• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,039
Reaction score
82,282
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds


By Dominique Mosbergen
August 24, 2017

Exxon Mobil Corp. deliberately deceived the public about the dangers of climate change for four decades, a new Harvard University study finds. For the peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters Wednesday, two Harvard researchers analyzed nearly 200 documents related to Exxon Mobil’s climate change communications. The researchers found that America’s largest oil producer had repeatedly made “explicit factual misrepresentations” about global warming in advertisements aimed at the general public, while simultaneously acknowledging its risks behind closed doors. “Our findings are clear: Exxon Mobil misled the public about the state of climate science and its implications,” study authors Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran wrote in a New York Times op-ed this week. “Available documents show a systematic, quantifiable discrepancy between what Exxon Mobil’s scientists and executives discussed about climate change in private and in academic circles, and what it presented to the general public.” The discrepancy, the researchers said, was staggering. About 80 percent of Exxon Mobil’s research and internal memos acknowledged that climate change was real and caused by humans. However, 80 percent of the company’s newspaper ads regarding climate change questioned this fact, the study found.

Following the publication of the Harvard paper on Wednesday and the related op-ed, the hashtag #ExxonKnew began appearing on social media. The hashtag first gained popularity in 2015 after InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times published reports alleging that the oil had purposefully covered up what it knew about climate change. Since then, numerous investigations at the stateandfederal level have been launched and lawsuits have been filed related to whether Exxon Mobil deceived the public or its investors about the risks posed by climate change, both to the environment and to its business. Last month, three communities in California sued 37 oil, gas and coal companies including Exxon Mobil, Shell and Chevron for their alleged contributions to sea level rise and for concealing the hazards posed by global warming. The companies “have known for nearly a half century that unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate,” the complaint reads. ″They have nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge of those threats, discredit the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the public about the reality and consequences of the impacts of their fossil fuel pollution.”

Internal ExxonMobile communications tell a very different story than the public denials the company issued.


Related: Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)

Climate change: Rex Tillerson tells US diplomats to dodge questions on Paris Agreement
 
no no no no no

Corporate entities wouldn't mislead the People in order to deepen their own pockets. Corporations are honest, hardworking people like you and me who only want to help the government serve us better. Which is why they shouldn't be restrained from campaign contributions and access to our government representatives.

Why, it's those scientists out there, who are only interested in their next grant, who are the dishonest ones. You cannot trust science, but you cant trust Exxon.
 



This has probably been used before........never gets old!
 
no no no no no

Corporate entities wouldn't mislead the People in order to deepen their own pockets. Corporations are honest, hardworking people like you and me who only want to help the government serve us better. Which is why they shouldn't be restrained from campaign contributions and access to our government representatives.

Why, it's those scientists out there, who are only interested in their next grant, who are the dishonest ones. You cannot trust science, but you cant trust Exxon.

This is also just one of many cases. That in industry after industry we have seen companies mislead the public so that the companies could continue to make huge profits. Think for example how American companies could sell lead paint decades after it was banned in Europe. Thanks to massive PR, marketing and lobbying. For example, they gave paint books to children so their parents should feel safe to use lead paint in their homes.

According to a US Department of Housing report, more than 2 million homes contain both a lead dust hazard and a child under 6-years-old. The Center for Disease Control estimates that over 500,000 kids have elevated levels of lead in their blood. And a child reportedly can be poisoned by as little as 10 milligrams of lead, leading to brain damage or death...

It begs the question: if lead paint is so dangerous, why is there so much of it in houses where kids live? Short answer: the lead industry made concerted efforts to portray the metal as harmless—even beneficial to health—for more than 50 years.

HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune.com



HBO'''s John Oliver Uses '''Sesame Street''' to Teach Congress About Lead | Fortune.com
 
The usual AGW advocacy nonsense.


[h=1]Study: Naomi Oreskes Claims Exxon Mobil Misled About Climate[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall What do you do if nobody cares about your hardline green hate campaign against Exxon? You re-present your position as a study, of course. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014) Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about…
 
I have never seen anything that I read from Exxon that suggests they were hiding anything, beyond keeping some proprietary information, which is perfectly normal.

Exxon was ready for AGW. they knew how to get subsidies for becoming green. The warmers are attacking Exxon for the wrong reasons.
 
From the link at #6:


Read more: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
The study concludes that what executives discussed in private was different to their public position.
But lets think about this claim from a rational perspective.

  • Exxon scientists like Henry Shaw were saying that climate might cause between 1.3 – 3.1C warming / doubling of CO2.
  • A lot of this material was published – so in no sense was it “hidden”, other than use of annoying paywalls which a well funded science journalist could afford – just like the paywalls alarmist climate scientists frequently use to help fund their work.
The key point is that the science IS uncertain. 1.3 – 3.1C is a huge range of uncertainty.
1.3C / doubling of CO2 is a complete non-event – if we burn every scrap of fossil fuel available to current technology, we might just about achieve a little over a doubling of global CO2 since pre-industrial times. Given we have already experienced around 1C of that warming with no ill effects, other than in the imaginations of activists, its difficult to see how another degree would be that different to what has already occurred.
That one degree of warming to date since pre-industrial times may have included an anthropogenic contribution, but the level of anthropogenic contribution to global warming is far from certain. A degree or two of warming or cooling is well within the range of natural variation.
The high end of the Exxon estimate, 3.1C / doubling, is potentially disruptive, but the high estimate is looking more unlikely every passing year that global temperature stagnates. Even if climate sensitivity is as high as 3.1C / doubling, we can afford to wait and see.
If global warming becomes a problem in the future, our descendants will have access to advanced technology and engineering capabilities to rectify any issues. Or they could just plant lots of additional trees.
The lower range of Exxon’s estimate is an unequivocal “no action required”, the upper range of Exxon’s estimate is “we might need to do something about it in the future”.
Exxon plainly opposed frantic green campaigns to shut down the modern world because those green scare campaigns were based on fantasies, not mainstream science.
Deep greens like Naomi Oreskes are so caught up in their apocalyptic fantasies, they completely miss the obvious; an objective interpretation of the facts suggests there is no case to answer. In my opinion, Exxon’s actions and communications with the public were proportionate and reasonable.
 
Yep. Like the fact of how wonderful smoking tobacco is bombarded us in the 1950s-60s.

Apples and oranges. Are we "deniers" saying smoking isn't bad?

P.S....

The biggest contention wasn't over smoking, but of second-hand smoke. The largest such study ever conducted showed it was only harmful to kids, and especially infants. Not adults.

Your side always lies about the details to make a point.

Perfume is probably more dangerous than second hand smoke.
 
[h=1]Oreskes’ Oracular Orifice[/h]Posted on 03 Sep 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS 9 Comments
A new paper, Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014) by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, published 23 August 2017, “..assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about climate change, [presents] an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil … [examines] whether these communications … Continue reading
 

Do you have any examples of concurrent statements that demonstrate what the paper claims to be true?

I tried to find them in your link and it seems pretty well hidden.
 
no no no no no

Corporate entities wouldn't mislead the People in order to deepen their own pockets. Corporations are honest, hardworking people like you and me who only want to help the government serve us better. Which is why they shouldn't be restrained from campaign contributions and access to our government representatives.

Why, it's those scientists out there, who are only interested in their next grant, who are the dishonest ones. You cannot trust science, but you cant trust Exxon.

Is it your thesis that the most portable, cheapest, most powerful energy source in the history of mankind needs propaganda to maintain its use?

Is it your thesis that the most adaptable medium for lightweight, low cost, materials for use in manufacturing needs propaganda to maintain its use?

To post your thoughts here, you probably used energy provided in whole or part by fossil fuels on a device composed of oil.

I do appreciate, though, your empty outrage.
 
Is it your thesis that the most portable, cheapest, most powerful energy source in the history of mankind needs propaganda to maintain its use?

Is it your thesis that the most adaptable medium for lightweight, low cost, materials for use in manufacturing needs propaganda to maintain its use?

To post your thoughts here, you probably used energy provided in whole or part by fossil fuels on a device composed of oil.

I do appreciate, though, your empty outrage.

Answers for your two questions.
Yes
Yes
 
[h=1]Oreskes’ Oracular Orifice[/h]Posted on 03 Sep 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS 9 Comments
A new paper, Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change Communications (1977–2014) by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, published 23 August 2017, “..assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about climate change, [presents] an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil … [examines] whether these communications … Continue reading

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! :thumbs: After reading both it and the comments, I'm going to stick with Exxon-Mobile's argument until such time - if it ever occurs - that they are proven to be harmful to human existance! I do have to wonder what our economy would look like if we were still using horse and buggy to get around, though, and you had to wait for traveling salesmen to bring the things you needed that weren't made locally, like pots and pans to cook with, using one example! Why the current urge by some to want everyone to lose the many improvements we have gained from modern fuels?

Edit: I took a much needed day off yesterday to go boating on Lake Erie with some of the people I used to work with. We went to Put-In-Bay on South Bass Island, and it was crowded with people celebrating the annual Labor Day Bash weekend! Fun!
 
Is there something wrong with that?

Not at all.

I asked him/her what they thought and you presumed to peer into the soul of your neighbor and reveal those inmost musings.

Are there any other posters with whom your share a psychic link?
 
Not at all.

I asked him/her what they thought and you presumed to peer into the soul of your neighbor and reveal those inmost musings.

Are there any other posters with whom your share a psychic link?

I shared my own musings. Is that not allowed here?
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent article! :thumbs: After reading both it and the comments, I'm going to stick with Exxon-Mobile's argument until such time - if it ever occurs - that they are proven to be harmful to human existance! I do have to wonder what our economy would look like if we were still using horse and buggy to get around, though, and you had to wait for traveling salesmen to bring the things you needed that weren't made locally, like pots and pans to cook with, using one example! Why the current urge by some to want everyone to lose the many improvements we have gained from modern fuels?

Edit: I took a much needed day off yesterday to go boating on Lake Erie with some of the people I used to work with. We went to Put-In-Bay on South Bass Island, and it was crowded with people celebrating the annual Labor Day Bash weekend! Fun!

Happy Labor Day, Polgara.:2wave:

Your outing sounds like it was fun.:mrgreen:
 
Is there something wrong with that?

Not at all!

If you had framed your response in that way. However, you did not. I asked that poster what his positions were on particular questions and you answered, with no explanation.

I assumed these were your thoughts.

It was just odd that you presumed to impose your positions on that poster.
 

Thwack! Federal Judge Deals Major Blow to Gore and #ExxonKnew Crusaders

by Spencer Walrath A federal judge in Boston dealt a major blow yesterday to environmental activist groups seeking to sue fossil fuel companies for supposedly ignoring the risks of climate change. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) had sued ExxonMobil for allegedly failing to sufficiently prepare a facility in Everett, Mass., for the effects of climate…
Continue reading →

A federal judge in Boston dealt a major blow yesterday to environmental activist groups seeking to sue fossil fuel companies for supposedly ignoring the risks of climate change. The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) had sued ExxonMobil for allegedly failing to sufficiently prepare a facility in Everett, Mass., for the effects of climate change, including sea level rise and more frequent and severe storms. CLF is yet another Rockefeller bankrolled organization that is closely tied in with the #ExxonKnew campaign.
U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf allowed ExxonMobil’s motion to dismiss to proceed, in part. Wolf repeatedly suggested that CLF was unnecessarily injecting climate change into its complaint, to the detriment of the group’s own argument. As Wolf saw it, the case is about whether ExxonMobil has violated the terms of its permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and he thus ordered CLF to refile its complaint with the references to climate change removed.
Wolf made clear that in order for CLF’s claims to stand, the organization needed to show that ExxonMobil had either caused harm to the plaintiffs or that harm was “imminent.” The CLF complaint was filled with references to the projected effects of climate change by 2050 or 2100, which the judge said didn’t qualify as imminent. He suggested that if the plaintiffs were concerned about the effects of climate change on the facility in 2050, they should refile their case in 2045. . . .
:lamo


 
The ridiculous #ExxonKnew Investigation Takes Another Hit

From the “Goreballs and the McKibbenites are getting smaller and smaller” department comes news of a new academic paper which suggests that yet again, their claims are moot. A recent study out of Oxford University illustrates the shortcomings of using petroleum and gas companies’ climate policy forecasts as a basis for securities fraud investigations. The…
Continue reading →

From the “Goreballs and the McKibbenites are getting smaller and smaller” department comes news of a new academic paper which suggests that yet again, their claims are moot.

  • A recent study out of Oxford University illustrates the shortcomings of using petroleum and gas companies’ climate policy forecasts as a basis for securities fraud investigations.
  • The Oxford study suggests that the global “carbon budget” will not be exhausted for decades, rather than by the end of this decade as previous models had concluded.
  • This development illustrates the difficulties inherent in the making of convincing, let alone accurate, forecasts about future climate policies, and creates new doubts about the legal implications of such forecasts.



The academic literature giveth and the academic literature taketh away. That, at least, is what the supporters of New York State’s Martin Act investigation into Exxon Mobil (XOM) must be thinking in the wake of some recent high-profile publications in the academic literature. Last month saw the publication of an op-ed in The New York Times by two Harvard researchers that highlighted what they concluded to be “explicit factual misrepresentation” by the company in the 1990s on the state of climate change research.
Now comes a study published in Nature Geoscience by researchers at Oxford University finding that, in the words of The Economist, “climate researchers have been underestimating the carbon ‘budget’ compatible with the ambitions expressed in [The Paris Climate Agreement].” While both studies have generated headlines around the world, the latter is the one that Exxon Mobil’s investors will want to pay attention to because of its Martin Act investigation implications.
Read more at Seeking Alpha, h/t to Cliff Hilton


 
Opinion
[h=1]The Greens versus “Big Oil”[/h]Guest essay by Russell Cook If you are an enviro-activist with access to lawyers and mega-money who believes that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is caused by evil fossil fuel industries who ignore this harm to humanity to protect their profits, you don’t simply whine about this problem, you file giant lawsuits against those industries.…
 
Back
Top Bottom