The Guardian reports

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.

These include the International Policy Network, a thinktank with its HQ in London, and the George C Marshall Institute, which is based in Washington DC. In 2004, the institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

“There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate,” it said.

In the letter, Bob Ward of the Royal Society writes: “At our meeting in July … you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge.” …

A spokesman added that ExxonMobil stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute this year.

Oh no! No more will CEI amuse us.

(Via Think Progress.)


  1. #1 llewelly
    September 20, 2006

    I wonder what effect the regular Danoing of CEI’s propaganda on blogs such as this one had on ExxonMobil’s decision?

  2. #2 Dano
    September 20, 2006


    I know I used to drive the dupes at TCS (thus CEI) crazy with all those infernal biased sciencey paper citations, making fun of their weak arguments, and pointing out the sock puppets of CEI’s Chris Horner** and Hoover’s Henry Miller.

    But as far as that goes, at that particular level there’s nothing that will change the ideologues’ minds. That’s just like whack-a-mole: knock one down and two come up somewhere else. It’s the slow erosion of their canned narrative that’s important: the

    "ahhhh, I've seen this one recycled a hundred times"

    that starts to creep into popular consciousness.

    On a different level, it’s the RealClimate-type blogs and others like it that roll up to policy-makers’ aides and thus into policy-makers’ ears that do the real direct damage.

    So it’s the combination: the slower recognition of the tired narrative (and eventually the ability to ridicule and disrupt the narrative) and the faster weight behind the professionals’ words that make a difference. Recognition, ridicule and authority together have changed the game, but at different rates.



    ** One of my great regrets is not printing the evidence I had that a CEI lawyer was behaving in such a manner – using a false name to slander and spread falsehoods…

  3. #3 Ben
    September 20, 2006

    Kinda like the $2.5 million the Joyce Foundation gives anti-gun groups to misrepresent the gun issue in America.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.