Is this the beginning of the end for deniers?

Question

Exxon have admitted they have been funding Denier groups like the George C Marshall Institute and a number of others.

"The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming."

As of this year they are going to cut that funding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels?gusrc=rss&feed=science

Answer 1

I wonder.  Clearly the believers think differently than those that seek objectivity.

Just because you follow others do you think others just follow others as well?  Do you think you can win objective scientist over with a good speech, or a bad one from someone what doesn't share your view?

Global warming believers appear to just follow others.  Do you think your smarter because the people you follow are smart?

Science should be objective.  Not until you can show a relationship between co2 and temps will I accept your dogma.

Answer 2

Deniers have changed position over the decades.

Initially the argument was that humans could not possibly be having a significant effect on climate change. Then we had to understand that solar changes are a much larger contributor. And of course we have a very long range swing from ice age to ice age, through several warming periods.

Now there is a grain of truth in some of the points deniers have made. We can see that in previous cycles the earth has gone through these heating periods and right into the ice age, with no evident human assistance. It does appear that once the earth warms up beyond some tipping point, it may continue, all on its own, until we go into a new ice age.

This is the very reason that we need to stop man made global warming, before we do pass that tipping point.

Now this does present a common ground between asserts and deniers. We are able to see that beyond some level of warming, we may have no leverage to slow, let alone stop our move into that high temperature period and following major ice age.

In reality, while there is good science to point to man made causes of a sharp increase in the greenhouse effect, there is no science available for the assertion that by ending our contribution to the greenhouse effect, we will stop global warming. We could have reached the tipping point... we really do not know what it looks like.

It makes good sense to assume we have not reached that tipping point, and leave no stone unturned to reduce our GHG emissions, just in case we may be a few years away from the tipping point. But we should be aware that our best efforts are possibly inadequate. We should expect a continuation of GW even if we are no longer causing it. The amount of GHG we have already put into the atmosphere will keep global warming going for a century or more. Deforestation and desertification will undo many of our efforts to control GHG levels.

Now we have to acknowledge that deniers who have been saying that despite our efforts we have to make plans and preparations to deal with the consequences of ongoing GW.

Answer 3

First off, I am not sure why it matters who funds a study, as long as the study is valid. If this is the case, then all studies done by the IPCC would have to be thrown out as they are obviously a biased group.

The oil companies are not dumb. They realize that the current AGW hype may allow them to increase profits by increasing oil prices. They also realize that buying into the hype provides cheap means of advertising, whether they buy it or not. I also have friends who work for power plants. They profit from the new laws requiring renewable energy by increasing energy prices.

Really the only people getting the shaft are all of us. And for a theory which has never had any scientific evidence to back it up.

Answer 4

Exxon made the same claim (to cut funding) last year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

Maybe this time, with the intelligent long-term minded pushing of the Rockefeller family it will really happen.

But the coal industry probably has even more money, political power, and incentive than the oil industry to delay any serious response to global warming.  So I suspect the Denier groups will live on.

Answer 5

It's the sun I tell you!  

Oh, I mean, you can't show the relationship between CO2 and temperature!

"misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

Who is following whom?

It appears there really is a boiler room.

My next question is now that we know there's a boiler room, are the minions who post here actually in the room, or are they just end nodes who re-transmit.

--------------------------------------...

David Adam guardian.co.uk, Wednesday May 28 2008

Nine groups have reportedly lost the company's support, including the George C Marshall Institute, the Washington DC-based think tank that asserts there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that changes in the sun, not greenhouse gases, could be responsible for rising temperatures.

A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006 the society wrote to the company to ask them to stop funding such groups.

Kert Davies of Greenpeace said: "The organisations eliminated in this latest rounds of cuts could be called the engine room of the climate sceptic industry, but if Rex Tillerson [head of ExxonMobil] is serious about his company shaking off this shameful legacy, he needs to make a wider sweep."

Greenpeace says ExxonMobil continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."

Answer 6

We're just getting started and we don't need oil companies' help.

Answer 7

For anyone who genuinely follows this issue it has been pretty obvious for a while that there was a concerted effort to try and derail the efforts of the science community. This effort to be honest hasn't really been that good as most of what i have seen is groundless rubbish

I saw one, a short while ago that suggested the ice caps of Jupiter had melted because of increased solar activity (hilarious) or Pluto is warming for the same reason, almost as funny.

The other popular one, call it a religion, or call people who think "the scientists are right" worshipers, that to me has no effect other than to show those who try to push such nonsense as idiots or 10 year olds.

I think the real reason Exxon is pulling funding is because the nonsense has proved bad for business, as in, no return for outlay, they were never going to have an effect on the science community, The majority of the general public has been convinced AGW is happening. Sites like 'answers' have a few who either believe the denier position or are being paid to push it, but really this isn't that big a deal, a popular question here gets what 10-15 replies and maybe 15-20 thumbs up or down, hardly enough to fill an elevator.

Answer 8

They're just playing games!  They want to cut oil production more than any environmentalist!   Artificial scarcity is what keeps prices high and the find all the oil they can get so their can place them is their reserves--so no one else can use it can compete and bring prices back down.  They have more oil reserves than ever!  It's horrible that they're going to be allowed to ruin the economy with $15 gas prices what it's not even worth 15 cents!!

“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline.”

--Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996

Answer 9

I am SO shocked... an oil company using its vast resources to pay for misleading information to be released by scientists to get people to question the validity of global warming...  who would have thunk it!

Starting to sound a little like the tobacco companies, right?

Companies spending years and millions of dollars to pay for misleading information about a product which kills millions of people and brings them huge profits -  no that could NEVER happen!

Answer 10

Anyone who questions the 'science' of global warming is doing the right thing.  There are powerful lobby groups promoting global warming, and using the most neanderthal examples as evidence.  So far they have proven nothing at all, and haven't even given evidence of g/w.

"Environmentalists" (that's what they call themselves) have every interest in trying to gain support, other than a true interest in the environment.  Their aim has nothing to do with science or the environment, and in truth none of these alarmists couldn't car less what happens to the Earth as long as they steal people's money.  Money that will be used to promote their foolishness even more!