The Royal Society vs. Exxon’s astroturf

[NobleSavage]

Making Light: The Royal Society vs. Exxon's astroturf

The Royal Society—the world’s oldest learned society—has publicly taken on Exxon. Just so you know: this is the first time in the Royal Society’s 364 years that they’ve done something like this.

Britain’s leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain’s premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.

The scientists also strongly criticise the company’s public statements on global warming, which they describe as “inaccurate and misleading”.

Exxon’s been funding astroturf and disinformation campaigns. They’re not big on level playing fields.

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

See how cheaply you can fund astroturf campaigns? To Exxon, $2.9m is practically small change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

“There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate,” it said.

[AmateurFlix]

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

Wow, a whole $2.9 million. I wonder how much money was pumped into advertising for The Day After Tomorrow. That little science-fiction scare piece went on to generate a half a Billion dollars. What was the value of the publicity for Al Gore's movie? I'd say well over $2.9 million.

I'd agree that the two sides appear to not be on a level playing field. Apparently so do the many scientists who've tried to present a counter-point to the GW theorists. And in this organization's 364 year history, this is the first time they've officially attempted to quash a dissenting opinion? Must be a proud moment for them.

Perhaps the GW faithful might take a page from this fellow, I've read that he was pretty good at taking care of dissenting opinions regarding science.

People are losing their heads over this topic. Well respected scientists are being shunned and any mere dissent or questioning is being met with resistance atypical of scientific norms.

[NobleSavage]

There is a difference between lying and making a fictional movie.

[AmateurFlix]

There is a difference between lying and making a fictional movie.

Who is lying? Now it is a lie to so much as mention the viewpoints of dissenting scientists? That position is basically the same as critics of Copernicus were.

This is why their claims are so unbelievable, because the supporters are so ardently opposed to acknowledging any type of dissent as possibly being valid. They are not educating the public about science, they are conducting a propaganda war against any who mention dissent.

As to the point I was making about the movie, of course people realize that it is fictional, however it brought a lot of attention to the topic of GW, alot more attention of the ignorant masses than Exxon's efforts ever will. To claim that the public is more affected by Exxon's efforts which probably end up published in trade journals somewhere, than they are by watching blockbuster movies and seeing Al Gore get Academy awards, is unrealistic to an extreme.

[NobleSavage]

People are losing their heads over this topic. Well respected scientists are being shunned and any mere dissent or questioning is being met with resistance atypical of scientific norms.

The only people losing their heads over this are the Conservatives who don't want cap-and trade. That is all that has been proposed and it makes perfect sense even without GW.

[AmateurFlix]

Tell, me why would you support a cap and trade system on CO2 if you did not believe that CO2 was problematic?

I am enjoying this dialogue, but I will be logging off for the night.

[NobleSavage]

Who is lying? Now it is a lie to so much as mention the viewpoints of dissenting scientists? That position is basically the same as critics of Copernicus were.

This is why their claims are so unbelievable, because the supporters are so ardently opposed to acknowledging any type of dissent as possibly being valid. They are not educating the public about science, they are conducting a propaganda war against any who mention dissent.

No, it's not a difference of opinion. It's flat out lies and BS. The create legitimate sounding journals, they mimic science, they don't do real research in a lab, they work on K St. in DC. They pay scientist willing to trade their reputation for money to make BS claims. They even hire professional media companies to make fake youtube videos and set up fake blogs. It's all lies and illusion.

As to the point I was making about the movie, of course people realize that it is fictional, however it brought a lot of attention to the topic of GW, alot more attention of the ignorant masses than Exxon's efforts ever will.
To claim that the public is more affected by Exxon's efforts which probably end up published in trade journals somewhere, than they are by watching blockbuster movies and seeing Al Gore get Academy awards, is unrealistic to an extreme.

Bull Shit. Exxon's lies get a lot more leverage because they hire professional firms like Fleshman Hillard and others that have made a science of playing the media. All they need is a legitimate sounding "study" from a legitimate sounding journal and the media swallows it hook line and sinker. The media reports it as a scientific controversy and the scientific community keeps saying there is no controversy.

[EonBlue]

Well then I guess CERN must be on the Exxon payroll too because they are launching a full-blown investigation into the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation and the effect on climate:

CERN Document Server: Record#1181073: Cosmic rays and climate

The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming - and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations - although disputed - suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.

[NobleSavage]

Tell, me why would you support a cap and trade system on CO2 if you did not believe that CO2 was problematic?.

Yes, because this US need to get the fuck off of fossil fuels for about 1000 reasons. For all the good things about capitalism it sucks at planning much past the next quarter. The fossil fuel industry is a dead end.

On the other hand, the renewal energy sector has an unlimited future. It's small, very entrepreneurial, and the US excels at this kind of thing. Can-do-garage-startups made silicon valley and if we play our cards right we can do the same thing with alt energy. We need a new economic driver to fix the economy and "green" could very well be it.

I'd much rather give the alt energy a level playing field (through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax) than hand out cash grants.

[GForce]

This is a sad commentary on the world wide web or internet, that it can be so easily manipulated by publishing articles or creating blogs and whatever other communication vehicle that can be used to publish and disseminate information on the net.

We risk factioning ourselves more than ever into groups of believers, skeptics, and all in between. In the legal profession you are cautioned about using the internet for anything. The trusted sources are Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, Versalaw. You wouldn't dare write a brief and quote an internet source as fact.

Just what is the truth? Is it whatever is convenient to an elite group? You would think that oil companies would be concerned that we are now at "peak oil" production and that some day they may face extinction. What do they have to gain other than avoid costly restrictions on drilling, refining and distributing. Should they not be more concerned about being energy producers? Will they someday become extinct as the carriage makers of the dawn of the auto industry?

At least the article you debate calls it climate change. The real question is how much man's activities on this planet account for such a climate change? If we account for a percentage that is reversible then it should be considered and curtailed to the economical extent possible relative to the available control technology.

The one factor we will never control is the unpredictabililty factor. All it takes is one asteroid or meteor hitting the earth in the right place and a new ice age may dawn upon us making us the extinct ones. I guess we will make missiles to counter that.

In my opinion we are simply guests of this planet we know as earth and should respect that. Now if you believe the bible then everything was put here for man to use and abuse.

[NobleSavage]

Well then I guess CERN must be on the Exxon payroll too because they are launching a full-blown investigation into the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation and the effect on climate:

CERN Document Server: Record#1181073: Cosmic rays and climate

Congrats on finding real (potential) research. Let me know when they actually finish the study. In the mean time, we have 10K other legitimate studies that point in the other direction.

[NobleSavage]

Well then I guess CERN must be on the Exxon payroll too because they are launching a full-blown investigation into the connection between cosmic rays and cloud formation and the effect on climate:

CERN Document Server: Record#1181073: Cosmic rays and climate

This is actually a good video. Thanks for the link.

If you notice at 14.40 he says cosmic rays may account for as much as 50% of the warming but that C02 is also a big part of it.

Which confirms what I keep saying:

1) There is no real debate that the earth is now warming.

2) There is no real debate about the greenhouse mechanism.

3) What is still open just just how much C02 causes warming and how much is other factors.

But calling it a "hoax" or a "bogyman" or saying that C02 doesn't cause warming is just silly.

[NobleSavage]

Tell, me why would you support a cap and trade system on CO2 if you did not believe that CO2 was problematic?

Let me add to this (and I think this is where we will agree) if the proposed solution was to live like the Amish (and I know some environmentalists support this) I'd be screaming "FUCK THAT...."

[Webby]

This is a sad commentary on the world wide web or internet, that it can be so easily manipulated by publishing articles or creating blogs and whatever other communication vehicle that can be used to publish and disseminate information on the net.

If you took the time to have a look at a number of websites, apart from those where there is an obvious deliberate ploy to present a one-sided picture, it is surprising how many other "subtle" domains carry totally distorted "facts".

Apart from the obvious political/lobbyist type sites, the net is also being used as a propaganda machine by governments. A classic example is the use of the net by Israel - or 'agents' obviously representing that nation. The copy on a large number of these websites is basically the same (tho totally different layouts) - repeating the same astounding "facts" which are often untrue. Usually this appears to be generalized propaganda proclaiming how wondering Israel is and listing the nation's "achievements" etc. For example, they tend to reveal the "fact" that Israel "invented" Microsoft and have been responsible for every medical achievement the world has ever seen etc. - fairly innocuous stuff, but garbage.

At a higher level, it is not exactly so subtle when, for example, if there was bad press in whatever action undertaken by Israel - a totally different picture is painted on websites/media to reverse the commonly known scenario as reported by journalists on the ground and by international orgs in their reports after an event. A typical example of this recently was on the conflicting reports by Israeli media over the Gaza "incident".

The other element who tend to publish garbage on the net, are inclined to call themselves "institutes" or "organizations" to gain credibility - many have contact PO boxes in Washington. They are often on a commercial/political agenda and have more "facts" that the world has ever known. Underneath they are simply a propaganda operation acting to present whatever agenda. Bottom line, make a website look like an authoritative source and the content on it will get cut and pasted to death by idiots who have a need to present the "facts" to justify whatever mindset/agenda.

You wouldn't dare write a brief and quote an internet source as fact.

Hell no! Not unless it was on AskDamageX.com



PS Re blogs - I've got a total aversion to blogs which purport to express opinion or "educate" with facts on any political or politicized topic - you can guarantee it's filled with garbage. It's a pity that the Internet enables the lowest common denominator who would have no hope in hell of getting a job as an educator or journalist, but allows them their "freedom of speech" to publish on the net

[DamageX]

On a different note:

BRENT CRUDE FUTR (USD/bbl.) 68.700

[EonBlue]

But calling it a "hoax" or a "bogyman" or saying that C02 doesn't cause warming is just silly.

CO2 doesn't cause warming - at least not to the extent that is being proposed by the alarmists. Besides, atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by warming and lag behind the warming by 800 years.

The whole theory of AGW is going to crumble like a deck of cards in the coming years as real scientists find real evidence based on real research, and not computer models, of what really drives the climate.

Congrats on finding real (potential) research. Let me know when they actually finish the study. In the mean time, we have 10K other legitimate studies that point in the other direction.

Smug and condescending. So typical of your type.

Anyways, 99% of those "10k" other studies are all based on computer models that will be shown to be false in the very near future. Their short-term models and predictions haven't even been happening as predicted so of what worth are their long-term models and predictions?

Besides that, and I've said this before, all of the so-called warming of the past 100 years is based on data that is inflated by improper measuring techniques and even then is still well within the margin of error for the means by which it is being collected.

But hey, let's cripple the economy for no good reason whatsoever. Everything will be so much better when everyone is much poorer.

[GForce]

EU: China, India must make emissions cuts - Yahoo! News

In the past I have mentioned China and India, but neglected Brazil. Seems like unless those countries do their part whatever the other countries do will be insufficient to reach the 25% reduction goal.

Looks like they are not too happy with the US either.

[NobleSavage]

CO2 doesn't cause warming - at least not to the extent that is being proposed by the alarmists. Besides, atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by warming and lag behind the warming by 800 years.

The whole theory of AGW is going to crumble like a deck of cards in the coming years as real scientists find real evidence based on real research, and not computer models, of what really drives the climate.

You have any real studies to back that up? So far you have only found ONE (that hasen't even started yet) and in the video they say C02 causes warming they just don't know how much. Well, that is what I've been saying this entire fucking time.

Anyways, 99% of those "10k" other studies are all based on computer models that will be shown to be false in the very near future. Their short-term models and predictions haven't even been happening as predicted so of what worth are their long-term models and predictions?

No they are not. About 1/2 of them are base on real quantifiable measurements.

Smug and condescending. So typical of your type.

Besides that, and I've said this before, all of the so-called warming of the past 100 years is based on data that is inflated by improper measuring techniques and even then is still well within the margin of error for the means by which it is being collected.

Do you have a PhD in climatology? Are you a scientist? What are you qualifications? You studied this? In what context?

Smug and condescending is acting like you know better than every single scientific body of national or international standing.

But hey, let's cripple the economy for no good reason whatsoever. Everything will be so much better when everyone is much poorer.

Who is being the alarmist?

[NobleSavage]

EU: China, India must make emissions cuts - Yahoo! News

In the past I have mentioned China and India, but neglected Brazil. Seems like unless those countries do their part whatever the other countries do will be insufficient to reach the 25% reduction goal.

Looks like they are not too happy with the US either.

True, but the first world has to get it's act together first, then use a combination of a carrot and big stick to bring the BRIC nations around. Just putting a tariff on their imports would do it.

And if we get the jump on BRIC in alt energy technology then we can export it to them and make a profit. The US needs a new industry and alt energy is a good candidate.

[GForce]

For way too long we have been using ad terrorem statements to prevent certain policies or proposals from happening. Usually they emanate from those that have something to lose or they are made out of irrational fear. Let's face it in the US we hate change, but we like to talk about it alot.

My belief is that unless we take new and bold actions we will no longer be able to maintain our standard of living or those of the generations to come. I also believe that if we make a policy and it fails to perform the intended results, that policy would be adjusted.

As a country we need to come together as to what our priorities are and who do we want to be as a nation. Who are we?

For instance we go into Iraq on pure bs conjecture that they have weapons of mass destruction, then sit around and do nothing while a real lunatic who makes direct threats to the US is allowed to test fire missile after missile. Let's be consistent and wipe his ass out to and then get back to saving the planet while we still have one.