ExxonMobil has turnover of more than $1bn a day, most of it from selling oil and the corporation has more to lose than any other company from measures to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Unfortunately for Exxon, the scientific concensus that indicates that action to reduce emissions is required is about as solid as they come; the science is not strong because of the concensus, the consensus is strong because of the science. The percentage of scientists and academic studies that underpin and support the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is in the high 90s, and 100% of professional scientific associations have issued some kind of statement affirming the IPCC's position.
So, Exxon, and other vested interests, with little chance of influencing opinion in the academic or scientific sphere set about delaying action by spreading unreasonable doubt in the public and political sphere, with useful allies in the media and conservative political parties. Spreading doubt and misinformation can be a lucrative career choice, for example Senator James Inhofe is publically of the opinion that global warming is a scam, and he was behind a document that collected sceptical statements in the media from several hundred 'internationally renowned scientists'. You get a feel for just how desparate this position is was when you discover that they had to loosen the definition of 'scientist' to include Alan Titchmarsh, yes that Alan Titchmarsh.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...d-6e2d71db52d9 (Page 190)
Inhofe received campaign contributions worth $302,600 between 2009 and 2014 from the oil and gas sector.
Greenpeace surveyed the official documents released by Exxon and found 124 organisations funded by Exxon that misrepresent the science in some way. These range from free market think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute to bogus science websites with names like the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and fake 'grassroots' organisations. These organisations or their affilliates spread disinformation or fake uncertainty in return for ca$h.
In 2012, documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, which received $800K from Exxon, revealed that it had paid a team of writers, lead by Dr Fred Singer, ('a denier for hire' also on a $5K/month retainer from Heartland and who previously denied that CFCs and secondhand tobocco smoke were harmful) over $300K write a report "to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports". They also planned to release a school curriculum described as a
.
And they slipped $88K to Anthony Watts, who runs perhaps the most high-profile anti-science website, source of many a talking point from CUK's very own resident psuedosceptics.
In 2005, after pressure from US Senators and the Royal Society, Exxon agreed to discontinue funding misinformation, however as recently as 2009 Greenpeace found it still distributed over $1m to climate denial organisations.
By no means all of those who claim to be sceptical about AGW do so to receive covert funds from fossil fuel companies, but it is clear that some of them do. Follow the money, as they say.
Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | theguardian.com
Exxon Secrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...?cid=N00005582
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Unfortunately for Exxon, the scientific concensus that indicates that action to reduce emissions is required is about as solid as they come; the science is not strong because of the concensus, the consensus is strong because of the science. The percentage of scientists and academic studies that underpin and support the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is in the high 90s, and 100% of professional scientific associations have issued some kind of statement affirming the IPCC's position.
So, Exxon, and other vested interests, with little chance of influencing opinion in the academic or scientific sphere set about delaying action by spreading unreasonable doubt in the public and political sphere, with useful allies in the media and conservative political parties. Spreading doubt and misinformation can be a lucrative career choice, for example Senator James Inhofe is publically of the opinion that global warming is a scam, and he was behind a document that collected sceptical statements in the media from several hundred 'internationally renowned scientists'. You get a feel for just how desparate this position is was when you discover that they had to loosen the definition of 'scientist' to include Alan Titchmarsh, yes that Alan Titchmarsh.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...d-6e2d71db52d9 (Page 190)
Inhofe received campaign contributions worth $302,600 between 2009 and 2014 from the oil and gas sector.
Greenpeace surveyed the official documents released by Exxon and found 124 organisations funded by Exxon that misrepresent the science in some way. These range from free market think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute to bogus science websites with names like the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and fake 'grassroots' organisations. These organisations or their affilliates spread disinformation or fake uncertainty in return for ca$h.
In 2012, documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, which received $800K from Exxon, revealed that it had paid a team of writers, lead by Dr Fred Singer, ('a denier for hire' also on a $5K/month retainer from Heartland and who previously denied that CFCs and secondhand tobocco smoke were harmful) over $300K write a report "to undermine the official United Nation's IPCC reports". They also planned to release a school curriculum described as a
curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science
And they slipped $88K to Anthony Watts, who runs perhaps the most high-profile anti-science website, source of many a talking point from CUK's very own resident psuedosceptics.
In 2005, after pressure from US Senators and the Royal Society, Exxon agreed to discontinue funding misinformation, however as recently as 2009 Greenpeace found it still distributed over $1m to climate denial organisations.
By no means all of those who claim to be sceptical about AGW do so to receive covert funds from fossil fuel companies, but it is clear that some of them do. Follow the money, as they say.
Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism | Leo Hickman | Environment | theguardian.com
Exxon Secrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...?cid=N00005582
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Comment