Thread: ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Hom ... geId=1.1.1

Group: ExxonMobil Paid to Mislead Public

Last Edited: Wednesday, 03 Jan 2007, 12:18 PM CST
Created: Wednesday, 03 Jan 2007, 12:18 PM CST

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

The report by the science-based nonprofit 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."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

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

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 the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Mayer, 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 cherry-picking 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.

___

On the Net:

Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org

ExxonMobil: http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

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

There could be even more of a "vigorous debate" if the wacko "sky is falling" people stopped trying to silence any opposition or discussion to the global warming issue. There are 100's, if not 1000's, of top scientists, who actually are scientists in the field of climate change and they dispute the conclusions that these people want so desperately to make "fact." It is no where near a foregone conclusion that global warming is being caused by "mankind's activity", yet they want to end the debate. Another sham to scam huge amounts of money out of corporations, govt. and people. In New Zealand, they are trying to tax sheep herders because of the methane "flatulence" they produce. There is much more sound evidence to the contrary and one needs to question why these people want to silence any debate on the issue! As Paul Harvey said, "the only thing global warming scientists seem to agree on is they need more MONEY to study the situation. If you remember, in the 70's, it was "global cooling" that was the culprit (we were all going to freeze to death).

Gofer, I do not agree. The scientific community is in near unanimous concensus that global warming is real, but the main questions that remain are the EXACT degree to which human activity has contributed to this and whether the warming trend can be turned around in time to avert catastrophe. The news media likes to portray the situation as one where 50% of scientitsts are on one side of the issue and 50% are on the other. This is more MSM disinformation. Scientists generally do agree that human activity (and production of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels) is largely responsible. Of course, the Bush administration (no, they're not biased in favor of major corporations) and such companies as Exxon (who have no dog in this fight and stuck the public with the cleanup of the Valdez disaster) have routinely trotted out the 1 in 1000 scientitsts who says global warming is not real, nothing to worry about. I know climate scientists who are very forthcoming in saying they do not have all the answers but the trends are very alarming and IF there is a chance that it can be reversed, the window of opportunity is very short. The fact is that this country needs to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible for national security as well as economic reasons, so if concerns about global warming push us to do so - good!

Global warming has been around forever, in cycles. The debate, as you said, is what degree does human activity contribute. There are some real big unanswered questions, one being, it was hotter from about 1900-1930 than it is now and there was hardly any industry or autos at the time. I have read mounds of material on the subject and there are way too many unanswered questions for anyone to say it's a closed subject. Scientists also admit there are a lot of unknowns and the models are not all that accurate. I think it's ill-conceived to state something as fact and go around showing movies in schools scaring the children to death. If we all stop breathing that would solve the problem, since the culprit they claim is carbon dioxide. BTW, I'm all for getting away from fossil fuels and doing something about pollution, but I don't think a degree or so in temperature is going to destroy the planet. They can't even predict hurricanes a few months in advance, so I'll be skeptical on making weather predictions years in advance. They also predicted that the Alps tourism would be gone by 2025 because of a couple winters of low snowfall. They said nothing when a record snowfall fell a couple years later. BTW, I pay NO attention to the MSM, who accept global warming as doctrine. Remember there is NO money to be made in NON-disasters or the prediction thereof.