22 Votes

Exxon Mobil Pays Scientists $10K Each to Dispute Global Warming

Agent009 submitted on 2/2/2007 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 12:00:31 PM

39 user comments | Category: Spy Shots | Source: | SOURCE: www.topspeed.com

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

Read Article

Exxon Mobil Pays Scientists $10K Each to Dispute Global Warming

About the Author

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
— Agent009 (View Profile)

User Comments

I mobile, but i will still buy gas there.
— BMWRocks (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 12:49:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Article makes me sad.
— johannas (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 1:28:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Good. There are plenty of scientists out there that dispute Global Warming on their own accord, so what if Exxon is giving them a paycheck to hear their opinions. We need a debate, not a one sided, oxymoronic "scientific consensus;" especially if it will shape International policy.

Further, if every one is so confident this is a proven, genuine problem, that would suggest it is fully understood right? I want to hear solutions then. I don’t want to see ads featuring children standing in front of trains to depict how bad of a person I am, without any real solutions to fix it. Somehow, I’m not convinced driving slower on the Autobahn and not ordering the prime rib when I go out to eat is contributing to my child’s future. Oh wait, now Phillips tells me it’s the electricity from light bulbs is one of the number one contributors to pollution, so buying Phillips light bulbs will help too. This couldn’t possibly be scare tactics, again, could it?

If that many people are convinced its that bad, I’m listening; but until I hear or see real evidence and solid solutions, the propaganda is just going to annoy me. Especially from people who’s only understanding of climatology is based solely on the same propaganda. Exxon is hardly an angel corporation; but in this case, I’m rooting for them.
— webguy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 1:56:24 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4

I admit that I have a bit more unique perspective on this: the President of my university was formerly an EVP at Exxon. You are right, they have not been angels; they have done some very naughty things before. I agree with you completely though, if that is what it takes to prompt a real debate then so be it.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 2:15:19 PM | | Votes: 1

webguy for the sake of the Earth I hope you're right in your logic. I fear you are not.

There's a difference between an honest debate and attempts to pervert discussions in order to make more money at the cost of great future distruction. I'd say the cigarette industry was not honest, and I'd bet that the oil and coal industries are not either. What evidence do I have, not much its a hunch.

Anyway the risks of controlling carbon based emissions seem to be much less than the risks of not controlling them. So I'd prefer to err on the side of much greater controls.

— MercBasher (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 2:13:53 PM | | Votes: 2

You know, there is a massive amount of unsupported suppositions and information that is blatantly incorrect on both sides of this issue. I've read repeatedly, not only only from the hippie climatologists at CU Boulder but also from other professors in the area that a majority Al Gore's book is little more than a waste of paper.

Here are some very simple facts: Methane accounts for 9% of the anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gases by the United States to the atmosphere according to the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy. Carbon Dioxide due to the combustion of fossil fuels accounts for 82%. This statistic is deceptive. Why? That 9% is 23 times more potent.

Let us assume that we have released 1000 scf [1Mscf]of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that they occur in proportion to the averages. Now do some simple mathematics 1000*.09*23= 2,070 HDI [Hypothetical damage indicator], Calculating the others [all things being equal] total yeilds 910 HDI. 2,070+910= 2,980 HDI. (2,070 HDI) / (2,980 HDI)= 69.4% damage due to Methane release. Now, in the end things aren't this simple, as the problem is not simple. There are people [Professors in Virginia study this in particular] who say what we are releasing doesn't even matter; the effect of water vapor is the dominant force they say.

You can't stick this problem into a simulator and have it give you an answer. In addition, this needs remembered: if it is called a "model" it is not a simulator. It is designed to test a hypothesis and even if the results are consistent with reality, that does not mean it is correct. A simulator is different; it is built off of first principles, but it is still limited to teh scope of its programming.

So Exxon is funding some scientists, so are environmental groups and they have agendas too. I've seen Vegan groups support research to show that the dominate driver of global warming is agriculture because fo the methane that cows produce, in order that everyone stop eating meat.

Now there are prudent things that can be done, it would be best to limit CO2 and CH4 emissions. Kyoto was not a step in the right direction. The question is, should a country not sign it, or sign it and in so doing sign their name to a lie. Compliance is abysmal. As I recall it was a year and a half ago or so and literally like 3 countries were on target. Britain, Canada, Spain, Japan: none are on target. The EU as a whole will likely not make the target by the deadline of 2010. The Germans have exempted their coal industry; something rather significant. The Canadians considered jumping over to the US supported resolution presented to ASEAN.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 2:08:30 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

What I can't understand is how can so many people still put their trust in the President on enviromental issues. This is a man who made the greatest strategic mistake of a generation [to invade Iraq].
— MercBasher (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 2:17:26 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

He has also invested the most money into climate change studies.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 3:07:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

The lobby on global warming has become so big & so good at convincing us that we have however long to change are act before catastrophe hits, to the point people look at you as if you had 3 eyes trying to dispute it. It’s a form of brainwashing & propaganda.

Now when companies like Exxon offer money to dispute what are not stone cold facts but more of a mantra, they get their heads bitten off!

Scientists who proclaim our slightly changing climate is do in part to man-made activities are making money too, I remember reading an article a couple years back saying that the polar icecaps will be gone within 30 years time, the man whom conducted that research received a million dollar reward for his studies. Another scientist challenged his study offering him double or nothing on his million 30 years from now, & of course the guy said forget it.

During the Roman Times the climate was apparently warmer, until about 500 years ago when we experienced a mini ice age. Since then the planet has been slowly getting warmer & warmer, yet we like to flatter ourselves into believing it’s mans sheer power that’s changing the climate.
— MunichRob (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 3:45:29 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

"what makes you morons think that dumping trillions of garbage into the athmosphere is perfectly normal?"

BEEP! WRONG! Do you think that comment makes sense? One of the best ways to stop global warming to to pollute large particulate matter [therefore not greenhouse gases] into the atmosphere. Why? It reflects sunlight. In fact this has been known to happen, or so they think during the K-T extinction. The comet whick supposedly hit the earth kicked up particulate matter into the atmosphere. This matter reflected sunlight and lowered teh global temperature.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 7:21:34 PM | | Votes: 1

I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw: gloval warming is not induced by pollution in general, only a very specific form of it, and it isn't particulate pollution. Of course I'm just full of global warming solutions. Do your part of stop global warming: stop farting.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 8:15:22 PM | | Votes: 1

OR better yet...

Do your part, Don't fart.

At least I think I'm funny. I should have been in marketing.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 8:17:31 PM | | Votes: 1

009, ExxonMobil is one word, FYI
— mstangpny07 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 6:06:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

have none of you guys heard the recent stories?
a. the white house influenced global warming scientists to agree with policy, ie saying it doesn't exist.

b: the UN panel for global warming has said it is "very likely" global warming is man made. that means they are 90% sure.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 6:11:41 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

This discussion really demonstrates the problem i.e. oversimplification. Even if we assume that humans are responsible, we actually don't know the origins and the relative degree fo the mechanisms that are causing it. I also want to point out that because one thing increases as another does is not indicative of a causal relationship and is not scientific inquiry. I did the math above, methane [CH4] is far more damaging than CO2. Oil companies do not realease methane to the atmosphere [they produce it and sell it], nor do they very much CO2 to the atmosphere. You, the consumer, do that.

As for oil companies after money, it costs them more to drill a well in the Gulf of Mexico than it does for NASA to send a robot to Mars. A single well may cost over $200 million US. With $10 billion is monies that is only 50 such wells.

Let me tell you this, a moderator for my honors clas a few years ago was the former CEO of TOTAL [pronouned TO'TAHL] and blatantly stated that 98% of all commerce is inherently dependent upon hydrocarbons. That is not just transportation, everything from Advil and other medicines to plastics are made with petrochemicals. The comkputers used to type these messages would not exist without oil companies. Without companies like ExxonMobile, civilization would come to a spectacular end, leaving nothing but chaos in its wake.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 7:10:10 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

What exactly then do you propose? living in teepees? The idea hopefully is that science and technology will save us, however, if you've read Peter Tartzakian's "A thousand barrels a second" you know that without radical technological innovation in the area of energy, there is no "magic bullet"
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 8:10:26 PM | | Votes: 1

What you say does have to happen. If the human race is to survive, an acceptable alternative must be found. The easiest first step in my opinion is to stop using natural gas and coal for power generation. It is just plain stupid to rule out nuclear power, it is extremely clean and utilizes very little fuel. In addition, there is now something called a "Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor" which cannot melt down, the physics don't allow it.

As far as other fuel sources, I will say that an interesting point was made by Peter Tertzakian when he came to my school to speak. That being that extreme caution should be taken in utilizing a) anything like corn or b) products whose production is contingent upon the amount of arable land because such a notion has the capacity to be dangerous. In particular, when a society begins to sacrifice higher things to lower ones on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, it has the capacity to destroy it. He said that he wouldn't go on, but that interested persons could look into Jared Diamond's books. I admit that although I have had the privalege of meeting Jared Diamond, I have not read any of his books, so I can't be more specific.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 8:56:51 PM | | Votes: 2

Sure they must made a ton of money, but the economics for those projects was done years ago, and they were expected to be no more profitable than about the companies' WACC or IRR. The bump in prices allowed them to profit nicely. Most of that will be used to further investment [probably exploration] to ensure a continued oil supply. Companies like this do pay my profession well [Petroleum engineers are the highest paid engineering profession] The starting salary for a B.S. last year from my department was almost $70,000 per annum, which was a national record. The average pay for a PE is about $115,000 per year. This, though, is a very specialized field with few people in it.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 8:06:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Oh Hillary save us...
— delan (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 9:29:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3

"renlex495" by your comments I can tell you're young and ignorant. You're the type to hear the sky is falling & believe it.

You think it's so easy to convert to wind & solar power when it's not, you don't even take into consideration what it would do to the economy which is just as important.

I would guess you weren't around for the oil crisis which we all now know was a bunch of B.S., so learning from that I'm very skeptical when it comes to the environmental lobby & their claims.

Again During the Roman Times the climate was apparently warmer, until about 500 years ago when we experienced a mini ice age. Since then the planet has been slowly getting warmer & warmer, yet we like to flatter ourselves into believing it’s mans sheer power that’s changing the climate.

The weather channel can't even get the weather for next week right, but scientists seem to know how it's going to be 30-50 years from now? Don't believe everything you learned in school renlex!
— MunichRob (View Profile)

Posted on 2/2/2007 9:49:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

You guys who are in denial, we have no choice but to shut your voices down and consign you to the political wilderness. You talk as if your words should have as much credibility as scientists who have devoted their lives to the study of the climate. Who are you? You're just a bunch of wannabe scientist nobodies with near-zero expertise on the matter. Why should anyone listen to you?

The scientific concensus is that global warming is caused by human activity. They may not know everything but they sure do know more than any of you What should we base government policy on? The scientific community or oil companies who have a monetary interest in denying global warming or a bunch of opinionated but unqualified self-appointed experts spouting off on the internet?

The melting of the ice sheets is going on faster than the climate scientist predicted 5 years ago. So much for them being alarmists.
— tundraboy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 10:34:20 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

Your comment reminds me of one very vivid example. The Monty Hall Paradox controversy. Teh Monty Hall paradox goes like this: You are on a game show where there are 3 doors. Behind one is a new car and the other two contain goats. The host asks you to pick a door. Then of the other two doors he opens one, always revealing a goat. So there are two doors left one contains a car, the other a goat, the host then asks you if you want to switch. What are the probabilities of each outcome? The American woman Marilyn Vos Savant [who incidentally has the highest I.Q. ever] recorded at 228 proposed a solution for this problem, which at first seems very simple. She was immediatly told my tons of professors and experts in mathematics from everywhere including MIT, people who had spent thier entire lives and careers studying statistics, that her solution was completely wrong. There were two doors one was a car and one was a goat and so, in both cases [i.e. if you stay and if you switch] the likelyhood that you will get the car is 1/2. This solution is completely and idiotically WRONG!

Later, it was verified that Marilyn Vos Savant's solution was completely correct. There was broad consensus among mathematicians that she was wrong: they were wrong. Marilyn Vos Savant's solution showed that the likelyhood of winning the car by staying are 1/3 and the likelyhood of winning the car by switching are 2/3. Argument by consensus is not only a argumentum ad populam logical fallacy, but it is incorrect in many cases.

Most of the so called "studies" into this matter use simplified models to test hypotheses. Models are not simulators. There is truly no such thing as an "earth simulator" at the moment. Even mathematically describing the air is exceptionally difficult. Usually we use CFD [Computational Fluid Dynamics] software to describe such fluid dynamics problems, utilizing Cray supercomputers [at my school anyway]. The problem with that is that things such as temperature are group properties. A single atom has no temperature associated with it. These temperatures affect fluid densities and thus the flow. Chaos theory comes in then. In fact chaos theory was discovered whien trying to predict weather patterns. What happens is that even the slightest exceptionally tiny variations in imput data over time become extremely dominant and relative to the actual are chaotic. That is why we can't predict the weather: we cannot be infinitly accurate.

I have never stated my denial of global warming. The inherent causes and the mechanisms causing it are not well understood. A model is not a scientific proof. I suggest that you read Dr. Eberhart's [MIT grad and prof. at my school] "why things break" page aobut 160 as I recall; he uses the global warming "studies" as and example.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 3:05:21 PM | | Votes: 1

This is in response to cdoke below:

1. This Marilyn vos Savant anecdote has been retold ad infinitum and as expected, certain details have somehow evolved. There was no broad consensus among mathematicians that she was wrong. There were no proceedings or symposia or even series of peer-reviewed papers that can lead to anyone concluding that such a broad consensus existed. You're making that part up, or you swallowed what somebody told you lock stock and barrel. There were a lot of mathematicians (who probably sat down and thought about Bayesian conditional probabilities) who agreed with her. The main error of those who claimed she was wrong was to not realize that Monty Hall would not choose a door with the prize and that fact is additional information that modified your anteriors.

2. If you wish to debunk a belief arrived at through careful, data intensive, peer-reviewed, and statistically validated methods, then use a counter-argument based on careful, data intensive, peer-reviewed and statistically validated methods. Do not use anecdotal 'evidence' like Marilyn vos Savant, and Dr. Eberhardt's book. I have not read his book but I suspect it is in the usual This-is-what-I-believe-is-the-truth genre that scientist's write for laymen. It's most likely interesting, there might even be more than a kernel of truth in it, but some other scientist could have easily written their own this-I-believe book that would say Mr. Eberhardt is flat wrong. The probability thus that Mr Eberhardt's lone voice is right and the rest of the scientific community is wrong is pretty small.

3. If you believe in the scientific method. If you believe that government policies that are informed by honest, careful science is better than those informed by junk science, private interest, and people who don't want to be told that the cars they drive are part of the problem, then you have no choice but to listen to the learned consenus on climate change and act accordingly. People can always engage in anecdotal, polemical, and even semantic arguments about why the consensus is wrong but the bottomline is if they are right then surely there should be a flood of research results to back them up. Not an odd outlier or two, but a mass of research that confirms their assertions. But there aren't any, are there?
— tundraboy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 8:59:34 PM | | Votes: 0

Errrr, I meant a reply to cdoke above.
— tundraboy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 9:01:01 PM | | Votes: 1

LOL. Who exactly do you believe you are talking to? It is true that there was no structure to the response of Vos Savants findings, but it does not matter, I suggest you look up exactly who and how many people told her she was wrong.

Had you read Dr. Eberhart's book then you would know that what he said is intimatly related to what you have just said. He expressed absolutely no opinion about any specific findings. The scientific method requires experimentation as a method of verification or negation of hypotheses. The problem is that most of the information about global warming being due to this or that is from models, and generally very simple ones. Models are not indicative of scientific inquiry. Almost all of the studies that have been produced are of an anecdotal nature and provide little anlaysis of causal mechanisms. Granted, there is a by virtue fo the situation systemic limitation. I want you to think about the following: How do scientists study this problem? Through which mechanisms are causal relationships established? Lastly, do these mechanisms provide for binary outputs? For those of us who have an education in the "hard sciences" the word "statistic" is a four letter word. They can be so easily manipulated it isn't even funny. Recognize there are immense uncertainties, we actually don't know what is even being put into the atmosphere by humans; there is no standard condition flow meter attached to every pollution emitting device, or the sphincter of every animal for that matter.

I don't think there is no problem, it is appropriate to attempt to limit what are harmful emissions. That's good policy.
— cdoke (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 9:40:56 PM | | Votes: 2

Furthermore, what the oil companies are doing is no different then what the tobacco companies did for 50 years to deny the health effects of smoking. They hire scientist-whores not really to disprove mainstream science but just to muddle the debate, inject a few dissonant voices here and there and then say "Hey, there's still some doubt about this!" We've seen the playbook, shame on us if we let it work again.
— tundraboy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 10:39:56 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2

IT'S THERE. NO DISPUTE. CASE CLOSED.

This is depressing.
— S4cabriofoxone (View Profile)

Posted on 2/3/2007 11:20:54 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

In other news, The Ford Foundation (or any other liberal group) pays scientists (through grants) to hype global warming and that human's are the cause...well, at least 90% sure...maybe.

Also, for all of you who think the UN is "king" on this issue, guess what, they also were "90%" sure Iraq had WMD's. (Actually, they document WMD's, but no one buys it now).

Anyway, there are some very bright scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions, BUT you don't hear about them. Why not? Because those groups have an agenda, just like ExxonMobil. When the debate is truly a debate and not a one sided shouting match, I'll start believing that WE cause global warming. Until then, it's some theory (we are causing) that is being pushed to punish the US economically.

In the meantime, I'll continue to drive my ULEV 4 cyl car, just in case they are right, and laugh while the global warming "hypesters" fly around in private jets (see Al Gore and all the "gw" Hollywood freaks).
— cktoo (View Profile)

Posted on 2/5/2007 12:18:50 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

WOW! This is pretty intense debate on this site I must say though it is one of the most logical debates I have read on this issue. On other sites it seams like you have a bunch of wacos just arguing back and forth.
So here is my 2 cents (I know your going to love it) I believe there is global warming. How much it is man made is up to debate. One thing I do know for sure is that at least 50% of the Global Warming community is in it for the money. There is huge money in this and a lot of these people could care less about the Earth, all they care about is the money and how much they can make. The same thing can be said about the business who don’t agree, only they stand to loose money. Let’s take the Sahara Club for example. This “not for profit” organization is making millions of dollars off the environmental debate. They are paying there “CEO’s” hundreds of thousands of dollars and there is no end in site. This organization stands to make millions of more dollars off this global warming so of coarse they are all for hyping it up and if you do not agree with them you are a terrible person or business. This is just one organization. There are many more just like them.
Like I said I do believe there is global warming. I just think that we should try to keep it under control as much as possible. I don’t want to take the chance of doing nothing and we make it worse. Solutions are what we need but all you here from the environmentalists are quit driving your car.
I know my writing skills suck so please just concentrate on what I am trying to point out. A simple solution for all is just trying to save energy as much as possible. Every chance you get try to save some energy. If everybody religiously does this it will add up very quickly.

Thank you
— SteveL (View Profile)

Posted on 2/5/2007 1:10:47 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

personally, i believe that man made global warming is an issue, but i also agree that there are A LOT of loose ends.

what about the ice/warming ages that have occurred cyclically over the last 4.5 billion years? WAAAAAAAY before cars and man!
— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 2/5/2007 5:19:40 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

Exxon Mobil Pays Scientists $10K Each to Dispute Global Warming

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles