Exxon Offered $10k to Scientists to Debunk U.N. Global Warming Report

That's the same as somebody who's a professor at Harvard because Harvard receives money from the National Academy of Sciences......

 

Ask Hayesstreet.

 

well, increased hurricane strength has been linked to climate change aka global warming. so in that sense a company that tries to persuade people into thinking that global warming is false and actually contributes alot to the problem has alo to do with katrina.

 

ah. My sarcasm detector was not well tuned this morning apparently.

 

So:

(a) anyone who works for, or has ever consulted for, or is associated with an organization that has ever received funds from Exxon is 'debunked?' That's dumb. It's like saying all paid expert testimony is unacceptable. It is interesting that one side of the debate testimony from people at non-profits are above reproach, but testimony emerging from non-profits on the other side of the debate are obviously bought. Crazy.

(b) Lindzen couldn't agree on terms for a bet. Brings to mind the famous Simon/Ehrlich bet scenario. Simon challenged Ehrlich to a bet revolving around Ehrlich's claims of future resource scarcity. Ehrlich never would take the bet. I guess that means there never will be resource scarcity! Whew!

(c) a layman doesn't understand his explanations. SC, I can appreciate your position but then again Lindzen is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. I'm not, or maybe I could explain in. Failing that, no offense, I think we'd have to defer to Lindzen.

Two things: this just goes to answer the 'peer reviewed' portion of the debate, and also the 'show us how the supposed 'consensus' is stiffling other views point. Not surprising that when an example is given it is written off as sour grapes. Lindzen is well published (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html), so I don't think it is a matter of him not being able to get an article out there, but rather of the subject.


Those are really compelling arguments.

 

Lindzen is a professional GW denier, it is his livelihood. It's the only reason why you know his name.

No, it wasn't that he couldn't agree on terms, it's that he couldn't agree on odds. 20 to 1? He's saying there's only 5% chance that he's right in his contention? It hurts his credibility severely- especially since he claimed that he would take any bet.

YOu do realize he claims that there is effectively no net global warming at all right? This is the guy who you are lining up behind and deferring to. HOw do you reconcile this with your pro-global warming views?

Or maybe we can defer to the vast majority of scientists in the field (who also hold professorships) who think he's talking out his ass completely.

Once again, this is the classic distortion technique that GW Deniers (and Hayesstreet when he is in arguing mode) likes to use - present the opposing views as if they're of equal weight and value and support and credibility. When in the scientific community they are simply not.

 

I thought he was a professor at MIT? Is that not true (I don't know for sure but that is what he's listed as)?

That's one version. We don't really know either that he claimed he would take any bet or that odds were the sticking point.

I thought the article was interesting because it addressed the 'peer reviewed' point. That was the reason I posted it.

I don't. I'm not sure how to reconcile the data that shows cooling either.

I was talking about SC's specific challenges. If we had testimony from other 'experts' making SC's challenges then they would certainly have to be taken into account.

Not really. It is more of presenting the alternate views to the alleged consensus. That I have already stated that I defer to the consensus doesn't mean I dismiss out of hand any alternate viewpoints. I think that is the more prudent of possible positions. I allow for the possibility that there are 'scientists' who don't agree with the 'consensus.' You and rhad don't. To you anyone who disagrees merely says so for money.

 

Oh, I get it Hayes.

What we are looking for here is scientific consensus. I get it. We need 100% certainty to believe something true. Any objectors, even those linked to industries with considerable investments in the results, are indicative of a lack of said certainty, and therefore the argument is unwinnable. Furthermore, since the effects are under such scrutiny it makes no sense to be conservative and address the issue based on a moderately worst-case scenario put forth by the consensus. Of course not - the rational thing to do would be to debate it endlessly under the guise of the aforementioned "lack of complete scientific consensus" while conditions continue to detiorate. I get it. I get it Hayes, you believe in global warming, just not the alarm it is raising in the scientific community. Your motive? You want a sense of purity - a consensus beyond any doubt; 100% or nothing. I get it. Although the alternative view supported by the likes of Lindzen and his "science" is an impressively small minority of the scientific community, their arguments are worthy of the same level of merit. I get it. The purity argument is double edged - it makes winning an argument damn near impossible, and makes all views equal in spite of the actual percentages. I get it.

I wish this standard had been applied to past scientific concern - there was no reason for managers of the shuttle program to listen to engineers concerned with debris strikes on STS-107; after all, there was not a complete consensus on the effects. Actually, I recommend such a standard be applied always! Weather forecasters have a hard time predicting the paths of hurricanes, and there is disagreement among experts, and among the models. I suggest from now on we remain inactive until there is 100% consensus on the paths of hurricanes. Evacuation is for alarmists. Volcanic eruptions are not predictable either, and our data collection is only from the last 100 or so years. There is no reason to listen to concern from geologists - after all, they lack a consensus! I get it now. I really do.

I get it.

 

Possibly no but shouldn't a scientist be able to present a rational explanation to potential questions like these? Lindzen might be right but pardon me if I don't take him on faith and for that matter many other scientists don't take him on faith either. What is it about Lindzen that is supposed to make him more believable than scientists who hold the opposite especially when a layman like myself can spot some glaring problems?

When most of the article is about how you and other scientists who share your viewpoints are being silenced that strikes me as sour grapes.

 

But don't you find it problematic that a layman would almost immediately find a problem with his science? As I said I'm not a climate scientist but consider myself well read. As layman to layman leaving out your opinions on Lindzen's expertise do you agree that the issues I raised are a flaw in Lindzen's argument?

 

[bogus source voice]wikipedia isn't exactly the be all, end-all resource out there[/bogus source voice]

Hayes, don't know if I got the same thing you are talking about, but I thought I had remembered that story a little differently, and according to wikipedia, I had:

The bet was taken, and moreover, Ehrlich lost.....which would make the comparison even worse for Lindzen if he actually did take the bet.

 

I don't think you do get it, although you did say it enough. I didn't say we should fail to act unless we were 100% certain. I said we should be open to alternate views. That I said in the beginning that I believed (in general) the consensus should have been a clue to that, but I also leave room to challenge the consensus both as it is portrayed and in its findings. Not only do you discount alternate theories because of the funding source, but you discount them because they are reprinted on a particular site.

I'm sure he could answer your challenges. I can't but even you admit they are basic questions so I would imagine he could.

I wouldn't expect you to take him on faith, my point was merely that when comparing his position with your challenges I would defer to him since he is a scientist at MIT, is well published (has been in the ballyhoo'd peer reviewed journals since the 60s), etc etc. I don't think you should believe him over other scientists on faith either, merely be open to his perspective rather than defering to the nebulous consensus. As a layman you're not really in a position to decide if there is a glaring problem or not. His answer could be fairly simple. Maybe we should email him?

Well, consider the debate we've had in this thread. One side says 'oh yeah well the 'pro-GW (although that moniker seems odd) scientists publish in peer reviewed journals.' The other says that the consensus stymies efforts of those who disagree. That phenomenon is historically possible and has happened within the 'scientific' repeatedly. This provides a scientist, well published on other issues in peer reviewed journals, documenting that exact answer on this issue. I think it a bit premature to write it off as sour grapes.

That's hilarious. Never knew Ehrlich finally took the bet. I stand corrected. Not sure how it affects the point. It did take Ehrlich awhile to agree to the bet. It is interesting to note that Ehrlich was at the forefront of the 'resource scarcity consensus' though, and was wrong.

 

Ah yes, the ol' change the argument routine. Please point out where I said we should discount anything. In fact, I said:

I still think it pertinent to be vigilant of funding sources because they are indicative of bias. Simiarly, the prudent person would be suspicious of anybody or any group that has been continually shown to advocating erroneous conclusions, or conclusions bereft of supportive data.

But now you've already changed my words and will argue ad nauseum regardless of what I say.

Same ol' Hayes. Good night.

 

If this is actually your argument then I agree. But that would also mean that you would consider bias of both sides.

Not really sure about this statement. Removing for a moment the first argument about funding (which I agree you would be vigilant about) I am not sure if you can put everyone who doesn't agree with the IPCC position in this category.

Not really. You say 'it's stupid to argue that...,' 'he's a tool,' 'you should quote the leader of OPEC,' and you condemn a study because it was reprinted on a particular site. I don't think those are the same moderated positions you are taking now. But as I said, if this is your position then I don't think we have a real disagreement.

Yeah, yeah....

 

But here you are deferring to an impression of his expertise rather than engaging in a rational exercise on your own and are asking me to defer to his expertise based on his credentials in other words to take him on faith. I don't defer to pro-GW scientists on faith or credentials but from what I've seen and read about the arguments for it they make sense to me and while I find that there is uncertainty in them I feel I have a basic understanding of them.

As for emailing him I gladly would and if you have his email address feel free to pass it on to me. I will take a look on the MIT website to see if I can find it also. I am genuinely interested in what his response is.

Except that having some understanding of how the scientific process works I understand the necessity and need for peer reviewed articles, the need for ongoing challenges to accepted views and the desire to overthrow accepted views. As noted the fact that not that long ago global cooling was the accepted view shows that the scientific community isn't locked into ideas and with rational arguments based off of empiracal evidence opinions can change. It seems like sour grapes when a scientist argues that the only reason why their theory isn't accepted is that other scientist don't like them. Maybe they need to do better research.

 

From the front page of today's Houston Chronicle.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4539329.html


Exxon Mobil has no more doubts on warming


By KRISTEN HAYS
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW

RESOURCES
More on exxon
Exxon Mobil has no more doubts on warming
Pond of oil in ground has anger bubbling Big Oil behemoth Exxon Mobil Corp. has dropped any pretense of questioning whether global warming is real. Now the company is seeking to position itself as an active player in efforts to lower greenhouse gases.

"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it," Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs, told reporters on a conference call Thursday.

The call came less than a week after an international panel of hundreds of scientists said new research showed global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was primarily responsible for the most significant factor in temperature change — greenhouse gases.

"Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there," Cohen said on the call, which was arranged in part to allow Exxon to state its position on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report.

When pressed, Cohen said "there is no question that human activity is the source of carbon dioxide emissions," and emphasized that Exxon is working with various policy groups and universities to find ways to produce energy while lowering greenhouse gases.

Cohen's statements appeared to be the most definitive yet in the company's effort to show Exxon cares about climate change and wants to do something about it.

It's a far cry from former CEO Lee Raymond's rigid stance on the issue in the late 1990s, when he questioned science that linked fossil fuels to global warming. Raymond acknowledged in a 2000 speech that climate change caused by carbon dioxide emissions was a "legitimate concern."


'Certainly have mellowed'
Upon succeeding Raymond as CEO last year, Rex Tillerson labeled climate change a serious issue. He later said the company needed to soften its public image and better explain its stance on global warming.
"They certainly have mellowed somewhat," said Art Smith, chairman and CEO of John S. Herold, an energy research and consulting firm. "They took a pretty hard stance that everyone else was wrong about this."

Chris Miller, a global warming campaigner for Greenpeace, said Exxon had little choice but to embrace climate change as genuine because too much scientific data exists for the company to credibly say otherwise.

"It just became too difficult for them to say that with a straight face given everything we know," Miller said. "They are finessing this position, and they have done so since Tillerson took over."

Cohen, who oversees Exxon's charitable giving, also addressed Exxon's funding for think tanks.

The company came under fire when environmental groups said that one think tank that received Exxon funding, the American Enterprise Institute, had offered scientists $10,000 to critique the IPCC study. AEI said it was focused on global warming policy, not science.

But Cohen said Thursday that Exxon has stopped funding a "small handful" of think tanks involved in climate change policy discussions because the ensuing criticism was a distraction.

"We did that because we felt some of the attention being devoted to the issue was diverting attention from what we wanted to be focusing on," which Cohen said was a need for global action to reduce emissions.


Not focusing on renewables
In a speech last year, Tillerson promoted reducing emissions through coal-fired plants that spit fewer gases into the air and more fuel-efficient vehicles. The company also is studying the viability of carbon storage and dedicating scientists to find technologies to cut emissions.
Cohen said that's Exxon's focus because 80 percent of the world's energy comes from oil, natural gas and coal, a situation that isn't expected to change in the next 20 years despite the growth of renewables backed by government subsidies.

Sherri Stuewer, Exxon's global vice president of health, safety and environment, who joined Cohen on the call, said Exxon isn't seeking to pour money into renewables despite such efforts by its peers because they aren't currently viable without subsidies. Stuewer said Exxon has had solar and nuclear initiatives in the past that proved unprofitable.

"Our interest is in being in energy options that are successful," she said.

 

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

ExxonMobil breaks own record for profit for 2nd straight year

If ExxonMobil doesn't want to invest in renewable energy technology for economic reasons then fine, but don't imply that the the lack of taxpayer money is why they can't do it.

What a bunch of assholes.

 

agreed..that's an absolute joke.

 

Not really. You want them to invest in finding something that's going to put them out of business?

If Exxon could find the next big source of energy that they could make money from, don't think for a second they wouldn't do it.