Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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 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 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.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
RIP King of Cards
Tim Minnick 9/12/1972-3/4/2007
You'll be missed.
Did you miss the part about misleading the public and making misrepresentations?
Nope, that was the reason for my paranoia comment. Since no one knows for sure and these are only opinions, a differing opinion is not misleading the public. It's informing them that not all people agree with this hypothesis.
Nope, that was the reason for my paranoia comment. Since no one knows for sure and these are only opinions, a differing opinion is not misleading the public. It's informing them that not all people agree with this hypothesis.
These are not "opinions". It is a "fact" that all "peer" reviewed scientists do agree with the facts that man is creating global warming. This is a fact. The so-called scientists that the oil companies are paying off are usually not experts in climate change or they have refused to have their minority findings peer reviewed by the rest of the scientific community.
These are not "opinions". It is a "fact" that all "peer" reviewed scientists do agree with the facts that man is creating global warming. This is a fact. The so-called scientists that the oil companies are paying off are usually not experts in climate change or they have refused to have their minority findings peer reviewed by the rest of the scientific community.
Are we really gonna get into this debate yet again?? There is as much evidence or support on both sides of this arguement that should lead us all to conclude that we just do not know if humans are the root cause.
Hey - are carbon emissions bad? Probably... Do we owe it to ourselves, our children and the world to develop and use alternative fuels? Sure...
But to position this arguement as there is conclusive evidence on either side is simply wrong...
But to position this arguement as there is conclusive evidence on either side is simply wrong...
I seriously doubt you've evaluated any of the evidence directly or are qualified to make such a conclusion.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
No. But, he's correct in that the science done in peer reviewed journals, which is the accepted level of scientific rigor, is overwhelmingly concluding human involvement.
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
No. But, he's correct in that the science done in peer reviewed journals, which is the accepted level of scientific rigor, is overwhelmingly concluding human involvement.
The question is the amount of human involvement, and that's what the oil companies are arguing about. I just don't find anything wrong with that.
This is news? Every study you see that is skeptical of GW is immediately accused of being financed by big oil.
Guess who pays for all the other studies, all of us in our taxes.
I have no problem with who pays for something if the science is right, if the science is bogus, then you look at who paid for it and whether it's just a mistake or intentionally misleading.
Did you miss the part about misleading the public and making misrepresentations?
Where is the public outcry about this? This is study that was funded in large part using government money which as we all know means our taxes.
The first graph is the Mann Hockey stick which is the smoking gun that was used in 1998 in the IPCC as definitive proof of warming and that it's man made.
The second graph is the "corrected" graph after you remove the large errors in math and methodology made by Mann and his team in the original graph.
On February 12, 2005 the Geophysical Research Letters paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick [15] claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998) claiming that the "Hockey Stick" shape was a result of collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. [16]. They claimed that using the same steps as Mann et al, they were able to obtain the Hockey Stick graph in 99 percent of cases even if red noise was used as input. [17]
After auditing the work of Mann et al. (1998), McKitrick commented: "The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)" [18]
__________________
"This space available"
Last edited by Russ Smith; October 9th, 2007 at 07:13 PM.
These are not "opinions". It is a "fact" that all "peer" reviewed scientists do agree with the facts that man is creating global warming. This is a fact. The so-called scientists that the oil companies are paying off are usually not experts in climate change or they have refused to have their minority findings peer reviewed by the rest of the scientific community.
Wow that sounds impressive can you point me to a reliable source for that?
No. But, he's correct in that the science done in peer reviewed journals, which is the accepted level of scientific rigor, is overwhelmingly concluding human involvement.
Completely agree. As 40 said it's the level of human involvement and cause that's in dispute.
Completely agree. As 40 said it's the level of human involvement and cause that's in dispute.
Sounds like we're all unaminous (except for 82) then in that humans are doing something to climate and it's not good. So, what should we do about it?
__________________
We live in a world which is full of misery and ignorance, and the plain duty of each and all of us is to try to make the little corner he can influence somewhat less miserable and somewhat less ignorant than it was before he entered it.
Linear Mode
