Exxon Accused Of Global Warming Deception

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

The report by the 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."

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

ExxonMobil called the scientists' report Wednesday "yet another attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion of the serious issue of CO2 emissions and global climate change."

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 any link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

Alden Meyer, 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 emphasizing only selected 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.

The company said its financial support doesn't mean control over any group's views.

"We find some of them persuasive and enlightening, and some not," ExxonMobil spokesman Dave Gardner said. "But there is value in the debate they prompt if it can lead to better informed and more optimal public policy decisions."

He said the company believes that despite many scientific uncertainties, the risk that greenhouse gas emissions may have serious environmental effects justifies taking action to limit them.

[LazyMedia]

Did I miss a segment on Wednesday's show? I don't remember seeing anything on the air about this. I hope this isn't because ExxonMobil so generously (and ostentatiously) funds the "Assignment America" segment. I love that segment, but it's not worth the cost of editorial integrity in important news stories.

[cantshutup]

please see the movie WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? We had an electric car that required NO OIL and NO GAS...where is it? GM shredded every last one of them under pressure from the government and oil and auto industry...Americans have been skrewed out of cleaner, cheaper cars by the corporations that CONTROL US!!!

[perception5]

Well "Oil Companies" need to become "Engery Companies" instead. EXXON, Shell, BP and the rest should begin to branch out into other areas for providing "energy" to Americans. The President and the Congress need to encourage this movement to provide altnerate sources of energy from our current "oil companies". The oil companies should take some of their profits and develop these new resources that are clean and efficient.

[rf35]

We need to shove big oil to the side until and unless they start serious efforts to switch to clean energy production methods. The world%u2019s automotive industry is just as bad. Gas-sucking internal combustion engines are driving the survival of the oil companies and there is no doubt they are in bed with each other. The best way to get off of oil is to get away from gas-powered cars and move to alternative fuels. I think hydrogen fuel cell technology is most promising. We just need to get the auto makers to put more effort into developing this technology to use in actual, affordable production cars vs. concept vehicles that never see more than a test track.

[rf35]

perception5
Here's your answer: science has advanced considerably in the past 30 years. Better climate models, better forecasting tools, better computers, and better education for the scientists, along with 30 years to hone the relatively new science of global climatology combine to make me more inclined to believe the world%u2019s scientific community today than I would have been in the %u201870s. Satellite imagery that climatologists in the %u201870s could barely dream of, computers they couldn%u2019t dream of, and direct physical evidence that was lacking for the %u201Cnew ice age%u201D predictions are being used in the current global warming warnings. I don%u2019t say %u201Cglobal warming predictions%u201D because there is nothing to predict%u2026global warming has and is occurring. The breaking away of major ice shelves, the measurable increase in ocean water temperatures, the increasing force of tropical cyclones%u2026get your head out of the sand and park your SUV.

[dredre2k]

I feel the worst for the Polar Bears, whose habitat is melting into the sea in state-sized chunks.
On the topic of the Oil Companies; they will say whatever they need to in order to keep this world dependent on their product. It's time for this country to stop letting the oil companies stifle innovation, hoard profits, and destroy this planet!

[olebd]

Gas is still high in my opinion. It was 89 cents in the 90's. How soon we forget.

Exxon needs to get on the stick and use some of their record profits to start bringing alternative fuels on line and retrofit some gas stations to offer these new fuels.

[erics1kiddo]

Exxon is still up to it's same old tricks. They still haven't paid those folks or cleaned up like the judge ordered for the shipping 'accident'. I refuse to stop ANYWHERE or shop ANYWHERE that EXXON makes a profit. Americans need to let their money talk. God does not like ugly.

[itgranny]

This pretty much makes me sick. People, these businesses are taking us for a ride and we're letting them. In the last few years, gas prices have mysteriously skyrocketed then came back down. While the price was high, we were asking questions, looking for alternatives that would have benefited us and the environment. After the price was reduced, we quit looking; like a child with dirty britches that is too busy playing (or lazy) to go in the house and get changed.

Conservative thinking is ok up to a point but when the writing is on the wall, we need to get it in gear and do something. New ideas are not the enemy. It seems whenever something comes up that would lead us in a different direction; they get squashed if they don%u2019t line some rich oilman%u2019s pocket. (Case in point: moratorium on wind generators until they%u2019re found not to interfere with radio frequencies.) We%u2019re allowing our government to be run by these robber barrens and these guys are stopping innovation because it%u2019s not in their best interest. When we%u2019re given answers like %u201Ctoo costly%u201D we need to ask %u201CCompared to what? The price at the pump? The war in Iraq? Ruining our environment which will eventually kill us all?%u201D

We need to get out of our rut and do something. We should not allow big money to convince us or our legislators that innovation is bad and stop us from doing what is right.

[perception5]

In the 1970's Scientists insisted that we were going into a "Global Cooling" period. Now Scientists insist that we are going into a "Global Warming" period. If they were so sure about the cooling in the 70's which now appear to have been unfounded............. why should we now believe the switch??????