digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Exxon linked to climate change pay out

money.cnn.com — Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20this does not suprise me, considering their product that they see is a contributer to greenhouse gases...
    • LemonDefragger, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3WHAT!?! EXXON IS RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING?! STOP THE F****** PRESSES!
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Exxon's contribution to this "research" organization is less than 1% of its total budget. So Exxon is actually paying out about $100, not $10,000. There are plenty of reasons to hate Exxon, this is pretty weak.
    • bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0517chr.pdf

      Educate your self about greenhouse gases
    • sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10if you want to fill your brain with BS trash that has been debunked a billion times read that garbage linked above..
      lol more co2 isnt a polutant it is life.. use science to mislead, while it is true that planst due better in high co2, that doesnt mean it isnt a polutant. and not many plants grow in our stausphere, where co2 is a problem.
      ozone is also needed for the ozone hole.. but noone denys that at groundlevel ozone is extremly harmful and noticible so.
      So take your little pdf, and your exxon check and shove them both where the sun dont shine.

    • sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -13/+6for people thinking i am being a cencor.. you can see the author of the said pdf here on exxon secrets that shows that person is paid to say co2 is life by exxon.
      http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
      but thanks for proving the entire point of the article. by linking this drivel
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Just as massive tax based grants to support global warming research does not surprise me considering that expanded government is the primary beneficiary of global warming regulations. I never recall companies like Exxon coercing me to buy gas or pay taxes.
    • etnu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9CO2 is "life", in the sense that it's necessary for plants to survive. The problem comes around when there's an excessive amount of CO2 in the environment. Unfortunately, we're burning the candle at both ends because we're simultaneously destroying CO2 consuming plants while also producing ever increasing amounts of the stuff.
    • hungryhermit, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Who cares. Thier stock is kicking a$$ and I'm cashing in.
    • CJPapetti, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4I'm with Hungryhermit. This is capitalism at it's best you tree huggers now quit bitching and cash in!
    • bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Who cares. Thier stock is kicking a$$ and I'm cashing in."

      @hungryhermit

      Stop pretending this is good. It's theft and you're probably at a net loss with the extra money you spend on gas.
    • phantomcrawl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well first I hear they get all this profit.
      now i hear they are responsible for an oil spill
      anyone want to take bets? are they responsible enough to clean it or a bunch of asshats?
  • hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11links between think tank & Bush -seems they thought of the 'surge' in Iraq
    http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/02/a_bush_in_the_hand_is_priceless_for_aei.html

    ps
    global village...
    http://www.miniature-earth.com/
  • fober, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20They just posted a 30 kajillion dollar profit and all they've got to offer is $10,000?

    Go ***** yourself Exxon.
    • Fracture98, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7That's precisely what I thought. An international corporation with all that money, and they don't have a department that knows how to make a ***** *bribe*?!
    • noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16If I was a scientist, I would find that figure plain insulting. You'd need at least 6 figures to compromise my professional integrity..
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4This is a dupe from yesterday.
  • brendandonhue, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2If the money is to support global warming, it's a "prize" or an "award." If the money is to debunk global warming, it's a "pay out."
    • WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11There's a huge difference between "here's some grant money- see what you can find out", and "here's some money to publish a paper that supports our views, and our profit margin", and you should know it.
  • calande, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Shame on them. Same for Monsanto with their transgenetic crap, argh...
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4All scientists get money from somebody.
    The UN wanted a report that said there is global warming caused by humans and so they rounded up scientists to support that view. You will note their is not one scientist in the UN report going against the party line. The UN paid for scientists that would support them.
    When one has a trial and wants an expert witness the lawyers hire experts, even scientists, that will do what they are paid to do.
    Al Gore sure is making lots of money off his "expert" research....but that´s okay, right?
    If Exxon or someone else does it, it is bad...
    Oh yeah and now he got himself nominated for a Nobel Prize for staring in a movie he made of himself....
    • Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, scientists who endorse that view, like 95% of climate scientists. There are a few -- just a few -- dissenters. Their job is to convert the rest of scientists to their point of view, then the consensus will change. See, science is like that. Not, evidently, corporate rapists, or PR campaigns, or the AEI, which is one of the prime dispensers of conservative welfare.
  • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4How much has the ocean risen in the last 50 years due to global warming?
    • DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Quite a lot. they had to reinforce the Thames barrier in London and the dikes in Holland.
      oh and they forgot to reinforce the one in new orleans.
    • TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7According to NASA's latest data the polar ice cap has seen significent thawing in past 10 years and within the recent 5 years the thaw has accelerated alarmingly.

      Its estimated that within 10 years there will be no northern polar ice and the glaciers of Greenland will be pretty much history.
    • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6"According to NASA's latest data the polar ice cap has seen significent thawing in past 10 years and within the recent 5 years the thaw has accelerated alarmingly.

      Its estimated that within 10 years there will be no northern polar ice and the glaciers of Greenland will be pretty much history."

      I'll bet you a coke that in 10 years there will still be northern polar ice and Greenland will still be icey.
  • multitude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Not incredibly surprised about this, given Exxon-Mobile's history. Somehow, though, it still turns my stomach that a corporation would strive so hard to put profit ahead of human concerns. If the company really cared about humanity, they would support research no matter what the conclusion. This is appalling.

    It's a small step, but I will boycott Exxon-Mobile's gas because of this and other reasons.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1has anyone seen "the corporation"?
  • muffins, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming_2.html

    "Under the worst-case scenario, by 2100 average temperatures are projected to rise by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit (3.5 degrees Celsius) and sea level by at least 12 inches"

    Oh no!
    • Gendolookin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thats what i try to tell people man...but they just don't beleive me... If you do the research, its no where near as big a problem as everyone says it is. The real problem, that i see is on a local scale. For instance air pollution in your city, I live in Louisville, Kentucky, and because we are in a valley, the air pollution just ,kinda hangs around for a while. The whole hooplah about carbon dioxide is freaking SILLY!!!.. Carbon Dioxide is only like 3-4% of the atmosphere, its about 70% water, 20% clouds(water droplets) and that leave 10 percent for all the other trace gases in the atmosphere. so to think that just carbon dioxide alone has had this much effect is kinda dumb. And why people think scientist can predict what the weather will be like in 40 years is beyond me. they can't even figure out what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, much less next week. so to think they can really predict that without knowing all the other natural occurances that might take place is beyond me. people are gullible i guess, and like the old saying goes. "if you say it loud enough, and long enough, people will start to beleive it" 23 years (my age) and counting, and fortunatly i still don't really beleive it. ;)
  • freeb26, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Record profit and unbelievable arrogance. I am amazed that they get away with this kind of thing. I guess loads of cash buys you expensive friends.
    • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Get away with what? What laws are they breaking?
    • betasp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Their margins are much less than Microsoft and other companies like GE.
    • xcoastie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1By "get away with this" you mean bringing people a product they need. I would like the oil companies shut down for a month, and then everybody will see how much they need oil and that 3 bucks a gallon is not a bad deal.
  • freeb26, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No laws have been broken but do you not think they crossing some ethical lines?
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well the government takes your money by force and gives it to people who will join the consensus. Is that ethical?
  • betasp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6How does this different than the UN offering "grant" money? They, too, have an ageda...

    Oh yeah, marked as duplicate...
  • AlfaSub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3They're the only ones that will pay for dissenting research. Ask any climatologist how much funding they can get after publishing a study that disagrees with the "consensus", be it true or not. The "lack of scientific debate" stems from the fact that debate isn't a reasonable option for most scientists, who know what will happen if they jump off the political bandwagon.
    This is probably not a quid pro quo trade like many people are implying. See betasp's comment. Scientists have to eat and live too, and unless someone funds scientists with a dissenting view, none will be practically able to have one.
  • spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Sorry to repost this from other threads, but the basic facts remain unchallenged and relevant, so....

    The reality is that virtually all of the climatologists in the world agree that global warming is real and primarily caused by human activity. The scientific consensus on this as a general process borders on unanimity: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html

    In no other field* would people argue that we need to "teach the controversy" in the face of such overwhelming consensus. Do we need to "teach the debate" over whether the earth is flat? The germ theory of disease? The reason for this is simple: There are large industries with a vested interest in the status quo, and they invest lots of money in FUD to ensure that the fake debate stays alive: http://digg.com/politics/CBC_documentary_on_Global_Warming_Deniers_The_Denial_Machine

    * OK, wait, I forgot: we do have the evolution/creation debate, and the stem cell debate, both of which feature the same political/cultural players arrayed against the normal process of science, but from which the industrial interests are notably absent.

    The claim that scientists are "in it for the money" is funny. Generally, climate scientists are not asking for more money to study the issue; they are asking for action on the problem. More at these: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/funding.html, http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2006/02/cost-of-climate-research.html

    There is honest disagreement on impacts and their "schedule"; while the theory is generally accepted, the science is not advanced enough to give a specific schedule on the responses of the planet's climate, which is a large, chaotic system. Layering human civilization on top of this makes accurate and detailed predictions (how many people will be displaced, how much will these change affect agriculture, etc.) difficult if not impossible: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

    That said, what we're doing now if vaguely similar to poking a lion with a stick; whatever the result, it's not likely to be good. I base this on the physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and human activities have roughly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev_png, http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p9.htm, http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

    There are also potential climate "tipping points" that could accelerate this process dramatically; one example is the possible release of vast amounts of methane (a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) from permafrost in the far north. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5321046.stm Another is a release of ice from Antarctica or Greenland; while it has been generally believed that these sheets are too large to decompose rapidly, recent findings have been unnerving: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-greenland.html

    Previous large emissions of methane have been Bad for living things on the planet: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/earth_wobble_burps.html?1992005, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031218074548.htm

    There really isn't much convincing data to argue against this; you can see the standard arguments refuted here: http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

    Bottom line: The global climate is warming, and this is largely due to human activity. The resulting climate changes are likely to be seriously disruptive to human civilization. Reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases would reduce these impacts. These are simple facts; specific remedies launch us into the realm of policy, which is much more messy than the underlying science.
    • Teething, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why do I not believe you when all your quotes and "facts" come from biased sources.

    • spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Teething: If by "biased" you mean "mostly peer-reviewed", then I agree with you.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3When people cry about oil companies paying global warming skeptics to do research, they accuse the scientists of working for the benefit of big oil.

    However, they see no problem with governments that will benefit from global warming acceptance (new taxing and regulatory powers) while they subsidize a far greater number of global warming advocates with taxpayer dollars, and people fail to accuse those scientists of working for the benefit of big government.

    I don't want to debate science, if global warming exists, the last people you should ask to help are the government. They are the #1 polluter and waster of ressources, especially the U.S. military, they can claim sovereign immunity, they've been protecting the biggest polluters for years, and you can bet they will continue.

    Asking the government to protect the environment is asking the fox to guard the hen house.
    • thoand, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It is time to throw out our governments.

      WHO IS WITH ME?
    • diggless, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A company is beholden to the shareholders, a government is beholden to the people. This is the distinction your lacking

      you can claim the people aren't doing an adequate job electing officials that will execute their will, but you cant argue that the corporation has no incentive to see a study claim its product is responsible for the destabilization of the climate.

    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That government is accountable to its people is a widely accepted myth. The reality is that they are not. Politicians have stacked the decks against anyone who wishes to move away from the status quo, and if any upstanding person gets elected, he quickly gets frustrated that there's nothing he can do, and pretty soon gets hopeless or corrupted.

      The difference between a company and a government is that a company can not legally use force on people to achieve its ends. If they want to make profit, they will have to provide a product people are willing to voluntarily pay for. Centralized governments can bring whole civilizations down to poverty, famine and treachery in no time.

      Besides, you didn't address the point that government can pollute with impunity (with your tax dollars).
  • addicted68098, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1They had a nuclear reactor that they heated up to near-sun temperatures, why not blame climate change on that?
  • boonukem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is outrageous!

    All scientists who do research that supports global warming work for free. Global warming deniers should do the same if they dare to speak up.
  • wuru05, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Exxon Mobil it appears will do "anything" and I mean "anything" to make more profit when
    they knowingly are the "WORLDS BIGGEST" company that provides OIL and GAS to the world and are the major contributor to green house emissions.

    They don't care.
    And why should they?

    Because no amount of wealth is going to be of any value when our PLANET DYING which is what is going to happen if we keep using FOSSIL FUELS.

    Exxon Mobil tried to buy my fathers Solar Energy Invention in the late 1980's he was a scientist. I even saw the letter.
    They wanted to buy him out and then put the invention into storage for a future time.

    Of course my father declined their offer and they weren't very pleased.

    Its all about power financial power. Exxon Mobil are getting scared that the IPCC Climate Change Report
    will spark off a "REVOLUTION" in new energy technology particularly the one they hate the most
    Renewable "Solar" energy. And then there go all their profits.

    Thats why they tried to have the word CLIMATE CHANGE taken out of the IPCC report and offer bribes to Scientists to put in doubt
    about these revelations on Global Warming.

    As an individual we can't do much against a Multi-National company like Exxon MOBIL but co-operatively
    they can be brought down. Much like in the movie Bugs Life. Once the grasshoppers realised the Ants were getting together as a whole they were scared and fled.

    Its time the world showed this company a lesson. If they don't start investing in renewable energy and start an immediate reduction strategy in fossil fuel production to help stop reduction of green house gases emissions then we should start abandoning OIL and GAS on an unprecedented scale at every GAS station, every petrol station, and start using different forms of energy such as Hydrogen for Cars, Solar Cells for our Houses.

    So as a spin Off of Climate Change we now should have an "ENERGY CHANGE".
    A new renewable energy change would create millions of jobs around the world.

    Their time will come.

    The question is will it come before our planets irreparable ?

    • BigFoot48, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exxon and Mobil didn't merge until the late 1990's, so your father's letter was from one or the other, but not ExxonMobil.
    • wuru05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry I meant Exxon before they merged.

      IF you do some research you will be quite interested in this companies history.

      They not a environmentally friendly company at all.

      Peter Birkle
  • honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How much did the Sierra Club pay out last year?
  • WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Who funds what does not matter. The only valid question to ask is; what claims are factually valid. True scientists welcome all scrutiny. Talking about where the funding comes from amounts to an ad hominem attack.
    • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You must be mad or incredibly naive. Money doesn't matter? Money doesn't influence outcomes and opinions? What planet are you from?
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@quakerorts

      Funding source is irrelevant. The science stands on its own or it doesn't. Your ignorance of the scientific method does not disprove anything.
  • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not surprising considering these earlier reports on Exxon's funding of front groups to support their polluting ways. They've decided it's cheaper to confuse the public than to clean up their act.
    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
  • JBMafia64, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Greenhouse gas' aren't ***** and if you don't believe me check out "THIS" and ask your self "If green-house gas' were the sole contributor to our current atmospheric state, why would an oil corporation need to pay scientist to tell people that?" I don't know if this topic has been covered, but I just considered it relevant to the situation.

    THIS: http://www.metatech.org/A06/chemtrails_reason_cause.html

    Try some torrents out if your interested.
  • ebola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In other news, Exxon Mobil made $39.5 billion last year.
    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-exxonprofit_02bus.ART0.State.Edition1.1cbd69e.html

    Does this come as a surprise to anyone?
  • magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1NOTE: The article contains no link to a report detailing AEI's funding sources.

    NOTE: The article contains no link to a report detailing Exxon's funding practices.

    NOTE: The article contains no link to a report detailing which, if any, reports by either the AEI or Exxon where found to be scientifically inaccurate.
  • magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@vikingcoder What difference does it make where the report is hosted? None. What difference does it make what type of article it is? None. My bad on the CNN/WP thing. I had what was basically the same article from the WP open in my browser.

    Providing links allows the reader to verify the accuracy of the article, to place it in context, and to do further research. It allows you to answer questions such as:

    * What portion of Exxon funding is dedicated to climate research? (Answer: very little)

    * What portion of the AEI's budget comes from Exxon? (Answer: very little)

    * What portion of the AEI's or Exxon's reports have been scientifically invalidated? (Answer: none that I can see)

    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Both "none" points are actually very significant. There is a major difference between the transcript from an online live discussion and a syndicated article. One is only available from that specific media outlet, the other is created for potentially world-wide distribution across many diverse outlets. A locally hosted file linked from an article cannot be syndicated while a referential cite can be easily done.

      There is a direct example of local vs. syndicated here. "I had what was basically the same article from the WP open in my browser" is a syndicated article. The "live discussion" transcript is a local article not fit for syndication. The IPCC PDF file is equivalent to any image file in ease of syndication.

      > Providing links allows the reader to verify the accuracy

      Of which you have provided none.

      AEI is not asking for research reports. They are asking for opinion articles similar to Lindzen's WP editorial and Monckton's Guardian piece. Opinion articles are nothing more than sophistic pieces packed with half truths, outright myths and politicized spin.
    • magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I replied to this in the original thread, above.
  • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is one of letters that AEI sent out last year.

    http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2007/aeiletter.pdf

    They are specifically proposing a compensated opinion piece.
    • magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you for the letter vikingcoder. Here's a quote from it where the AEI indicates what they are looking for:

      Quote - "In particular we are looking for an author who can write a well supported but accessible discussion of which elements of a climate model have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy relevant and which elements of a climate model have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in climate policy."

      In other words, they're looking for exactly the kind of info you'd expect from a policy think tank.

      The thing that gets me about all of this is the AEI is _not_ argueing against CO2 global warming. For an example this, see this PDF where two of their members are recommending a carbon tax: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25481/pub_detail.asp
    • magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1P.S. This is why you want to see the original info rather than believing the article. More times than not what's in the article and what's in the original are not the same.

      In this case not only is the AEI _not_ calling for an "opinion piece", some of their members are calling for taxes on carbon emissions.
  • pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey what are you guys worried about? We'll kill ourselves off, some plants and animals survive, the planet recovers and evolution will take care of the rest.

    /Sarcasm
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.