Scientists tell Exxon to stop climate change denial
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html
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".
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.
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.
In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.
The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.
Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."
Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.
ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.
Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil.
The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. "It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that it's worse than we thought," he said.
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".
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.
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.
In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: "At our meeting in July ... you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge."
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public."
This is the first time the society has written to a company to challenge its activities. The move reflects mounting concern about the activities of lobby groups that try to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence that emissions are linked to climate change.
The groups, such as the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), whose senior figures have described global warming as a myth, are expected to launch a renewed campaign ahead of a major new climate change report. The CEI responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution.
The latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due to be published in February, is expected to say that climate change could drive the Earth's temperatures higher than previously predicted.
Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
The Royal Society letter also takes issue with ExxonMobil's own presentation of climate science. It strongly criticises the company's "corporate citizenship reports", which claim that "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The letter says: "These statements are not consistent with the scientific literature. It is very difficult to reconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with ExxonMobil's claim to be an industry leader."
Environmentalists regard ExxonMobil as one of the least progressive oil companies because, unlike competitors such as BP and Shell, it has not invested heavily in alternative energy sources.
ExxonMobil said: "We can confirm that recently we received a letter from the Royal Society on the topic of climate change. Amongst other topics our Tomorrow's Energy and Corporate Citizenship reports explain our views openly and honestly on climate change. We would refute any suggestion that our reports are inaccurate or misleading." A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.
Recent research has made scientists more confident that recent warming is man-made, a finding endorsed by scientific academies across the world, including in the US, China and Brazil.
The Royal Society's move emerged as Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, warned that the polar ice caps were breaking up at a faster rate than glaciologists thought possible, with profound consequences for global sea levels. Professor Rapley said the change was almost certainly down to global warming. "It's like opening a window and seeing what's going on and the message is that it's worse than we thought," he said.
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
How is this statement wrong in any way. It does not dispute climate change. It does not dispute human influence on climate change. All it says is we lack the science to prove the effect and extent of human influence on climate change. How could any scientific group find objection with this?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
how is it wrong?! you said it! They said so because Exxon funded them!!! doesn't this seem enough wrong to you? and that claim is also a lie! It contradicts the majority of the world researches on climate change, but even if not, it should be enough to you not to trust any scientist group funded by any energy corporation and whatever they say!!!
And if you are going to throw out research and questions that come from Exxon funded groups, do you also throw out research done by groups funded by organizations such as Greenpeace?
Please explain how in any way the statement made was wrong.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I am being serious here, regardless if climate change is being directly/indirectly caused or not even happening we as stewards should do our upmost best to keep the environment clean. Personally I'm sick of this science true or faux debate, change should be done regardless. Nothing irritates me more than hereing it costs too much, I work in this business and I can tell you environmentally friendly alternatives to upgrading emission disposals are out there, but right now major players are sticking to the minimum requirement guidelines so environmental upgrades to do not effect their bottom dollar. To me there is no price on keeping the environment as clean as possible, I am not saying eliminate all emissions, however we can do a hell of lot better than we currently are.
From what I understand from the logic being tossed around in this modern age is that, for example, if climate change was undoubtdly proven to not be linked to human abuse does that then lead us to a path of free pollution? Because essentially right now the majority of companies are doing the absolute minumum to prevent emissions , imagine what would be done if the human link was proven false. To me, morally at least, regardless of what the real link is we should not have to debate and argue on issues dealing with the environment. We should just clean up our act regardless of science, which would ultimately benefit us on many levels.
Those effects are being already quantified by the major scientific centers in the world, and you can easily make your research by yourself. it is easy, there is a tool called google. I don't see why I should make the job for you and give you answers... I have found my answers, find yours by yourself. I don't read studies from groups as Greenpeace, but I have read several serious researches from all american and european institutes, especially Universities studies, which in Europe are not funded by corporations but from european governments, and I don't need to read any further any more. The media out here speak often about climate change and the impact of human activity, it has become pretty much common knowledge.
Of course, I totally agree, there is a basic principle called "precaution principle" as defined in the 1992 world meeting on environment in Rio de Janeiro and reiterated in 1999 at the international conference on biodiversity in Montreal. Furthermore, we have all the evidence that the greenhouse emissions are damaging climate and the environment, so why should we still wonder and just not act to preserve life on the planet the best we can? It is so surprising to me that people don't understand that these actions are not taken only because they are against the interest of economical powers. how can people still be so naive?
this statement aims to shed doubt on the science of climate change ... when to many there is no doubt ...
you obviously see nothing wrong because u agree with the statement ... however for those of us who believe that the impacts and causes of climate change is real - this is an absolute lie ...
what if imperial tobacco funded a program that said there is no definitive proof that everyone that smokes will get cancer and pumped that into your kids schools and stuff ... have a problem with that?
The problem is that the whole enviro field has become a big muddle of science, politics and philosophy. So called scientists are becoming so extremely emotionally attached to their point of view that a simple and correct statement seems to send them off. They want to discount all science that gets funding from business but not from enviro groups. It makes no sense to say only one side is biased. These are supposed to be scientists who work from fact, but they act like children.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
...and this post is proof again...
but thanks Eva for argueing so convincing.
...there seems to me always a gap between Europe/Canadian vs. USA vision on this subject... I wonder why.
maybe because not all of our society and businesses are driven by oil yet here, (maybe only olive oil
means, we have a different information, one that is not all pro- oil propaganda.
here it is about cars, though,
but work is done to improve them, make them cleaner.
Exxon should finally also give in... the rest of the world seems to see it clearly already.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
Eva7 says to find it on Google. But she sure doesn't want me to find the statement I referred to. She probably doesn't want me to find this year's hurricane data. She talks about things being pretty much common knowledge regarding human activity and climate change, but this common knowledge is not quantified by science yet. If it was it would be trumpetted all over the world. Asking the question about what proportion of climate change is from human activity does not mena you doubt climate change or human impact on climate change. It's just a simple question. It amuses me that people get in an uproar over the question, or think that it implies anything other than what it asks.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Here's the point:
You emit greenhouse gasses everytime you exhale. Therefore you should stop breathing
Understand now?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Ummm... there is no definitive proof that everyone who smokes will get cancer. Many people who smoke never get cancer.
If tabacco companies are releasing studies that say smoking does not increase your risk of getting cancer, yeah I'd have a problem with that. Why? Because that would be untrue, just like telling people that smoking guarantees they'll become cancer-ridden.
Dear, I said so because I am sick to post stuff none cares about. Polaris and me and many others have been posting news about these scientific data at least for the past three years, but none cared. So now I wish that anyone who is REALLY SERIOUSLY interested in this issue would make their own searches. I said it is common knowledge because we are OVERWHELMED by studies which show evidence of the impact of human activity on climate chamge and it is really easy to find all those in the internet media sources. But I am really sick to argue these things with people who just don't accept to hear these things just because the major media in the US have done a great job to hide all this stuff from the american public, it all just makes me really sick, seriously, nothing personal with you of course surferdude.
Just a small, quick question. What make syou think that major media is biased in reporting environmental issue but not the European media?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
that is my point ... i know what my statement read ... it is true not everyone who smokes get cancer but we know that many do - so, why shouldn't tobacco companies pump money into a PR campaign that highlights that?? ... probably cuz we'd all hate them for it ... same thing goes for exxon ...
well ... the difference is is that you interpret that sentence as to give the publisher the absolute most benefit of the doubt whereas we do not ... like i said - its fine for you cuz that is what you want to believe ...
what is frustrating is that we have one special interest who is trying to protect their profits by spreading lies and then there are special interests who are interested in making this planet sustainable for future generations ... and yet people assume that their biases are the same ...
What? Tabacco companies do pump money into PR compaigns that highlights the affects of smoking.
The European are biased as well, especially because the US media affect all the world media. But in Europe we have some sort of small "freedom paradises" in the press, somehow, more than in US lately, a few more independent outlets that once they "leak" something, all the others cannot pretend the news don't exist anymore (this happened, for exemple, in the case of the white phosphorous use in Falluja....) ... so, while the majority of the media also in Europe have tried to avoid talking of climate change, lately there was a sort of "rebellion", like documentaries and in-depth news programs which seem to have "escaped" from the higher control, and it was hard to ignore by all the other ones...
I'm saying what if they pumped money into campaigns that said that everyone who smoked doesn't get cancer ... it would be the truth but we accept it to be morally wrong ...
...maybe because we learned out of our mistakes? at least some krauts did.
...and that is maybe the reason I am just not quiet on this subject anymore.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
Spreading the truth cannot be morally wrong. If some people think it is, that's their problem.
it is when the aim is to deceive other truths but feel free to see it your way.
Truths cannot be contradictory. You cannot "aim to deceive" a truth by spreading another truth.
...I need to double post this.
thanks again Eva for explaining so well...
and I do agree: some of us are just getting tired after so many years going on in discussion of this subject around here... it seems it is a hopeless case, nearly.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
wellll.......... that was only the positive answer. there is also a negative one.
Lobbies controlling the media are also in Europe, not only in the US. Europe is way more interested than the US to get independent from fossil fuels like gas and oil. Alternative energy corporations are quite less powerful than the nuclear lobby, that's why the nuclear energy supporters are "riding the horse" of climate change....
again ... believe what you want ... that statement is absurd to me ...
...seriously, don't think it is the reason here in Germ.
we have an agreement to stop any kind of atomic power winning by the year... let me think.
well, I don't know exactly when, but we have a common agreement, still,
that atomic power is by no means the power of the future.
the last government decided it (8-5 years ago), and the new one did not take it back but confirmed it.
...so, but still, I fully agree that our lobbiest also influence the media big times. big big times, but we still do have some sort of good journalism, one you can trust... as you said, niches,
and to me those are national TV and the spiegel
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.