Posted on 01/04/2007 2:41:00 AM PST by Froufrou
Accusing ExxonMobil of funding a "disinformation campaign" against global warming, an environmental activist group said Wednesday the oil giant has been paying advocacy groups to create confusion about climate change.
The corporation and two of the organizations targeted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) dismissed the allegation, variously calling it a smear, "junk," and motivated by a left-wing agenda.
In a new report, the UCS charged that ExxonMobil "doesn't want you to know the facts about global warming" and that it "vehemently opposes any governmental regulation that would require significantly expanded investments in clean energy technologies or reductions in global warming emissions."
Alden Meyer, UCS director of strategy and policy, said during a conference call that ExxonMobil had "for years underwritten the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign whose aim has been to deceive the public and policy makers about the reality of global warming."
Meyer accused the corporation of giving some $16 million over the past seven years "to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue."
Meyer said the UCS report names 43 ExxonMobil-funded organizations which he claimed "seek to manufacture uncertainty about the strong scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping emissions in the atmosphere -- and that this buildup is the direct result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels."
"These groups promote spokespeople who misrepresent peer reviewed scientific findings, or cherry-pick the facts in an attempt to mislead the media and the public into thinking that there is rigorous debate among the mainstream scientific community about global warming," Meyer said.
Upending claims frequently made by global warming skeptics, Meyer accused the named organizations of crafting data "to look like legitimate science."
ExxonMobil spokesman Dave Gardner called the report "yet another attempt to smear our name and confuse the discussion of the serious issue of CO2 emissions and global climate change."
Gardner told Cybercast News Service ExxonMobil believes "greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change, and that the use of fossil fuels is a major source of these emissions."
The corporation was also taking "significant" steps to reduce the emissions, he said - making its operations less energy intensive, pursuing research with engine and vehicle manufacturers to improve transportation efficiency, and carrying out advanced research "to pursue breakthroughs in technology for future energy sources."
On the funding allegations, Gardner said the corporation supports "a fairly broad array of organizations that research significant domestic and foreign policy issues and promote discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company."
"As most of these organizations are independent of their corporate sponsors and are tax-exempt, our financial support does not connote any substantive control over or responsibility for the policy recommendations or analyses they produce," Gardner added.
"As you might expect, in many cases and with respect to the full range of policy positions taken by these organizations, we find some of them persuasive and enlightening, and some not," he said.
"But there is value in the debate they prompt if it can lead to better informed and more optimal public policy decisions," Gardner added.
'Piece of junk'
Of the organizations cited in the UCS report, the biggest recipient of ExxonMobil funding - about $2 million - was the free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
Myron Ebell, CEI director of energy and global warming policy, dismissed the report as "just a piece of junk."
"These claims that we are part of some conspiracy, that we're misleading the public, that we're misrepresenting the science, I reject that," Ebell told Cybercast News Service.
"They are completely false, and they are certainly not proved by this junky, rubbishy report. These are just assertions," he said.
"This whole list has been published over and over again," Ebell said, noting that one of the documents cited by the UCS was an email sent by himself, which he said had been taken out of context.
Ebell said the donations do not signify a conspiracy.
"We have been the grateful recipients of some major contributions from ExxonMobil, and we wish we could get more corporations to contribute so we could do more on global warming," he said.
"We are not a scientific group. We are a policy group," Ebell added. "We believe in limited government and political and economic liberties. We address issues and promote those policies that we think will do the most to limit government and promote liberty based on what the scientific facts are."
Other organizations listed by the UCS included the Media Research Center (MRC), the parent organization of Cybercast News Service. The report said the MRC had received $150,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.
MRC founder and President Brent Bozell said Wednesday ExxonMobil's total contribution to the MRC "represents two-tenths of one percent of our operating budget during this study period. If that influences us, we're cheap ... how is that influencing anything that we do?"
Bozell rejected allegations of funding for favors.
"I have never had a conversation - and I know no one at the MRC has ever had a conversation - with anyone at Exxon where Exxon has ever put any kind of controls or any kind of strings on any kind of contribution," Bozell said.
"Nor has the MRC ever made any kind of commitments in return for any kind of contributions. It would be professional suicide if the MRC ever did that for anyone," he said.
Bozell called the UCS "a left-wing activist organization with a left-wing activist political agenda."
"The Union of Concerned Scientists is trying to position itself as being some kind of objective, centrist, moderate, apolitical entity when it is nothing of the sort," he said.
Wow, before long these Eviiilll oil conglomerates will reach their ultimate goal: the ability to generate pure pollution with no economically useful by-product.
This reminds me of a cartoon that was popular in the 60s, "Roger Ramjet." Roger was a bumbling super-hero who went around attempting to fight his arch-enemies, the fiendish Solenoid Robots. The latter were the creation of "an evil gang of mad scientists seeking to destroy the world for their own gain." I wonder if this is where lefties got their oil company meme.
Global warming deniers are the equivalent of holocaust deniers. At least that's what the greens are saying. That's what passes for debate from the left.
Watching too much Pinky and the Brain...?
;o)
Joe Camel. Ronald McDonald. The Exxon Tiger.
I'll give them that there may be some degree of fossil fuel involvement, or that the ozone layer may be minutely destroyed if I use hair spray, but it's like not the pressing danger they want to make it appear, and it's scary they are able to convince so many sheeple that it is.
If you think about it.
Beings with orangish hair...?
The Union of Concerned Scientists, yea, their concerned that they won't get more grant money.
Global warming is nothing but pork for scientists and politicians.
By the way, I was in a bookstore yesterday and loooked at Al Gore's book. It was written to scare the he** out of ten year olds. Total garbage.
yitbos
~smirk!~ But only after someone insisted the earth wasn't flat...
Sounds more like pro-enviro whacko's want to f _ _ k with the First Ammendment. I smell Olympia Snowe...
How dare anyone be allowed to give money to any religion but the holiest of holies; Global Warming
Suspect there are others with a worse aroma!
So, can we have an in depth study showing just who finances the Union of Concerned Scientists? Maybe communist organizations like A.N.S.W.E.R? Or George Soros? Or Hollywierd liberals like Laurie David? Where does Algore get the money to tool around the world on fast, pollution spewing jets telling us to stop polluting or we'll kill the Earth?
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
If the invisible gas CO2 doesn't get you, the corps definately will according to scaremongers.
"Where does Algore get the money to tool around the world on fast, pollution spewing jets telling us to stop polluting or we'll kill the Earth? "
FYI -
A study by the British Sunday Times tells us that so-called environmentalists pollute the earth at nearly twice the rate of an ordinary British family.
Environmental campaigners clock hundreds of thousands of flying miles on trips for pleasure and business, wrote Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor at the Times.
Bob Napier, chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund, has flown to Spitsbergen, Borneo, Washington, Geneva, and Beijing on business trips and taken a holiday in the Falklands, generating more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide.
A typical British household creates about six tons of CO2 a year.
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, flew to Malaysia, South Africa, and Amsterdam on business and took his family on holiday to Slovakia in the past year. His trips are estimated to have generated at least eight tons of CO2, wrote Leake.
Ashok Sinha, director of Stop Climate Chaos, a coalition of more than 30 groups, flew to India on holiday and to Montreal on a business trip, generating 3 tons of pollution.
“The real answer is that people must stop flying,” said Sinha. Translation: It’s okay for me to fly because I’m important but you’re not.
Gotta love it - Gore is trumpeted as a hero for spreading disprovable dis-information called facts.
Exxon-Mobil is vilified for defending themselves and telling the "other side of the story" using facts.... and this defense is called "dis-information".
Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians - and most citizens of the world - would not otherwise accept.
Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. - Global Warming The Real Agenda, by Terrence Corcoran
About Christine Stewart -
In another statement quoted by the Herald, Canada Environment Minister Christine Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. “Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world,” she said.
Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians - and most citizens of the world - would not otherwise accept. - Financial Post (Canada)
"Union of....."
'Nuff said.
UCS
National Headquarters
2 Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA
Oh, Berkely East.
Alden Meyer
Director of Strategy & Policy
Statement
"Tales of economic Armageddon from climate foes have been consistently panned by independent analyses. While the impact of global warming could be quite costly, preventive action need not be."
Expertise
global warming science, politics, and economics
international climate treaty negotiations
electricity restructuring
air pollution standards
energy policy
ozone depletion
renewable energy
Profile
Alden Meyer is director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists and director of its Washington, D.C. office. He provides general oversight and strategic guidance for UCS’s advocacy on energy, transportation, agriculture, and arms control issues. He is also UCS’s principal advocate on national and international policy responses to the threat of global climate change. In addition, Mr. Meyer works extensively on renewable energy and electricity policy issues.
Mr. Meyer has 28 years of experience on energy and environmental policy at both the national and state and local levels. Before coming to UCS in 1989, he served as executive director of four national organizations: the League of Conservation Voters, Americans for the Environment, Environmental Action, and Environmental Action Foundation. Before that, he worked as a policy analyst on electric utility issues and nuclear power economics for the Environmental Action Foundation, and as energy issues coordinator for the Connecticut Citizen Action Group.
Mr. Meyer has testified before Congress on energy issues, and has authored numerous articles on climate change, energy policy, and electric utility and nuclear power issues for both environmental and general-interest publications. He has served on several federal advisory panels, including the secretary of energy’s advisory board.
Mr. Meyer received his undergraduate degree from Yale in 1975, concentrating in political science and economics. He received a Master of Science degree in human resource and organization development from American University in 1990. While
LOL
With its Vestal Virgin High Priestess Gaia and High Priest Algore.
"Oh, Berkely East.
Union of..."
Bwahaha, good ones!
Hey now, careful.....some of us actually admit to living in Berkeley East...er...Cambridge.
I've got a cousin in Baltimore. He's gay.
Who's gay?
Your cousin,....
or Baltimore?
;^)
Yep. But not in an overt way.
BTTT!
The report referred to in the letter was just released this week. The letter indicated it would come out in November. Oops.
Guess the Union of Concerned Scientists needed to wait for Pelosi and Senate to get sworn in. Didn't want any immediate hearings by Republican controlled committees (they wouldn't be invited to testify).
yitbos
If I remember correctly, the first rule of rhetorical communication is that if one can't win an argument based on the merits, one must discredit one's opponent.
Also, shame on those scientists. They should be challenged on a daily basis. That's what makes strong science. My question is why are they so afraid of outsiders collecting and analyzing new data? Second opinions are valuable for a reason!
I swear there's something in the water in the People's Republic of Cambridge, Mass. I suspect PCP. If you ever drive through there, you'll think so too.
Exxon Mobile is a multinational company owned by widows, orphans, retirement funds and investors around the world. Their job is to find raw materials and produce energy products and chemicals. It is not Exxon's job to save the planet, it is Exxon's job to protect it's profits for it's shareholders.
If there is an answer for this mess (if there is a mess) it will come from the resources of companies like Exxon not groups like UCS (one of the organizations most responsible for there being no new nuclear power plants in the USA) decrying companies that will not toe their party line.
Peace be upon it.../s
Union of Concerned Scientists Issues False, Misleading Report
A few simple questions to ask liberal 'friends' about Global Warming:
*Why is Greenland named Greenland?
*What was the Medieval Warm Period?
*What was the solar activity during that period?
*What is the solar activity (brightness) today?
For those not familiar, here is a Wiki link to get you started
From the article you cited:
"It is said that Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find the land that was rumored to be to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grænland ("Greenland"), possibly in order to attract more people to settle there. Greenland was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") on early maps. Whether Green is an erroneous transcription of Grunt ("Ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not known. It should also be noted, however, that the southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is indeed very green in the summer."
What was the Medieval Warm Period?
A period of warmer climate preceding the Little Ice Age.
What was the solar activity during that period?
Judging from data that can be gathered, about the same as today.
"In March 2002 he [Ebell] wrote a memo to Philip Cooney, which Greenpeace later obtained,[10] outlining their strategy for dealing with what Ebell saw as problems caused by the Climate Action Report 2002,[11] which the US government had submitted to the UN. The crucial paragraph of this memo reads:
"As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming the EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the president needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for [Christine Todd Whitman] to be fired. I know that that doesn't sound like much help, but it seems to me that our only leverage to push you in the right direction is to drive a wedge between the President and those in the Administration who think they are serving the president's best interests by publishing this rubbish."
Source: Myron Ebell
Additional supporting material: Investigation of Exxon front group (sorry, the link to the actual memo doesn't appear to be working)
Of course, Philip Cooney, who was working at the White House and who was the recipient of the memo from Ebell, left the White House to work for -- ExxonMobil.
So why am I not surprised that Mr. Ebell would opine that the UCS report is "misleading"?
It was was settled by the Vikings during the Medieval warm period. The settlement was no different from any other European village with traders, craftsmen, farmers and even a church. Yes it is true that the name Greenland was used to a certain degree to attract people but the fact of the matter is the people stayed because it really was a "green" and fruitful place to live during the MWA. This all changed when the little ice age hit all of Europe.
The climate in Greenland in particular changed so drastically that Viking livestock had to be housed in barns for 7 months out of the year because of the cold. Crops could not be grown and the trading ships from other European countries could not sail in the waters around Greenland because it was full of ice most of the year.
So yes the name was used as PR to get people there but once there they stayed, because it was a pretty nice place to live. Climate change, caused by the sun changed the temperature of the earth and drove the vikings from Greenland. Many of them died of starvation.
My guess is that what caused the warming and cooling of the earth 500 years ago is the force that is causing it today.
Unfortunately the Marxist environmentalists of today, much to their consternation, can't control the sun. What they can do however is blame climate change on the Industrialists while ignoring the over riding factor of Climate change, the sun.
My guess is that what caused the warming and cooling of the earth 500 years ago is the force that is causing it today.
The scientific community is indicating very strongly that your guess is inaccurate.
My parents are liberals and they totally buy into this junk. We can't even talk about half the things on the news or we will fight.
I'm sad to say I've got a 33-yr-old daughter and a 39-yr-old SIL who refuse to consider politics and its affect in their lives. And he's a UAW worker!
Democrats = one thing and one thing only: tax and spend. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand this takes money out of circulation. Raising the min. wage is nothing more than a shell game.
D-uh.
Democrats = one thing and one thing only: tax and spend. You don't need a PhD in economics to understand this takes money out of circulation. Raising the min. wage is nothing more than a shell game.
I think there are many flavors of Democrats. My dad was in the UAW for 20+ years and to him the Party means one thing and one thing only. Labor. To my Dad the laborer is on the moral high ground in this country. He has always viewed his employee as the rich bad guy from which it is the union's job to extort money.
To the baby aborting feminist the party is about Women's rights. To the tree hugger the party is about Mother Earth. To the Homo the party is about sexual promiscuity. Oh what a wretched party it is.
Oops, how could I forget. To Nancy and the women that support her the party is about.....the chillllldren.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.