Why did ExxonMobil cut funding to Global Warming denialist organizations?

Question

Looks like even the oil companies are retreating from their denialist funding.

But looking at this forum, it could be that they have been so successful brainwashing the public into believing that real science is "propaganda" and political punditry from paid entertainers is "the TRUTH", that they find no need to fund the misinformation campaign anymore, despite the highest profits in human history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

Answer 1

Maybe the reason is they have more important things that concern them such as heightening prices of oil, or the fact that they may lose their tax break.  Maybe it has nothing to do with global warming

Answer 2

I can't imagine why they would even care about funding Global Warming denialist organizations. The worldwide demand for oil will just continue to grow, their profits are higher than ever and if Obama gets elected and increases taxes on them, as he has suggested, they will just pass it on down to us.

If the lawsuits happen, the costs will get passed down to us as well.

Dr. House, Have a look at this:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test...

Answer 3

Nownow.  sounds like you have bought into the new religion and feel the need to convert others as well.  Misinformation comes from all sides.

As for propaganda, I never heard big oil talk about reaching the children and convincing them because adults aren't accepting the greenhouse concept (which is something I heard David Suzuki (a well known and generally well respected canadian environmnetalist) say the other day on the radio). Now, if that doesn't strike you as wanting to do some brainwashing, perhaps you and I think differently.

I never bought into big oil's ideas any more than I bought into big environment's ideas.  There is a bit of truth in both sides, yes, but neither seems to have the truth market cornered.  You want to talk slick propoganda, watch "an inconvenient truth".  Lots of distortions in that wonderful little docudrama.  Also some truth, but you need to have a questioning mind to tell the difference.

Answer 4

Exxon does not care who is elected --- they give BIG BUCKS to both political parties-- actually they only cutoff a few organizations and still fund many others.

It's called "Marketing" your product. McDonalds does the same thing by offering "salads" and "fruits" on the menu.

EDIT-- I notice thumbs down? OK here is EXXONS POLICY for political contributions:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/File...

and here is their party contributions for OIL and for Exxon-- yes they give more to Republicans but 1.2 million to Democrats is NOT chicken feed!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary....

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=...

Answer 5

Unlike other oil companies Exxon has never considered investing in research in renewable energy. (BP and Shell have very active and successful solar divisions). Exxon slyly denied  global warming at first and when it became more andmore apparent that this phenomenon was a fact they published their research on cleaner burning of fossil fuels. Cleaner burning and increased consumption. Since the Al Gore successes and the green movement gathering a tremendous momentum, they are lamely trying to hop on the bandwagon. Their latest effort is to announce (through their joint venture Aramco (Saudi Arabia) that Saudi Arabia would increase production, a fact that is very doubtful in view of the exhaustion of their main field.

Answer 6

Who in their right mind thinks the global warming scare mongering has hurt Exxon Mobil.  It is likely to wipe out one of their chief competitors, coal.  The extremist environmental movement has been successful, at least partially, in getting their propaganda out there demonizing all energy except maybe that generated by hampsters.  If they are any more successful, our children and grandchildren will look back and marvel at their astonishing ignorance.

Answer 7

Because Janet Reno was going to drive her Cat D-11R into the nearest 7-11 if Condoleeza did not cut funding!

Dumpster Muffin 2008 Whoohoo!!

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/19/onl...

Answer 8

The tobacco companies found that funding denial led to stream of large product liability lawsuits.  As the effects of global warming become more prominent, those most injured will turn to the courts to recover damages and Exxon's current record profits will pay for future record court settlements.  Exxon is belatedly trying to reduce its future liabilities.  In defense, Exxon will try and argue that it cut funding for denial before irreversible damage was done.  Sorry Exxon, too little too late.

Answer 9

Environmental alarmism isn't science, it never has been.  Alarmism for the sake of alarmism is nothing to do with objective science even if the people advocating it happen to have scientific qualifications.

Answer 10

They were pressured to do so by the public and the Rockefellers.  We all know that ExxonMobile has become synonymous with denial, misinformation, and propaganda.  That can't be good for business.

Ironically, just the other day I saw a commercial for Exxon touting how they were researching battery technology.  That just cracked me up.  I was just like 'yeah Exxon, you're the model of a green company!'.  So ridiculous.

Answer 11

Because of the media spotlight that is on ExxonMobil right now due to high gas prices.  They don't want any more negative publicity, warranted or unwarranted, that would result from contributing to controversial organizations.  It is just like how any politician, Republican or Democrat, will disavow statements by a controversial supporter and distance themselves from that person.

Answer 12

I don't know. Good question....

Answer 13

They have to listen to their owners:  The shareholders.  As per your link:

"The move comes ahead of the firm's annual meeting today in Dallas, at which prominent shareholders including the Rockefeller family will urge ExxonMobil to take the problem of climate change more seriously."

It's a shame there are no scientists in the Rockerfeller family...

Answer 14

Denialist isn't a real word.

I suspect the reason is public relations.

Answer 15

Public Relations, I would assume. But realistically, this is an enormous company. Absolutely enormous. It could be any reason in the world.

It's probably the same reason big investors sell off stock and you wonder what they know that you don't. They could know that the company's going under or they could just want a new Malibu beach house.

Answer 16

My guess is that oil Exxon was given two choices -

1) Cut funding as ordered or

2) Be thrown into jail, and the democrats will take over your company.

It doesn't matter that they cut funding to research groups as the liberals already stated their goal to throw people in jail for speaking up against the false science of AGW and they have already stated their goal of nationalizing the oil industry.

Working for an oil company today is like being Jewish in the 1920's Germany.