Group: ExxonMobil paid to mislead public

[SLCPUNK]

WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

AP

[Robman?]

Why is this not surprising to me?

WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

I knew it.

[The Dog]

C'mon, this isn't news! Britney was drunk on new years eve ya'll!!!!!! 

kidding of course, but had SLC not posted this I never would have known about it.  sad.

[GeorgeSteele]

They'll have an extra $2.5 billion to spend on their misinformation campaign.  Recently, a federal appeals court cut in half the $5B punitive damages penalty from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'm sorry I fail to see a problem with this.  Aside from the spin on the article, look at it from Exxon's perspective.  You have "advocacy" science groups that already have their conclusion and work backwards to proove it.  Joe Blow Scientist says "Wait a minute, that's not right.  You're exaggerating results and suing worse case and unrealistic predictions."  The "advocacy" group ignores him, calls him a stooge, fascist, biggot, etc.  Joe Blow Scientist contacts Exxon and says I have some research that contradicts what the "advocacy" group is trying to proove.  Exxon, out of interest for themselves but also interest in the truth funds Joe Blow.  Said "advocacy" group immediately denounces Joe because his research was funded partly by a group the "advocacy" group despises. 

This is a double edge sword for Exxon.  It's lose lose.  If they don't fund any research, you say they don't care and have no interest in finding better methods.  If they do fund research, you denounce any of the findings. 

Many of you do the same thing as the "advocacy" group.  You come to a conclusion on an issue and work backwords to proove it.  The less information you find and the more vague it is, you get more dramatic and create vast conspiracies or theories on coverups. 

Has anyone looked at who funds the advocacy group?  No you don't, because you already agree with their message.  So when another group with an agenda (like Exxon) funds the advocacy group, you remain silent and supportive.  What came first, the chicken or the egg?  Did the research and data conclude Green House danger before they became the advocacy group?  Or were they an advocacy group with an agenda who created the data?

[SLCPUNK]

The majority of scientists including many from Bush's cabinet believe that global warming exists and is caused by humans. The only people left defending it are corporations who may lose significant money and kool aid drinkers who desperately hold on to conspiracy theories about "advocacy" groups and their secret plan to rule the world.