Illustrative Image
Written by Dr. Binoy Kampmark
Villains often have the best tunes. In some cases, they also have the best evidence. The tendency in the latter is to suppress or distort that evidence if it is contrary to their interests. Exxon, now ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil and gas company, has revealed, much like tobacco companies of the past, that excellent research that might prove costly to profits is best suppressed. Destroying ecological systems and ravaging mother nature are secondary considerations.
In the 1970s, it was already engaged in research of farsighted worth. As a co-authored study published this month in Science shows, the scientists in the employ of Exxon between 1977 and 2003 correctly predicted the rate of temperature rises as a result of carbon emissions, accurately predicted that anthropogenic global warming would be detectable by 2000 (within a 5 year margin) and even went so far as to throw in reasonable estimates as to how much carbon dioxide would lead to dangerous levels of warming.
In 2015, internal documents revealed that the company was already chewing over the issue of climate change in the latter part of the 1970s. In July 1977, senior scientist James Black stated that there was “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from burning of fossil fuels.” What followed was ominous. The current state of thinking held “that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
The documents also showed that, between the 1970s and 1980s, scientists were brought in to participate in a research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and modelled climate change impacts. Exxon even went so far as to fork out $1 million on a tanker project to assess the absorption rates of carbon dioxide in oceans.
At the time of these revelations, the company, now ExxonMobil, unleashed its public relations battalions to douse the fires. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they [the investigators of InsideClimate News] suggest,” complained ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers to Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me most is that we’ve been saying this for years, and that we have been involved in climate research.” Shocking indeed.
Jeffers went on to blame those cheeky investigators for going down and pulling “some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and selective use of materials.” The insinuation here: the company was being punished for its transparency and hounded by those nasty cherry-picking greenies and gossips.
ExxonMobil can hardly dispute the latest assessment of its quantitative climate change projections by Geoffrey Supran of Harvard University, along with his colleagues. Supran and his co-authors, on examining the documents, found that accuracy, in terms of predicting rates of global warming, was in the order of 63 to 83 per cent. They even go so far as to regard such predictions as skilful.
As Supran describes it, the projections were so accurate they proved “consistent with subsequent observations” and on par with independent models. Admiration is expressed for the scientific fraternity. “Excellent scientists modelled and predicted global warming with shocking skill and accuracy, only for the company to spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.” Supran is silent on the moral culpability for those same scientists who continued to benefit from the employ of the company, raking in benefits yet publicly muzzled.
Parallel universes thereby functioned in the laboratory and in the company boardroom. The lab results were troubling, even disconcerting, though Supran is overly generous in suggesting that those working there “contributed quietly to climate science.” The boardroom grew increasingly belligerent in denying the broader implications of the research. All were compromised.
The public face of the endeavour was typified by a strategy that simultaneously spoke about positive efforts being made to mitigate climate change effects while claiming that the science on the issue was not settled. In April 2000, Exxon published a number of Op Eds across the United States with such titles as “Do No Harm”, “Unsettled Science”, “The Promise of Technology” and “The Path Forward on Climate Change.”
In his introduction to a booklet outlining the pieces, then CEO and Chairman Lee R. Raymond sums up the hedging mood. “As you will read, we believe that climate change may pose a legitimate long-term risk and that much more needs to be learned about it. We believe that enough is known to address climate change through responsible actions now, but not enough to impose unworkable short-term agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, which would adversely affect the well being of people everywhere in the world.”
The following year, an ExxonMobil press release pursued the lack of consensus theme, suggesting that “during the 1970’s [sic], people were concerned about global cooling.” In 2003, US Senator James Inhofe revealed the influence of the fossil fuel lobby – he had received to date $2.3 million in campaign contributions, including from ExxonMobil – by parroting the idea that the science on anthropogenic global warming was “far from settled”.
Now, as in 2015, ExxonMobil’s response is nothing but disingenuous. “Those who suggest ‘we knew’ are wrong,” yet another spokesperson claimed in a statement. “Some have sought to misrepresent facts and ExxonMobil’s position on climate science, and its support for effective policy solutions, by recasting well intended, internal policy debates as an attempted company disinformation campaign.”
The denial flies in the face of knowledge across the entire fossil fuel industry, including other companies such as electric utilities and the motor companies GM and Ford. The approach there is sly and dissimulating. Our scientists told us one thing, but our communications team prefers to tell you something else.
What Supran and his colleagues have shown us is that the very companies responsible for carbon emissions can be hoisted by their own petard. As they put it, “bringing quantitative techniques from the physical sciences to bear on a discipline traditionally dominated by qualitative journalistic and historical approaches offers one path to remedying this blind spot [regarding climate lobbying and propaganda by fossil fuel interests].” Ignorance was never a good defence, but it has now been entirely scuppered.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
climate change, lol all those hoaxes :D
More “World reset” propaganda from the contemptable creatures who believe they own us.
Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you want to call it is caused mostly by our Sun’s behaviour – not by the amount of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere, which, incidentally, is presently at some of it’s lowest levels in all of Earth’s existence.
– Climate change and global warming are two separate things – No shit the sun has influence – but so does CO2 which is a heat trapping gas as established 200 years ago. – The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is near some of the highest actually and when it was higher (millions of years ago) there were no humans dipshit.
Is it “global warming” or is it “climate change”? I think you are confused. Only schizophrenics look outside and see “global warming”. CO2 is good for the environment. And you are either corrupt or stupid, or both.
It is actually global government.
Climate change and global warming are two separate things my retarded friend, lol.
but Clyde told us that climate change is a story made up by Jews?
Clyde was right. He told the truth but ended up on a Clinton list
Carbon exists freely in nature and there is CO/CO2 in the atmosphere and you will never be rid of it but you can plant trees and grasses and they will reduce it because photosynthesis happens and in that process plants take in CO2 and give off oxygen. Plant more plants for the win.
You are aware everyone knows that already, the concern is the exponential sudden release of co2 into the atmosphere which causes an inbalance in the atmosphere. This as the name suggests causes a global warming effect. Now the earth has always naturally reached that state however it has never been artificially achieved at this rate. Such an effect would cause unpredictable changes in a time frame humans and nature cannot adapt too. This will cause a drastic shift in the natural cycle and could lead to mass extinction in all species. By the time the planet adjusts itself to such sudden changes it might be too late as the climate cycle is very sensitive and everything might become permanently dead. The earth may resemble something like mars. Sure we can and should plant more trees to combat this issue, however there’s a finite amount of trees we can already plant given we need more and more land for a growing population.
Yawn… So wrong it’s worthy of mockery, but since your response is a form of self mockery in its own right, fumbling out excuses and sounding so unscientific, you deserve an exemption from ridicule… Sadly reading it is like watching a climate cultist smashing his head into the wall cause he believes it will stop climate change, is surely the same sodden fool who got medicated with “safe and effective” bioweapons jabs. Truly, I pity thee. A drastic shift…ROFLMFAO.
Are you suggesting that the millions of tonnes humans put into the atmosphere should not be reduced and planting trees will solve everything? I believe I read a report suggesting net zero would take 5 surfaces of the earth planted thick with trees to only meet net zero by 2050. Planting trees is only a small part of the solution.
What a pile of complete bs. When people know how our universe work, this kind of articles are too pathetic.
ExxonMobil makes the best oils and lubricants. Never had an engine or gear failure with them. Lasts the longest too. Saves money and environment. I send used oil for lab analysis.
I wonder, how much do the libtard influencers pay SF for AgitProp article like that?
You can access the leaked documents from Exxon Mobile yourself. You’re a document denier as well as a climate one?
Yup, AGW is like debating Palestina, everybody have an opinion, but few know the truth, like the idiotic Anti-semetism, it simply cant be more twisted than just that and stil, people belive the fake Joos. Tell me, how is that possible. You even go to jail for stating bloody obvios facts. I can give you charts upon charts, witch tells us this AGW is pure manure. They lie about everything, all the time.
Climate deniers (like yourself) often use charts created using data from climate scientists who can actually read the charts and don’t misrepresent their own science. Isn’t it pathetic that Climate deniers not only can’t get their own measurement, but they have to lie about the ones scientists present.
ExxonMobil is one of the companies which got it’s hands on shares of Libyan oil after NATO terrorists overthrew Gaddafi, so it’s hardly surprising they’d be evil, same in Iraq.
It is all controlled. Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin.
Coin? Somebody mentioned coin…………where is this coin? Is it a gold coin?
A common coin. It is a saying.
Well, no. Communism is a far different coin and anyone with a thread of intellect can see that.
No, it is not different.
Baffled… The level of mental gymnastics needed to blame the innocent is truly pathetic. Does a restaurant in Bradford get a fine for dumping curry in the Bradford Beck or does the city track down and fine the individual customers? Well green air initiatives, and climate change cultism is exactly that. Blaming the innocent for the crimes of the guilty and or poorly regulated. The corporate governance is to blame, don’t put me in a 15 minute city for the sins of the corporate criminals or that city will get razed in 10 minutes and the lamp posts decorated with corrupt city councilors and their corporate collaborators. A big F you to all the WEF appologists out there…you derive a salary from Satan, go to hell where y’all belong and take your blue haired banshees with ya.
Another climate denier who didn’t read the article let alone the research paper I take it? Typical ignorant science deniers.
Globalist propaganda.
Climate change is global – the term “Globalism is steeped in antisemitism” Science can be checked and Climate change is real. Climate deniers squeal like piglets when presented with the science because it’s complicated and refutes their Bullshit.
Climate change has forever existed. It is used as an excuse by neo-Malthusians in order to stunt growth. We are actually climate realists. Globalists are not Semites because globalists are not Arabs, Hebrews, Syrians or Mesopotamians.
Really!? Disappointing to see this filth here.
Are you a document denier? You can verify that the document exist – so you must be a document denier. Reporting on the existence of documents is filth? isn’t that journalism?
Unless the substance of the documents destroys your climate denier narrative and you’re too childish to own up to being wrong?
This Paper is the Achilles’ heel in Climate denier narrative, and judging by the comments – Climate deniers are tripling down with stupid.