A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change details the deceit. The link gets you a 1.7mb .pdf file.
“When one looks closely, ExxonMobil’s underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it’s meant to discredit,” said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. “The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming.”
The Bush government has served as one of the many front organizations for ExxonMobil. Their complicity has been completely at odds with the charter of government — to work on behalf of the whole populace.
As a scientist myself, I can assure you that peer review is not what it is cracked up to be. There’s lots of questionable work being published that has been fully peer-reviewed.
The problem with the global warming debate (and the earlier acid rain and smoking debates) is that accepting global warming means accepting that we have to change our cushy lifestyles, and therefore the average person is quite willing to grasp at the possibility that climate change isn’t real. I’ve seen it in my lifetime. I’ve also seen the sky get dirtier and dirtier year after year. You know that brownish purple haze that you see when flying? That isn’t natural, my friends. When I first started flying 40 years ago, there wasn’t a trace of that in the air. Now, it’s almost everywhere.
Climate change isn’t as easy to see as air pollution, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t real. The climate records we’ve been setting in the last decade should be more than enough evidence to persuade any reasonable individual – unless they happen to enjoy the perks of their current lifestyle and are resistant to change. Regardless, the coming energy crisis may be sufficient to wake people up. Let’s hope so.
You know, I think is really ironic is that the hippies from the environmentally-aware sixties are now in power, and just as blind as the establishment they railed against. How does that happen?!?
#31
Good post…
#30 The “Hockey Stick” fiasco demonstrates the flaws in the peer review process: Insufficient information provided for proper peer review, inadequate understanding of statistical methods by those conducting the peer review, and refusal by the editors at Science to publish critical dissent. It took seven years and Senate intervention to get expert statisticians to set the record straight.
“Global warming” has become so political that I’m suspicious of ALL claims on either side of the issue. Show me the data and your analysis and I will draw my own conclusion. Unfortunately, we rarely get access to all of the data or are shown all of the statistical steps used by the researchers. Those outside the field of study are severely handicapped by science in 1600 words or less.
#28 Your post is everything you accuse mine of being. Try inserting a bit of substance next time you attack a poster. By the way, I had perused the .pdf and found it a hatchet job. You claim to be the debate pro, what purpose were they serving by devoting pages to tobacco?.
#31 asks:
think is really ironic is that the hippies from the environmentally-aware sixties are now in power, and just as blind as the establishment they railed against. How does that happen?!?
Actually, and quite simply……GREED.
The youth of the 60’s (I being on the latter end of that cycle) realized that free anything won’t pay the bills. How do you afford the van to take all those kids to Soccer? How do you pay for the $4.50 cup of coffee? Why, you have to make it either on the backs of others or working for ‘the man’.
Plus, the fact that most of the country has never stepped foot outside their only little town or state, they have never seen true poverty, or true suffering…..except on those shows hosted by celebrity personas . This is what America has become.
Because PEACE sells…..but no ones buying…..
Confusion is what you get when a Dumb President out -sourced public leadership to private industry. All this President cares about is clearing the brush from his ranch in Midland.
Areas we are way better off because Bush has out -sourced public leadership to private industry
FDA: Vioxx, Mad-Cow
FCC: Net Neutrality, Media Consolidation
DoD: Contractors in Iraq
DOE: Oil Companies, Alternative fuels
DOT: Oil Companies, Ford, GM, Chrysler, C A F E standards, Alternative fuels
EPA: World Trade Centre Clean-up, Oil Companies, pollution control
……..
#22. you are damn right. I get that message essentially at random, sometimes with my first post. JCD – it is time for some more aggressive oversight of the blog software.
One of the more interesting things I have noted over the last few years is that conservatives have become the true post-modernists. according to the anti-global warming crowd, there is no “objective” truth. all is tainted by the “agendas” of the observers. How fondly I remember the 90s, during which the conservatives derided the pomo crowd and I look longingly back upon the conservative insistence that there were actual facts upon which one could act.
is that what happens to the hyper-partisan? if one’s beliefs collide with actual fact, should you insist that there are no actual facts, only ideology?
#31, I can assure you that peer review is not what it is cracked up to be. There’s lots of questionable work being published that has been fully peer-reviewed.
Very true. Peer review does help correct errors and expose fraud though. Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better then nothing.
You know, I think is really ironic is that the hippies from the environmentally-aware sixties are now in power, and just as blind as the establishment they railed against. How does that happen?!?
Are they? Are you sure it isn’t the dweebs from the ’60s and ’70s that are in power? You remember, the armpits that didn’t serve in Viet Nam because daddy got them a deferment or they were AWOL from their Air National Guard unit.
Most in the current Bush Administration do not have any military service. (Powell and Rumsfeld were the exception) How many of them were “hippies”? (I don’t equate doing coke with being a hippy)
Sundog and Mr. Fusion…..I hope I didn’t, but I think I did, give the impression that I’m not buying the global warming arguement. I am….I do, as I have said on everyone of these posts, have some doubts(a lot actually) that man is the big cause of the effect of global warming. I tend to lean to the natural cycle theory, but man has had imput into it.
But no matter if we do or don’t, it’s up to each of us, wheather goverment is along for the ride or not, to keep our foot print as small as possible on this planet. And your right Fusion, it dosn’t matter where the pollution is coming from, it’s still there….but Kyoto gave a free pass to the biggest pollutors on the planet, following us.
My parents were 60’s hippies, and we have been into recycling since before I was born, and I mean serious recycling. As you know we are into organic farming on a pretty big scale and we are careful where and how we spend our dollars(only companies with green policies where possible) and I am in the Animal Enviromental Habitat area(if I ever get to actually work). And, I and my family are Conservatives. We feel that REAL Conservatives should be 100% behind a healthy, enviroment, because it’s a conservative issue(taking responsibility for your actions and correcting them) and in other ways.
Global warming and the enviroment are not the exclusive domain of any 1 particular ideology or group of people……it’s all of our responsibilties.
38,
I will debate that…
I think the Pink skinned white MAN has tended to advance to the point of spoiling EVERYTHING he touches, until someone has it regulated…Then PAYS off the gov to look the other way…
We went to the middle east and raise Daricks for oil,
We created the CAR, truck, airplane, Ships, and the rest.
We invented Sanitation to DUMP our crap into the river and then into the ocean.
We invented Benzine, Nuke materials, and chemicals that NEVER degrade…
We are the ONLY creature that Spits”, in our OWN back yard, then hires a trucking company to send it to SOMEONE ELSES…
ASK New York and then shipping their garbadge to Kentucky??
#38, I understand and agree with your points. I have my own battles with my wife who doesn’t see global warming / pollution as a problem. You can imagine the battles trying to get her to recycle, turn down the thermostat, etc.
Kyoto wasn’t perfect. First, it was to be a start. More stringent controls were to follow later. Second, the reason developing countries were given much less control or even blank passes is simply because they are not on the same economic development level most of the west is. No, that isn’t the best concept but that is what the negotiators ended up with. But again, and I stress this point, it was a first step and it was better then nothing. What we ended up with is the argument so often spewed by those posters like Mucous, Traax, and Smith where they have a right to drive the biggest gas guzzling SUV at whatever speed they care to. Simply because China got a free pass under Kyoto.
There may be many environmentally aware conservatives. I don’t think, however, they are those in power, which is my response to #31 comment on hippies. Nor would I suggest that most liberals are environmentally aware. Neither side has an exclusive moral lock on this issue.
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R4
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.”
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (this will also creat a substantial amount of new jobs) It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-7-2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs)the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence..
You know, I don’t understand why there is any argument on this. Yes, the science on global warming is not 100% blah, blah. blah. Yes, there are a heap of scientists and evidence that back climate change research blah, blah, blah.
I tend to feel though, if there is dissent between which view is correct, and you HAVE to agree that the climate change view is at least 50/50, why don’t we err on the side of caution.
It completely boggles the mind that we can call ourselves an intelligent species, yet when we have the technology, and the money for energy sources that are cleaner we contemplate saying; “Well, changing is a bit of effort, and it might not kill us, our children and destroy the economy, so lets not bother.”
An intelligent person who does not think the climate change research is 100% would think, ‘Well its not absolute, but we should look at what easy steps we could take, like moving away from coal power and improving the efficiency of our energy usage, maybe even consider some sort of carbon trading scheme.”
For those that seem to think that a handful of scientists and research means that we should completely ignore the thousands of scientists and research that support climate change, I have a similarly intelligent activity for you. If you jump off a two story building, you might hurt yourself badly, but there is a better than even chance you will be ok. You should try that. Other activities you can try that have even better odds are train surfing, driving extremely drunk and russian roulette. Your logic dictates you should try them all.