Big Oil deliberately misled people on Climate Change : Harvard

Dec 2011
586
Perth
From:
Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds :
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.”
...
A peer-reviewed study conducted by Exxon Mobil scientists in the 1990s concluded “the body of evidence ... now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.” Another one from 2002 found that limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could be needed to “forestall coral reef bleaching, thermohaline circulation shutdown, and sea level rise.”
But in 1997, the same year that the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, Exxon Mobil released an ad that called the science of climate change “too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil.” A 2000 Exxon Mobil advertorial in The New York Times described climate change as an “unsettled science.”


Does anyone here still believe Big Oil's lies ?


Kapyong
 

jackydee

Ad Honorem
Jan 2013
4,569
Brigadoon
From:
Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds :
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.”
...
A peer-reviewed study conducted by Exxon Mobil scientists in the 1990s concluded “the body of evidence ... now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.” Another one from 2002 found that limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could be needed to “forestall coral reef bleaching, thermohaline circulation shutdown, and sea level rise.”
But in 1997, the same year that the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, Exxon Mobil released an ad that called the science of climate change “too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil.” A 2000 Exxon Mobil advertorial in The New York Times described climate change as an “unsettled science.”


Does anyone here still believe Big Oil's lies ?


Kapyong
I haven't read the study nor do I wish to. Neither will I read the article. However, from the few quotes you give at face value there seems to be enough fudging and hedging from Exxon. A man made discernable influence on climate change is not quite the same as man made catastrophic influence. With regards to Kyoto Exxon are basically assessing risk. The risk of doing something other than Kyoto versus the economic risks of Kyoto.

It's similar to having a Kyoto mkII agreement today. Let's say Kyoto mkII proposes to ban on all uses of coal today. Sure, for climate and the environment it's probably best to ban coal right now. However, there is an economic and social risk to doing so. Is the risk worth taking? I don't know. That's something risk assessment eggheads are best looking into.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
From:
Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds :
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.”
...
A peer-reviewed study conducted by Exxon Mobil scientists in the 1990s concluded “the body of evidence ... now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.” Another one from 2002 found that limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could be needed to “forestall coral reef bleaching, thermohaline circulation shutdown, and sea level rise.”
But in 1997, the same year that the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, Exxon Mobil released an ad that called the science of climate change “too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil.” A 2000 Exxon Mobil advertorial in The New York Times described climate change as an “unsettled science.”


Does anyone here still believe Big Oil's lies ?


Kapyong
Such accusations only hurt the cause of the proponets of climate change. Calling those all those who disagree with you liars and dishonest, and insult them undermines ones trust and confidence in those making those accusations. For something as complex as climate change, it requires a certain amount of trust and faith for acceptance of theory, trust that the data was accurate and taken correctly, trust and faith the data was analyzed correctly, since most people are not in a position to analyze the complex data themselves, having neither the time nor have the actual data available. One has to trust that data that didn't support the climate change proponents wasn't just tossed out as "invalid", for example, and seeing people accusing anyone who disagree with them as being guilty of fraud does not inspire trust or confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the climate change proponents.

I know a number of intelligent, educated, well read individuals who are skeptical of the claims about climate change, and they are not "stooges" of the Big Oil companies and it is insulting to make those claims as Climate Change proponents do. It is also insulting to call them "Climate Change Deniers" rather than merely climate change skeptics. Sure those are skeptical could and probably are mistaken, but is sure Climate Change bigotry to say that an honest person couldn1t possibly disagree with the claims of the Global Warming proponents, especially for the something with as mucn statistical noise as the climate.

Climate Change proponets assert these fundamental claims:

a. The climate is getting warming

b. The warming is primarily due human produced C02.

There is a lot of statistical noise in all this.

1. For one thing, it is anccepted fact that Europe had been experiencing what is called the "Little Ice Age" up until the mid 19th century. And the 19th century is when we really started to record temperatures on a regular and scientific basis. So it could be the starting point for many of temperatures were from a period of below normal temperatures, and the temperature rise we see is merely a rise of temperatures to their normal levels. Keep in mind, the period of time we have been scientifically measuring temperatures is relatively short, maybe a century and a half.

2. The world has been a lot warmer than it is today in times before humans even arose. And colder. The earth has experienced greater climate change than today before humans were around. So the possibility exist that the change we are experiencing today is not do to humans.

3. C02, despite the Climate Change Hysterics, is not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is, and water vapoe content is air is highly variable. And C02 makes up only a tiny percentage of air, and even doubling the C02, it will still only make a tiny percentage of air. Increasing the C02 levels by even 300 percent still makes C02 less than .001 faction of the atmosphere. I have not seen any real calculation that proves what the warming affect is due to that tiny percent of CO2. All the calculations I have seen so far assume what certain percentage or warming is due to current CO2 levels, but that is just an assumption. If you have seen an actual caculation that strictly base on CO2 levels based just on physics and CO2 chemical properties, I would like to see it.

4. Base on ice core samples, we see a rise in CO2 AFTER the start of the warming period, there seems to be a delay of a century or so. Instead of causing the temperature rise, the CO2 could merely be the result, as temperatures rise CO2 that was trapped escaped out of melting permafrost and such. But because CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere, it really has only a minor affect on the overall warming.


5. Humans could be causing global warming, but due to reasons other than the production of CO2. For example, if black dust from drought areas fell on Artic ice, could heat up the ice by increasing the absorbtion of sunlight, and as the ice melts, things will heat up even further, since ice is highly reflective, and as the reflective ice melts, the less reflective ground will absorb more sunlight. Efforts that result in a significant CO2 reduction but didn't stop this pollution means that we wouldn't be reducing global warming since we weren't addressing the true cause of the warming.
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,049
People with specific interests "mislead" other people ...wow... what a breakthrough! what else is new?

If someone selling tomatoes tells you tomatoes are good for your health and you believe him is it a case of the tomato seller "misleading" or the tomato buyer being naive ?
 

Space Shark

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,474
Redneck Country, AKA Texas
From:
Exxon Mobil 'Misled' Public On Climate Change For 40 Years, Harvard Study Finds :
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.”
...
A peer-reviewed study conducted by Exxon Mobil scientists in the 1990s concluded “the body of evidence ... now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.” Another one from 2002 found that limiting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could be needed to “forestall coral reef bleaching, thermohaline circulation shutdown, and sea level rise.”
But in 1997, the same year that the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, Exxon Mobil released an ad that called the science of climate change “too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil.” A 2000 Exxon Mobil advertorial in The New York Times described climate change as an “unsettled science.”


Does anyone here still believe Big Oil's lies ?


Kapyong
You're acting like this hasn't been an open secret for the past decade or so. It's well known that the rise in green energy could hurt the oil and gas industry's profits.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the recent shift in big oil's belief in climate change (Rex Tillerson acknowledges it, for example) is largely PR, and they're secretly approving of Trump's decision to not go ahead with the Paris agreement.
 
Feb 2011
823
Kitchener. Ont.
Such accusations only hurt the cause of the proponets of climate change. Calling those all those who disagree with you liars and dishonest, and insult them undermines ones trust and confidence in those making those accusations. For something as complex as climate change, it requires a certain amount of trust and faith for acceptance of theory, trust that the data was accurate and taken correctly, trust and faith the data was analyzed correctly, since most people are not in a position to analyze the complex data themselves, having neither the time nor have the actual data available. One has to trust that data that didn't support the climate change proponents wasn't just tossed out as "invalid", for example, and seeing people accusing anyone who disagree with them as being guilty of fraud does not inspire trust or confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the climate change proponents.

I know a number of intelligent, educated, well read individuals who are skeptical of the claims about climate change, and they are not "stooges" of the Big Oil companies and it is insulting to make those claims as Climate Change proponents do. It is also insulting to call them "Climate Change Deniers" rather than merely climate change skeptics. Sure those are skeptical could and probably are mistaken, but is sure Climate Change bigotry to say that an honest person couldn1t possibly disagree with the claims of the Global Warming proponents, especially for the something with as mucn statistical noise as the climate.

Climate Change proponets assert these fundamental claims:

a. The climate is getting warming

b. The warming is primarily due human produced C02.

There is a lot of statistical noise in all this.

1. For one thing, it is anccepted fact that Europe had been experiencing what is called the "Little Ice Age" up until the mid 19th century. And the 19th century is when we really started to record temperatures on a regular and scientific basis. So it could be the starting point for many of temperatures were from a period of below normal temperatures, and the temperature rise we see is merely a rise of temperatures to their normal levels. Keep in mind, the period of time we have been scientifically measuring temperatures is relatively short, maybe a century and a half.

2. The world has been a lot warmer than it is today in times before humans even arose. And colder. The earth has experienced greater climate change than today before humans were around. So the possibility exist that the change we are experiencing today is not do to humans.

3. C02, despite the Climate Change Hysterics, is not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is, and water vapoe content is air is highly variable. And C02 makes up only a tiny percentage of air, and even doubling the C02, it will still only make a tiny percentage of air. Increasing the C02 levels by even 300 percent still makes C02 less than .001 faction of the atmosphere. I have not seen any real calculation that proves what the warming affect is due to that tiny percent of CO2. All the calculations I have seen so far assume what certain percentage or warming is due to current CO2 levels, but that is just an assumption. If you have seen an actual caculation that strictly base on CO2 levels based just on physics and CO2 chemical properties, I would like to see it.

4. Base on ice core samples, we see a rise in CO2 AFTER the start of the warming period, there seems to be a delay of a century or so. Instead of causing the temperature rise, the CO2 could merely be the result, as temperatures rise CO2 that was trapped escaped out of melting permafrost and such. But because CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere, it really has only a minor affect on the overall warming.


5. Humans could be causing global warming, but due to reasons other than the production of CO2. For example, if black dust from drought areas fell on Artic ice, could heat up the ice by increasing the absorbtion of sunlight, and as the ice melts, things will heat up even further, since ice is highly reflective, and as the reflective ice melts, the less reflective ground will absorb more sunlight. Efforts that result in a significant CO2 reduction but didn't stop this pollution means that we wouldn't be reducing global warming since we weren't addressing the true cause of the warming.
You might need to look up the analysis of isotopes. This has provided the proof of man-made global warming. That is not an issue open to debate.
 
Nov 2013
1,077
Olisipo
Such accusations only hurt the cause of the proponets of climate change. Calling those all those who disagree with you liars and dishonest, and insult them undermines ones trust and confidence in those making those accusations. For something as complex as climate change, it requires a certain amount of trust and faith for acceptance of theory, trust that the data was accurate and taken correctly, trust and faith the data was analyzed correctly, since most people are not in a position to analyze the complex data themselves, having neither the time nor have the actual data available. One has to trust that data that didn't support the climate change proponents wasn't just tossed out as "invalid", for example, and seeing people accusing anyone who disagree with them as being guilty of fraud does not inspire trust or confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the climate change proponents.

I know a number of intelligent, educated, well read individuals who are skeptical of the claims about climate change, and they are not "stooges" of the Big Oil companies and it is insulting to make those claims as Climate Change proponents do. It is also insulting to call them "Climate Change Deniers" rather than merely climate change skeptics. Sure those are skeptical could and probably are mistaken, but is sure Climate Change bigotry to say that an honest person couldn1t possibly disagree with the claims of the Global Warming proponents, especially for the something with as mucn statistical noise as the climate.

Climate Change proponets assert these fundamental claims:

a. The climate is getting warming

b. The warming is primarily due human produced C02.

There is a lot of statistical noise in all this.

1. For one thing, it is anccepted fact that Europe had been experiencing what is called the "Little Ice Age" up until the mid 19th century. And the 19th century is when we really started to record temperatures on a regular and scientific basis. So it could be the starting point for many of temperatures were from a period of below normal temperatures, and the temperature rise we see is merely a rise of temperatures to their normal levels. Keep in mind, the period of time we have been scientifically measuring temperatures is relatively short, maybe a century and a half.

2. The world has been a lot warmer than it is today in times before humans even arose. And colder. The earth has experienced greater climate change than today before humans were around. So the possibility exist that the change we are experiencing today is not do to humans.

3. C02, despite the Climate Change Hysterics, is not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is, and water vapoe content is air is highly variable. And C02 makes up only a tiny percentage of air, and even doubling the C02, it will still only make a tiny percentage of air. Increasing the C02 levels by even 300 percent still makes C02 less than .001 faction of the atmosphere. I have not seen any real calculation that proves what the warming affect is due to that tiny percent of CO2. All the calculations I have seen so far assume what certain percentage or warming is due to current CO2 levels, but that is just an assumption. If you have seen an actual caculation that strictly base on CO2 levels based just on physics and CO2 chemical properties, I would like to see it.

4. Base on ice core samples, we see a rise in CO2 AFTER the start of the warming period, there seems to be a delay of a century or so. Instead of causing the temperature rise, the CO2 could merely be the result, as temperatures rise CO2 that was trapped escaped out of melting permafrost and such. But because CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere, it really has only a minor affect on the overall warming.


5. Humans could be causing global warming, but due to reasons other than the production of CO2. For example, if black dust from drought areas fell on Artic ice, could heat up the ice by increasing the absorbtion of sunlight, and as the ice melts, things will heat up even further, since ice is highly reflective, and as the reflective ice melts, the less reflective ground will absorb more sunlight. Efforts that result in a significant CO2 reduction but didn't stop this pollution means that we wouldn't be reducing global warming since we weren't addressing the true cause of the warming.
It's pretty easy to see the diference between Human activity released CO2 and natural process released CO2, because they have diferent isotopes, and although man made CO2 amounts to 29 gigatons, is "small" compared to the 750 gigatons that naturally flow trough the natural cycle each year, it's in addition to that cycle and causes problems in its reabsortion, that is what causing the issues, simply put it the ocean and florests of the world can't cope with that additonal yearly release, so part of it is mantained in the atmosphere each year, since Co2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work (unlike water vapour which is relatively short lived, it varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location). The fact that in earlier earth ages the planet as warmed due to natural (like the eruption of siberian super vocano) or cosmic causes is irrelevant, since today we have proof that the current extra Co2 is mosly if not all man made.

Also while water vapor is the most abundant green house gas doesnt make Co2 irrelevant, infact the connection between Co2 and water vapor makes Co2 rise even more dangerous. Water vapor values are directly connected to temperature changes, when it's colder there is less in the atmosphere, warmer there is more. This means that for water vapor to rise, temperatures have to rise, so this sudden rise in temperatures can never be began by the water vapor rise in itself, another mechanism as to start the temperature rise for the water vapor increase and sequential snowball effect. Guess what, Co2 makes the temperatue rise and conseqentially water vapor rises and temperatures rise even more.

So Key thoughts.

- We can safely identify man made Co2 from natural process Co2 by it's isotope.

- the Extra man made released Co2 is disturbing the natural balance of earth's breathing, making some Co2 presist in cumulation in the atmoshpere each year. READ THIS, lots of sources to understand how Co2 is connected to rise in the temperature like you asked

- Co2 renewal cycle takes much longer the the shorter water vapor cycle, so it's effects persist longer in the air.

- water vapor levels are directly connected with changes in temperature so can't be the start, Co2 release is not, it's independent of the temperature.

- Co2 effects on temperature actually increase water vapor in atmosphere, increasing even more the warming effect.
 
Last edited:

jackydee

Ad Honorem
Jan 2013
4,569
Brigadoon
You're acting like this hasn't been an open secret for the past decade or so. It's well known that the rise in green energy could hurt the oil and gas industry's profits.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the recent shift in big oil's belief in climate change (Rex Tillerson acknowledges it, for example) is largely PR, and they're secretly approving of Trump's decision to not go ahead with the Paris agreement.
I know the relationship between green energy and climate science isn't the subject of this thread but im fairly confident that relationship isn't entirely innocent. In fact if the science changes anytime soon I can foresee quite a number of prosecutions.
 

Space Shark

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,474
Redneck Country, AKA Texas
I know the relationship between green energy and climate science isn't the subject of this thread but im fairly confident that relationship isn't entirely innocent. In fact if the science changes anytime soon I can foresee quite a number of prosecutions.
I know you said green energy and not activists, but it comes down to this: