement. That doesn't mean I'm against a clean and safe environment though. It just means I don't trust them to use the funding as they say they will.

This for me too. I want to leave the planet a little better than I found it too but it's just a ploy for the government to justify more tax revenue that are already wasted, misappropriated, and lost in many cases. If all the world agrees to help stop pollution through better technology, good but raising my taxes will stop the earth from going through its natural climate shifts.

Edit: Too much conflicting information from different scientific data (too much falsified data on both sides) to be sure humans affect our climate whatsoever. Wanted to stay on topic.

a reply to: lostbook

Its to their advantage to defect from their activity, they are one of the largest polluters on the planet. "Heres some money, talk about the weather..."

a reply to: lostbook

From your link:

The researchers point to the example of Exxon scientist Brian Flannery, who in 1985 helped the U.S. Department of Energy write a report acknowledging a scientific consensus on future warming trends caused by carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fuels. Despite that conclusion, company advertorials in 1997 and 2000 downplayed the human effect on climate change and instead promoted “natural variability” in the atmosphere, according to the research.

So, 12 and 15 years prior to advertorials promoting "natural variability" and downplaying (but apparently no denying) human effects, an Exxon scientist can't assist the DoE to write papers acknowledging future CO2 warming from fossil fuels?

I mean, could it be safe to assume that, maybe in that decade-and-one-half of time passing, that evidence was starting to build up showing that natural variability IS a greater cause of contemporary climate change?

(I know the answer to that...it's more rhetorical to show the asininity of citing differing opinions/actions from Exxon with more than a decade between in a field that has ever-changing scientific discoveries and theories)

ETA: And this, from the actual study, tells me everything that I need to know:

2. Method

We adapt and combine the methodologies used to quantify the consensus on AGW by Oreskes [23] and Cook et al [22]...

originally posted by: lostbook
I know that the Climate changes non its own but the change should be gradual not accelerated.

Well, there's "should be," and then there's historical evidence gathered through things like ice core samples and other larger studies that show CO2 increases do occur naturally and often dramatically.

So, should our metric be "should be," or should we look at actual evidence and determine a "has happened?"

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: lostbook
I know that the Climate changes non its own but the change should be gradual not accelerated.

Well, there's "should be," and then there's historical evidence gathered through things like ice core samples and other larger studies that show CO2 increases do occur naturally and often dramatically.

So, should our metric be "should be," or should we look at actual evidence and determine a "has happened?"

Right now the climate seems to be accelerating faster than any known time besides the Younger Dryas.

Why aren't more people in this thread focused on the fact that they are being lied to by Exxon instead of attacking me.....? Discredit me all you want but it doesn't change the fact of what's in the article.

a reply to: lostbook

I can fully grasp Exxon or some other petrol company wanting to silence AGW. But exactly what is the alternative? Is there some new superfuel that exists and we just don't know about it? I have a car. I have to get to different places to do my job. Until you can show me another way to do that, I'm stuck using the products of Exxon and others.

Please, tell us what you put in your gas tank.

a reply to: lostbook

Even if that's the only time ever, there is precedent for it. But from the graphed data that I've seen before from numerous sources of data, the earth has seen absolutely similar bursts of CO2 in the atmosphere before, both following and preceding dramatic temperature increases (and I've seen it on the decrease as well).

In fact, a graph from the Vostok Ice Core Samples shows exactly what I'm talking about:

Now, I understand that, in the relatively short timespan shown, our current level is higher, but we're talking about rate of increase, not total amount. I also fully grasp that these data points in green are proxy-based, but that's all that we've got to go on at the moment.

originally posted by: lostbook
Why aren't more people in this thread focused on the fact that they are being lied to by Exxon instead of attacking me.....? Discredit me all you want but it doesn't change the fact of what's in the article.

Because, as I'm doing, people probably can see the possible "why" behind the discrepancies, and when your link only cites a discrepancy that is pretty easy to explain away (I lived in California from the 80s through the late 90s, so I understand and remember how the environmental outlook changed over that time, or at least how it was taught in school), it's hard to muster up outrage over something that has a pretty decent chance of being hyperbole.

a reply to: lostbook

It is called astroturfing. They are obfuscating the topic.

It is settled that human activity is causing an increase of CO2 and CH4. Radiative forcing is a concept that also is a settled science.

A rational person seeking the truth understands this.

This topic gets hammered by thoughtless posts attacking valid science and valid evidence.

a reply to: network dude

To be fair, I think that converting a diesel engine to burn biofuel that you can create on your own from recycled cooking oil is not the world's most difficult thing.

I get your point, though, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

originally posted by: lostbook
Why aren't more people in this thread focused on the fact that they are being lied to by Exxon instead of attacking me.....? Discredit me all you want but it doesn't change the fact of what's in the article.

I'm missing the point... what did Exxon lie about. When your post says

81 percent of its advertorials expressed doubt over the issue

What is that form of that doubt? Is it doubt that the climate is ever changing or is it doubt in that this change is global warming mainly cause by man. It really doesn't define what they are doubting.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lostbook

I can fully grasp Exxon or some other petrol company wanting to silence AGW. But exactly what is the alternative? Is there some new superfuel that exists and we just don't know about it? I have a car. I have to get to different places to do my job. Until you can show me another way to do that, I'm stuck using the products of Exxon and others.

Please, tell us what you put in your gas tank.

I hear you. I'm bound by the same restrictions. My point is that we're being lied to by Exxon.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: lostbook
Why aren't more people in this thread focused on the fact that they are being lied to by Exxon instead of attacking me.....? Discredit me all you want but it doesn't change the fact of what's in the article.

I'm missing the point... what did Exxon lie about. When your post says

81 percent of its advertorials expressed doubt over the issue

What is that form of that doubt? Is it doubt that the climate is ever changing or is it doubt in that this change is global warming mainly cause by man. It really doesn't define what they are doubting.

Exxon lied about the dire effects of climate change in lieu of profit. They apparently were briefed on this information by their own scientists behind doors but downplayed any climactic consequences to the public.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: lostbook

I can fully grasp Exxon or some other petrol company wanting to silence AGW. But exactly what is the alternative? Is there some new superfuel that exists and we just don't know about it? I have a car. I have to get to different places to do my job. Until you can show me another way to do that, I'm stuck using the products of Exxon and others.

Please, tell us what you put in your gas tank.

The horse was once an environmental nightmare then came a long the car to replace it. We will see electric cars in the near future out perform the gas car many times over to have gas car go the way of the horse. We will see new forms of electrical generating methods like house paint, car paint that will replace things like coal plants.

When we try to force carbon credits on people before the technology is there to help it seems to just be a money generating scheme, as you said, what are you suppose to put in your car if not gas?

The Paris Accord is another joke in if they do nothing at all then they still meet their goal in preventing global warming of 2 degrees pre-industrial. This is another money making scheme that the US would pay 90% of the bill while the rest of the world would not really be under any kind of real enforcement.

How does one look at all this and still scream GLOBAL WARMING!