Judith Curry Resigns from Georgia Tech

Perhaps some good will come of this if it leads to some serious introspection among climate scientists. Curry's lament about the challenges faced by young scientists is especially ominous.

JUDITH CURRY RESIGNS FROM GEORGIA TECH

Posted on 03 Jan 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 9 Comments

Judith Curry has announced that she has resigned from her post at Georgia Tech, as of Jan 1st. It seems to be an early retirement — she is “a few years shy of 65” and plans to stay on as an Emeritus Prof.
She is leaving the university to devote more time to Climate Forecast Applications Network, a private company that she set up with Peter Webster. She says she will keep her Climate Etc blog running, as well as setting up a new blog for CFAN.
She plants some heavy parting punches on academia and climate science, regarding the underlying reasons for leaving: “my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.”
“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”
“How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).”
“At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”
Ouch!

JC in transition

Posted on January 3, 2017 | 100 comments
by Judith Curry
Effective January 1, I have resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.
Continue reading →

100 Comments
Posted in Sociology of science

". . . I’m ‘cashing out’ with 186 published journal articles and two books. The superficial reason is that I want to do other things, and no longer need my university salary. This opens up an opportunity for Georgia Tech to make a new hire (see advert).
The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists. . . . "

". . . A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).
Let me relate an interaction that I had with a postdoc about a month ago. She wanted to meet me, as an avid reader of my blog. She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn’t identify as a climate scientist. She says she gets questioned all the time about global warming issues, and doesn’t know what to say, since topics like attribution, etc. are not topics that she explores as a scientist. WOW, a scientist that knows the difference! I advised her to keep her head down and keep doing the research that she thinks interesting and important, and to stay out of the climate debate UNLESS she decides to dig in and pursue it intellectually. Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that – personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke. . . ."

Jack Hays said:

]“At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”[/FONT][/COLOR]
Ouch!

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but even the society of scientists which are Exxon employees has now finally agreed that climate change is real, that it is man made, and it has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to humanity.

"In 2007, ExxonMobil for the first time disclosed to stockholders the financial risks to profitability of climate change.[26] In January, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said "we know enough now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken".[58] On February 13, ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson acknowledged that the planet was warming while carbon dioxide levels were increasing...In April 2014, ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

So I am not sure this professor is going to be getting better treatment in the private sector if she wants to continue to be a "skeptic". It's like trying to be a skeptic about evolutionary biology, or the roundness of the earth, in the scientific community today: you are going to be a pariah no matter where you go. It's just an absolutely ridiculous position for a scientist to continue to try to hold. It's OK for the lay public, who remain generally ignorant of the details of the science, and who have been the victim of such a systematic campaign of misinformation, to still be confused a little bit on the issue. But that is no excuse for a scientist who expects to be taken seriously by their peers.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

ataraxia said:

Maybe so, but even the society of scientists which are Exxon employees has now finally agreed that climate change is real, that it is man made, and it has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to humanity.

"In 2007, ExxonMobil for the first time disclosed to stockholders the financial risks to profitability of climate change.[26] In January, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said "we know enough now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken".[58] On February 13, ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson acknowledged that the planet was warming while carbon dioxide levels were increasing...In April 2014, ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

So I am not sure this professor is going to be getting better treatment in the private sector if she wants to continue to be a "skeptic". It's like trying to be a skeptic about evolutionary biology, or the roundness of the earth, in the scientific community today: you are going to be a pariah no matter where you go. It's just an absolutely ridiculous position for a scientist to continue to try to hold. It's OK for the lay public, who remain generally ignorant of the details of the science, and who have been the victim of such a systematic campaign of misinformation, to still be confused a little bit on the issue. But that is no excuse for a scientist who expects to be taken seriously by their peers.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Click to expand...

Professor Curry is a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming. She is only a "skeptic" in the sense that she believes research and advocacy should be separate pursuits. She also does not believe the uncertainty in science should be minimized.

ataraxia said:

Maybe so, but even the society of scientists which are Exxon employees has now finally agreed that climate change is real, that it is man made, and it has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to humanity.

"In 2007, ExxonMobil for the first time disclosed to stockholders the financial risks to profitability of climate change.[26] In January, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said "we know enough now—or, society knows enough now—that the risk is serious and action should be taken".[58] On February 13, ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson acknowledged that the planet was warming while carbon dioxide levels were increasing...In April 2014, ExxonMobil released a report publicly acknowledging climate change risk for the first time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

So I am not sure this professor is going to be getting better treatment in the private sector if she wants to continue to be a "skeptic". It's like trying to be a skeptic about evolutionary biology, or the roundness of the earth, in the scientific community today: you are going to be a pariah no matter where you go. It's just an absolutely ridiculous position for a scientist to continue to try to hold. It's OK for the lay public, who remain generally ignorant of the details of the science, and who have been the victim of such a systematic campaign of misinformation, to still be confused a little bit on the issue. But that is no excuse for a scientist who expects to be taken seriously by their peers.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Click to expand...

Exxon-Mobil's research results were published as far back as 1978.

Jack Hays said:

Professor Curry is a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming. She is only a "skeptic" in the sense that she believes research and advocacy should be separate pursuits. She also does not believe the uncertainty in science should be minimized.

Click to expand...

Sure. But especially when dealing with the lay public, it's OK to not do things which only further fuel the massive levels of misinformation, bewilderment, and confusion which already exist. That, I believe, is a disservice.

ataraxia said:

Sure. But especially when dealing with the lay public, it's OK to not do things which only further fuel the massive levels of misinformation, bewilderment, and confusion which already exist. That, I believe, is a disservice.

Click to expand...

Massive levels of misinformation, IMHO, largely originate with AGW advocates.

Jack Hays said:

Massive levels of misinformation, IMHO, largely originate with AGW advocates.

Click to expand...

How so?

We need to get on with understanding just how badly the University is broken. This is intricately tied to the lack of honesty and other morality from the elite class. Good on this woman for speaking out and for seeming to have a clue about what is going on. We need to see a whole lot more of that.

ataraxia said:

How so?

Click to expand...

The real war on science

Posted on November 21, 2016 | 63 comments
by Judith Curry
The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. – John Tierney
Continue reading →

Magazine: The Real War on Science. Read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts of particular relevance to climate science:
Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?
Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy).
The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. . . .
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. . . .

Jack Hays said:

Perhaps some good will come of this if it leads to some serious introspection among climate scientists. Curry's lament about the challenges faced by young scientists is especially ominous.

JUDITH CURRY RESIGNS FROM GEORGIA TECH

Posted on 03 Jan 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 9 Comments

Judith Curry has announced that she has resigned from her post at Georgia Tech, as of Jan 1st. It seems to be an early retirement — she is “a few years shy of 65” and plans to stay on as an Emeritus Prof.
She is leaving the university to devote more time to Climate Forecast Applications Network, a private company that she set up with Peter Webster. She says she will keep her Climate Etc blog running, as well as setting up a new blog for CFAN.
She plants some heavy parting punches on academia and climate science, regarding the underlying reasons for leaving: “my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.”
“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”
“How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).”
“At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss.”
Ouch!

Click to expand...

Man made climate change has become more than a religion to quite a few. Almost either believe it it or die.

Perotista said:

Man made climate change has become more than a religion to quite a few. Almost either believe it it or die.

Click to expand...

Happy New Year, Pero!:2wave:

Jack Hays said:

The real war on science


[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]Magazine: The Real War on Science. Read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts of particular relevance to climate science:
Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?
Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy).
The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.

The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices. . . .
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. . . .

Click to expand...

This seems very misleading. Every single scientific organization in the nation, and internationally as well, including scientists working for Exxon, have agreed that AGW is real, and that left unaddressed, poses a grave danger to humans and human societies. That's not confirmation bias. That's just scientific consensus. You might as well question the roundness of the Earth as being confirmation bias.

And mixing politics and science? Of course. Ideologies have to be based on facts. Science gives us the facts, as best we can determine them. And contrary to popular opinion, ideologies should not be pursued regardless of the facts. Stem Cell research was halted under George W. Bush, with devastating effects on American science and scientists. I knew several of them. It was a very frustrating time for them, as the US could have spearheaded and led the way to some truly amazing breakthroughs much earlier than have since happened. The only reason things got back on their feet was that Obama opened it back up, and foreign scientists were kind enough to share the information and technology which had developed in our absence during our mini-dark ages during that time. And again contrary to the article, a lot has happened since then:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146274/

Whatever you think the left has done to put back science is not even remotely comparable to this kind of nonsense. I have a science background, and so I can tell you that your post is very misleading. I don't know if it is done purposefully, or because you yourself are confused and misinformed on the issue. But It is inaccurate at best and dangerously misleading.

Jack Hays said:

And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. . . .

Click to expand...

John Tierney, journalist, without any science degrees, ironically makes clear the difference between the ideologies...conservatives want to remove science from all spheres of debate.

ataraxia said:

This seems very misleading. Every single scientific organization in the nation, and internationally as well, including scientists working for Exxon, have agreed that AGW is real, and that left unaddressed, poses a grave danger to humans and human societies. That's not confirmation bias. That's just scientific consensus. You might as well question the roundness of the Earth as being confirmation bias.

And mixing politics and science? Of course. Ideologies have to be based on facts. Science gives us the facts, as best we can determine them. And contrary to popular opinion, ideologies should not be pursued regardless of the facts. Stem Cell research was halted under George W. Bush, with devastating effects on American science and scientists. I knew several of them. It was a very frustrating time for them, as the US could have spearheaded and led the way to some truly amazing breakthroughs much earlier than have since happened. The only reason things got back on their feet was that Obama opened it back up, and foreign scientists were kind enough to share the information and technology which had developed in our absence during our mini-dark ages during that time. And again contrary to the article, a lot has happened since then:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146274/

Whatever you think the left has done to put back science is not even remotely comparable to this kind of nonsense. I have a science background, and so I can tell you that your post is very misleading. I don't know if it is done purposefully, or because you yourself are confused and misinformed on the issue. But It is inaccurate at best and dangerously misleading.

Click to expand...

If you don't understand the problem then you are part of it.

ataraxia said:

This seems very misleading. Every single scientific organization in the nation, and internationally as well, including scientists working for Exxon, have agreed that AGW is real, and that left unaddressed, poses a grave danger to humans and human societies. That's not confirmation bias. That's just scientific consensus. You might as well question the roundness of the Earth as being confirmation bias.

And mixing politics and science? Of course. Ideologies have to be based on facts. Science gives us the facts, as best we can determine them. And contrary to popular opinion, ideologies should not be pursued regardless of the facts. Stem Cell research was halted under George W. Bush, with devastating effects on American science and scientists. I knew several of them. It was a very frustrating time for them, as the US could have spearheaded and led the way to some truly amazing breakthroughs much earlier than have since happened. The only reason things got back on their feet was that Obama opened it back up, and foreign scientists were kind enough to share the information and technology which had developed in our absence during our mini-dark ages during that time. And again contrary to the article, a lot has happened since then:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146274/

Whatever you think the left has done to put back science is not even remotely comparable to this kind of nonsense. I have a science background, and so I can tell you that your post is very misleading. I don't know if it is done purposefully, or because you yourself are confused and misinformed on the issue. But It is inaccurate at best and dangerously misleading.

Click to expand...

Professor Curry is insightful.

JC reflections
I find Tierney’s article to be very insightful. I read Chris Mooney’s book Republican War on Science just after Xmas 2005 (it was an Xmas gift). It really resonated with me at this time, when I was in the midst of the ‘hurricanes and global warming war’. Although the book has ‘Republican’ in the title, much of the content was really about a bipartisan war on science. I met Chris Mooney in January 2006 at the American Meteorological Society Meeting, where we had extensive discussions. Mooney then wrote another excellent book Storm World, about the hurricane and global warming debate. Mooney and I were pretty close for a few years, but parted ways over The Republican Brain; Mooney didn’t take well to my criticism.
The ‘war on science’ has definitely evolved under the Obama administration, as President Obama (who seems to genuinely pay attention to science) has scientized many political debates, notably global climate change. Also in the past decade, the internet has become more prominent, giving voice to a much wider range of perspectives than can be found in academia with its federal funding and ever growing liberal bias.
What can we expect from the Trump administration? Well the (sort of) good news is that science doesn’t seem to be a priority in his administration (so far, anyways). This could imply two things:

• science can proceed unfettered, without politicization of science and scintillation of polices
• science funding will not be a priority, or funding priorities will change.

The golden age for U.S. science over the span of my career was under the administration of Bush 41, with abundant funding and an emphasis on studying the problems rather than on acting on them.
Lets see how this plays out. But I will have to conclude that Obama’s administration didn’t do U.S. science any favors. A more laissez-faire approach to science in the Trump administration would be very welcome.

Jack Hays said:

Professor Curry is a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming. She is only a "skeptic" in the sense that she believes research and advocacy should be separate pursuits. She also does not believe the uncertainty in science should be minimized.

Click to expand...

Joseph J. Romm has written that Tierney is one of the "influential but misinformed" skeptics who have helped prevent the U.S. from taking action on climate change.

If a duck quotes a duck, isn't she then part of the flock?

Jack Hays said:

Professor Curry is insightful.

JC reflections
I find Tierney’s article to be very insightful. I read Chris Mooney’s book Republican War on Science just after Xmas 2005 (it was an Xmas gift). It really resonated with me at this time, when I was in the midst of the ‘hurricanes and global warming war’. Although the book has ‘Republican’ in the title, much of the content was really about a bipartisan war on science. I met Chris Mooney in January 2006 at the American Meteorological Society Meeting, where we had extensive discussions. Mooney then wrote another excellent book Storm World, about the hurricane and global warming debate. Mooney and I were pretty close for a few years, but parted ways over The Republican Brain; Mooney didn’t take well to my criticism.
The ‘war on science’ has definitely evolved under the Obama administration, as President Obama (who seems to genuinely pay attention to science) has scientized many political debates, notably global climate change. Also in the past decade, the internet has become more prominent, giving voice to a much wider range of perspectives than can be found in academia with its federal funding and ever growing liberal bias.
What can we expect from the Trump administration? Well the (sort of) good news is that science doesn’t seem to be a priority in his administration (so far, anyways). This could imply two things:

• science can proceed unfettered, without politicization of science and scintillation of polices
• science funding will not be a priority, or funding priorities will change.

The golden age for U.S. science over the span of my career was under the administration of Bush 41, with abundant funding and an emphasis on studying the problems rather than on acting on them.
Lets see how this plays out. But I will have to conclude that Obama’s administration didn’t do U.S. science any favors. A more laissez-faire approach to science in the Trump administration would be very welcome.

Click to expand...

Political decisions should not be based on science? This is like the weatherman saying that based on the best science and observations available to him, a massive category V hurricane is bearing down on the N. Carolina coast, and then having people dismissing it as liberal bias, and saying the science should not be politicized to make policy decisions. Maybe the weatherman can go study all the climatology and make all the satellite observations he wants, but we should not use those to make any evacuation recommendations or propose any other action. Huh?

Politics is about collective action. And science is about facts. Action should be based on facts. Saying that politics should not be based on science is like saying action should not be based on facts.

Crazy, right?

Jack Hays said:

Happy New Year, Pero!:2wave:

Click to expand...

Right back atcha. Happy New Year.

ataraxia said:

Political decisions should not be based on science? This is like the weatherman saying that based on the best science and observations available to him, a massive category V hurricane is bearing down on the N. Carolina coast, and then having people dismissing it as liberal bias, and saying the science should not be politicized to make policy decisions. Maybe the weatherman can go study all the climatology and make all the satellite observations he wants, but we should not use those to make any evacuation recommendations or propose any other action. Huh?

Politics is about collective action. And science is about facts. Action should be based on facts. Saying that politics should not be based on science is like saying action should not be based on facts.

Crazy, right?

Click to expand...

Scientists should not be advocates.

Why not? If they can advocate things like vaccinations, or against smoking, I am not sure why climate policy should be off the table. Or is it only things which are against the shortsighted, short term, perceived self-interests of the wealthy and powerful which should be off limits to science?

ataraxia said:

Why not? If they can advocate things like vaccinations, or against smoking, I am not sure why climate policy should be off the table. Or is it only things which are against the shortsighted, short term, perceived self-interests of the wealthy and powerful which should be off limits to science?

Click to expand...

The line between advocacy and science is a grey area, no doubt.The simple answer is that scientists conclude that smoking is bad for your health and politicians figure out what to do about that.
Advocating against smoking is one thing. Advocating for, say a , a specific public policy like a tax on on cigarettes is another .

The simple answer is that scientists conclude that smoking is bad for your health and politicians figure out what to do about that. But I realize it's not that cut and dried.

With regard to global warming.Many scientists venture too far into advocacy, IMO.

KLATTU said:

The line between advocacy and science is a grey area, no doubt.The simple answer is that scientists conclude that smoking is bad for your health and politicians figure out what to do about that.
Advocating against smoking is one thing. Advocating for, say a , a specific public policy like a tax on on cigarettes is another .

The simple answer is that scientists conclude that smoking is bad for your health and politicians figure out what to do about that. But I realize it's not that cut and dried.

With regard to global warming.Many scientists venture too far into advocacy, IMO.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But where things stand today is just plain denial of the science. You can't blame some of the scientists for just being alarmed at how their findings are just being brushed off. Just like big tobacco tried to hide the data on the effects of smoking for a long time, these oil companies have known about but tried to hide data on global warming- for decades now. They were the first ones to know about it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

And now that it's out and they can't put the cat in the bag again, they are busy creating a lot of misinformation, confusion, and just political noise to cover up the plain facts: No, global warming is not happening, they say, or it's happening but it's not serious, or it's serious but it's not man made, or it's man made but we can't do anything about it, etc, etc.... On and on goes the confusion, obfuscation, and systematic campaigns of misinformation and fake news.

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even actively promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.

One thing is certain: in June 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming, Exxon remained publicly convinced that the science was still controversial. Furthermore, experts agree that Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.

But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Experts agree that the damage is huge, which is why they are likening Exxon’s deception to the lies spread by the tobacco industry. “I think there are a lot of parallels,” Kimmell says. Both sowed doubt about the science for their own means, and both worked with the same consultants to help develop a communications strategy to protect the self-interests of their companies at the expense of the health of millions."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/