Why does Exxon-Mobil fund GW skeptics with tarnished credentials?

Question

Exxon can cearly afford to buy better scientific talent than the likes of Fred Singer.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html

Some hypotheses

(A) an utter lack of respect for the intelligence of ordinary Americans

(B) a practical joke on Amarica, the result of a personal wager between managers

(C) a clever move advised by a top drawer psychology consultant to reinforce cognitive dissonance among the deniers

(D) your hypothesis???

My favorite hypothesis is (B), what's yours?

Answer 1

It never stop to amaze me the double standards that the alarmists have.  If a person is a skeptic, he is has been bought out by big oil.  Meanwhile, there are scientist who get funded by companies that stand to profit by alternative energy, but yet, somehow, they are honest.

But to have us to believe that skeptics are influenced by money is to have us believe that they are beast the likes we have not seen since Hitler.  You want us to believe that these scientists do not care about the fates of  their children and grandchildren.  They do not care about the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.  Because by purposely distorting the facts, they are influencing public opinion and politicians by not taking measures to stop global warming.

Answer 2

Why did (past tense) might be a better way to start your question. It is unfortunate that media and activists are so quick to condemn a company for its actions and when they change to meet the eco-n***s terms, the companies receive almost no recognition for the change. Exxon/Mobil ended financing of skeptics back in late 2006. Whoever gave you the outdated news failed to let you know they have stopped. Of course a company like Exxon would fund research for cases against AGW because it will cost them millions to change their ways.  Maybe Exxon wanted to have an informed decision or second opinion and you are not going to get an objective view from IPCC who's existence depends on global warming.  I know if I were running a corporation and I was told to make billions of dollars worth of change I would like a second opinion. It is unfortunate they are connected to one scientist like singer, but there are many reputable scientist they did work with that do honest work, even if us lay people do not like what they say. Exxon has since decided to work with the AGW community and try to find livable solutions. We may never know if they believe in AGW now or if they are bending to political pressure, but they are changing.  How about you give them some props for the change instead of using old news to bash them.

Answer 3

Funny.  I think you've seen "Trading Places" one too many times.  My favorite part is the where they showed a magazine (the wager was placed over an article in it) that looked just like "Scientific American" with a slightly different name.

Maybe its the Illuminati.  I'll go with - Need to control the information flow to the masses.  If everyone suddenly realized how far up **** creek we are there would be panic.

Here's some trivia for you.  Solebury, Bucks county Pennsylvania, had a Standard Oil depot in the early part of the 20th century.  The ground and groundwater is still contaminated from spills of 70-80 years ago.  How do I know this?  1) My mom remembers occasionally lightning would hit the tanks causing fires and spills.  2) The local paper occasionally has stories about homeowners who have to abandon wells.

Answer 4

And the moon landing was a hoax too.

WE know the truth though.  We've got our tin-foil hats on.

They cant fool us, can they d/dx?

Answer 5

D.  The same reason GW supporters continue with their clearly agenda-driven Hansen character.  Good science accepts denial, it gives the science further reason to re-evaluate the "data" onhand.

Bob, Gore does stand to make a whole bunch of money from this, he has the market cornered with his companies (affiliated with GIM).  The future is in alternative energy, whether people need the global warming scare or not to admit this.  He already set himself (and generations of his future family) by being the first to step into the alternative energy game.  When it comes to science, he knows very little (except for what he is told).  When it comes to business, he made a VERY smart move.  He used an emotional argument to speed up the process of transition over to alternative energy.  Simple fact is he will make a h**l of a lot more with the future revenues of his GIM company than he does sitting on boards or giving speeches.

Answer 6

C sounds good to me.

Answer 7

Mostly D - most scientists are not for sale.  They're not going to sell out the planet to make a quick and dirty buck.  As I'm sure you know, if they were in it for the money they wouldn't have become scientists in the first place.

Also A - I believe the quote goes "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".  Many people cannot differentiate between a scientific hack like Singer and a brilliant scientist like Hansen, as is evident from many of the global warming denier answers in this section.

Answer 8

Exxon will be a big contributor to solar and wind because we have seen the peak of oil and they want to be a player long into the future.

Today here is what we know:  many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more destruction.  Blacktop (roads and parking lots), buildings, air pollution (causes lung and other diseases), deforestation, duststorms (which increase hurricanes and cyclones and cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's), solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels) are human problems we need to fix to keep life on earth sustainable! The federal government needs to adopt a pollution surcharge to balance the field and advance new technologies. We must pay the real price of oil (petrochemicals) including global warming, cleanup and for health effects. But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with little evidence! The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes. But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and they form clouds cooling earth but causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). But humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms. The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small one all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected.

Answer 9

D) - Good scientists refuse to fake it.

At one point they offered scientists $10,000 to dispute the IPCC report.  Nobody took them up on it, the publicity was rotten, so they withdrew the offer.

Scientists have a strong value about faking research.  One scientists' grad students were concerned that the scientist had faked data.  They talked among themselves, and the prevailing view was that reporting it would end THEIR careers, or at least severely damage them.  They went ahead and reported it.  And they were right.  Most left the field, a few started over from scratch on their research losing years of work.

But they reported it.

eric c - Reasonable argument.  But consider that there are many billions at stake in denying global warming and continuing use of fossil fuels, and far less in supporting the theory.  But I'll grant you that most scientists who are "skeptics" are honest.  I honestly don't know about Singer.  He once was a serious and respected research scientist, but for the past 10 or more years his sole work seems to be in denying global warming, often with pretty dubious arguments.

Accusing Al Gore of being in this for the money is especially silly.  He's a rich man who could make far more money sitting on corporate boards and giving speeches on most anything else.  To say he supports global warming theory for financial reasons is absurd.

Answer 10

A lot of "A"

example "While it is true that greenhouse gases keep the planet about 33 degreesC warmer that it would be without them, the hypothesis that an increase in one of them, CO2, will lead to catastrophic warming is highly speculative at best."  Tim Ball Ph.D.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personf...

A bit of "B"

Some of "C" and

D, They know many sceptics and deniers don't care about credibility as long the guy is saying the things they want to hear.  If that person can put PhD (it doesn’t matter the discipline i.e.: Bjorn Lomborg Ph.D. Political Science) behind their name, all the better in their eyes.