Do People Still Believe The Myth That Exxon Is Paying For Science?

bob's info/links point to "union of concerned scientists".

this is a most definite far left wing group.

in fact, on "source watch", the ENTIRE list is right wing and libertarian think tanks.

the UCS smear campaign appears more political than science.

further, we have not ONE scientist being paid by exxon, as claimed.

are you a stooge who reads left wing blogs and parrots the beliefs w/o verifying?

or are you omitting facts intentionally?

greenpeace is a very left wing association as well.

why do you disclaim ANYTHING with a right wing slant as biased, but anything you can produce to promote your cause is somehow legitimate?

furthermore, the greenpeace link doesn't show any scientists names either. why is that?

---------------

joe-

you people got caught, red handed, again.

now, we have, "I'll agree that oil companies aren't paying scientists to downplay global warming if you'll agree that some mystery corporation isn't paying the majority of scientists to play up global warming."

NO, that's intellectually dishonest. period.

why were you saying it in the first place?

are you a cut and paste hack that believes everything you read?

or are you omitting facts as well?

we don't play that game anymore here.

-----------------

who wonders why there are skeptics?

or wonders why this is called a big lie? a fraud?

you alarmists need to stop with the half truths and animated polar bears.

you are losing what little credibility you have.

It's not completely a myth, although the story about $10,000 payments may have been overblown (the offer was claimed to have been misunderstood, and was withdrawn). I presume that's what Samuelson is talking about. But Exxon-Mobil's funding of organizations that criticize mainstream global warming science is factual and substantial.

"During 2002, ExxonMobil donated $5.6 million to public policy organizations which share its agenda, either on climate change denial or general extreme free market advocacy."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMo...

There are complicated relationships between many of the organizations partly funded by Exxon Mobil and skeptical scientists. Sallie Balliunas, a noted skeptic, is affiliated with several of them.

http://energybulletin.net/24353.html

Hansen received $250,000 as an award from a Kerry foundation in recognition of years of activity in speaking out about global warming science, when his bosses didn't want him to. He began that in 1988. Did he take what was then a very unpopular position at his work way back then to get an award almost 20 years later? Say what you will about Hansen, he's been consistent regardless of how popular his views have been.

But Mr Jellos point is well taken. It's wrong to attribute most scientists views to their funding, what ever side of the issue they're on. For every highly funded and high profile "skeptic" or "alarmist" scientist, there are many simply more working at their jobs who are honestly skeptical or alarmed.

Mr Jello - If you unblocked me, thanks. I appreciate the opportunity to join the discussion. I'll do my very best to be respectful, here and elsewhere.

EDIT - Wow. My respect vow is being tested early. The temptation to make a smart alec response is almost overwhelming. Who knew I could actually find the IRS records? The relevant stuff starts on page 97:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/exxo...

Exxon-Mobil's funding of these groups is very well documented. As far as I know, the company has never denied it. See these, too. Especially the first one. I can't see how Senators Snowe and Rockefeller would risk the existence of this written letter if the story was not rock solid.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2612021&...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07011/753072-28.stm

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/2...

Note that I didn't say Hansen was muzzled (although I believe he was). I said, back in the 80s and 90s his bosses were not happy with what he was saying. That's a lesser claim that I think is undeniable.

I like this last paragraph.

But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

As you see in some comments MrJello . The ProGW's even think that the money paid to the proscientists is some how greener and more pure with magical charms that make it impossible for greed or self preservation to hinder the "Right "answer ,,, than the money paid to the Sceptic scientists.

Republican senators and 14 other scientists have recieved the same award from the heinz foundation- hansen recieved it in 2001, long before the kerry campaign began. I already posted this link for you, why are you still spewing this right wing nonsense?

http://www.heinzawards.net/about.asp

yes exxon has decreased funding to skeptic sites and organizations, and their new CEO even admits that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that plays a role in global warming.

I think both sides are guilty of manipulating whatever data they have to prove whatever point they are getting paid to report on.

I have a little bit of an inside look into ExxonMobil. My dad was a petroleum engineer/research mathmetician (now retired) for Mobil when it was bought by Exxon. Mobil was doing research on alternative fuels before it was cool and when Exxon came in they ended all the funding for those projects nor did they start up the research on their own. I have asked my dad if he believes that oil/gas contributes to global warming and he believes it's a contributor in the acceleration of global warming, but at the same time there is also a natural warming trend.

I have my own personal insight into how dirty the petroleum industry is and can be. The company I work for is hired to clean up all the toxic by-products that come from refining oil.

I copy and pasted the following from the Society of Petroleum Engineers website.

Plenary topics address timely opportunities, challenges

Their conference also included several plenary sessions that focused on topics such as addressing greenhouse gas emissions, safety leadership, and decommissioning challenges in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. The greenhouse gas plenary, which kicked off the conference, brought together a number of experts to discuss the role of the oil and gas industry in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through both reducing emissions in operations and by permanently sequestering carbon dioxide.

“What really struck me about the event,” said Knode (who was not involved in planning the plenary), “was that it was not a philosophical debate on whether greenhouse gases are causing global warming, but rather it was a practical discussion about what needs to happen from a regulatory standpoint, how oil and gas companies are reacting to it, what we can expect to see, and so on.”

Advanced Resources International’s Godec organized and moderated the greenhouse gas plenary. “Most of the industry has gotten beyond the question of ‘Are we responsible (for global warming), or are we not?’ Even if you don’t necessarily believe that climate change is an issue or that the petroleum industry is contributing, most people do agree that the politics and policy are beyond that debate, and the industry has to instead focus on making positive impacts to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The various panelists addressed different parts of the overall greenhouse gas issue, emphasizing both the technical challenges and potential economic windfalls. “I hand-picked people who came at the issue from different perspectives,” said Godec. “Vello Kuuskraa (Advanced Resources International) addressed the benefits that carbon sequestration can have in enhanced oil recovery, from the perspective of both how much more oil we can produce, and how much more CO2 we can stick in the ground.”

It matters little what the details of this particular case happen to be. Much academic research is corporate sponsored these days, and there are countless examples of researchers reporting conclusions that benefited their sponsors in the face of much science to the contrary. If you want people to have faith in science, we have to uncouple the funding from the people with a stake in the outcome. Exxon has been a poor corporate citizen for many years and it will take more than this for people to start trusting them again.

When it comes to dragging a billion dollar production platform over a billion barrells of oil, located over a mile beneath the ocean, there is no ther choice than Exxon, that I would trust. The amount of super science involved in such an Endeavor would send any IPCC author running and screaming in horror.

Well, they would certainly have the money to do so if they wanted to. Exxon/Mobil posted the highest profits of any corporation ever. Ever.

Exxon/Mobil, as well as other corporations like Bechtel, halliburton, and Lockheed Martin are all making mad bank recently. I don't know why, or what all of these companies have in common, but they are all doing very well.

I'll agree that oil companies aren't paying scientists to downplay global warming if you'll agree that some mystery corporation isn't paying the majority of scientists to play up global warming.

Edit: Paid 250,000 by whom?

Some people believe that little green men took them away in a star-ship. So yes some to think that about Exxon

I don't think it much matters who pays for the research. Science isn't for sale to the highest bidder, no matter how much you would like to think so.