Exxon stops funding misrepresentation of global warming science. Again.

In 2006 Exxon said that they would no longer fund organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute that misrepresent the science of global warming?

Last year we found out that they were still funding the George Marshall Institute and others.

Now Cindy Baxter reports that Exxon’s latest Corporate Citizenship report says:

“in 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

These groups include:

the Capital Research Center, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research, according to Exxon spokesman Gantt Walton.

Page van der Linden has more comments at Desmogblog.

Comments

#1 Barton Paul Levenson
June 4, 2008

Betula, thanks, but the day I need anti-AGW crackpots to give me plot points, I think I’ll shoot myself.
#2 Barton Paul Levenson
June 4, 2008

Betula posts:

I have found in life, that there are usually 2 extreme sides (like in politics) and the truth usually lies in the middle……..if I were to critisize the extreme right, does that make me extreme left? If I were to criticize the extreme left, does that make me extreme right?

Is the truth midway between Hitler and Raoul Wallenberg? Midway between slaveowners and Abolitionists? Midway between NAMBLA and little boys?

Sometimes one side is just right and the other is just wrong.
#3 Betula
June 4, 2008

“So why is your estimate different than that of the IPCC. Why are they wrong whereas you are more likely to be correct?”

It’s in the range of many reports, including the IPCC third assessment…….and I never said they were wrong and I was more likely to be correct…..I said “it’s as good as any”.

Since you seem so obsessed with proving some point you have stuck in your mind…..why don’t you “prove” beyond any reasonable doubt, that is, guarantee that my number is wrong.

If I could get a guaranteed number, I could trade it in for a new number when it is comes out or get my money back.
#4 Betula
June 4, 2008

BPL.

“Betula, thanks, but the day I need anti-AGW crackpots to give me plot points, I think I’ll shoot myself.”

Does that mean your Pro-AGW?
#5 Betula
June 4, 2008

“Is the truth midway between Hitler and Raoul Wallenberg? Midway between slaveowners and Abolitionists? Midway between NAMBLA and little boys”

That’s like saying is the truth between hotter and hottest? Is the truth between delusional and deluded? Is the truth midway between extremists and the extreme? Is the truth midway between BPL and science fiction?

Brilliant.
#6 Betula
June 4, 2008

Chris.

“Not a hypothetical. Something from observed facts.”

You observed the future?

“Not worst case. Average case.”

So Chris, you taught me that using an air conditioner causes flooding in Bangladesh.

Am I to assume that if I crank it up, the flooding is worse case, and if I lower it, is the flooding is average?

What’s the recommended setting based on observed facts?
#7 jodyaberdein
June 4, 2008

Betula.

I think you’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick. I’m not particularly fixated on this issue. It just so happens to be the first relevent factual claim in the paper you linked to earlier in an effort to show us that there is decent peer reviewed science that casts serious doubt on aspects of AGW.

I’m not sure I have to do any proving at all as I’ve not been making any claims, merely asking you why you believe this paper to be correct and the (shall we say) mainstream opinion to be wrong.

I was under the impression that AR4 had this to say about likely climate sensitivity:

‘likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values’

Presumably your 1.54 was a way of saying you agree with the statement above, and by extension you disagree with Jaworowski in his statement that:

‘This man-made 3% of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12%. Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of
this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.’
#8 sod
June 4, 2008

So Chris, you taught me that using an air conditioner causes flooding in Bangladesh. Am I to assume that if I crank it up, the flooding is worse case, and if I lower it, is the flooding is average?#

i ll repeat myself: Betula IS a strawman.

it s completely useless to argue with him. he will continue to use sources taht make completely false claims. he will continue to insist that he holds a moderate position on the issue of cliamte change. he will continue to “counter” arguments that destroy his claims by strawen.
it is just his way.
#9 Chris O'Neill
June 4, 2008

Betula:

“Not a hypothetical. Something from observed facts.”

You observed the future?

Stop being a moron.
#10 me
June 4, 2008

Stop being a moron.

Why don’t you take your own advice?
#11 bi -- IJI
June 4, 2008

Shorter “me”: CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Longer “me”: Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!

Pavlovian reflex, no doubt.
#12 me
June 4, 2008

Shorter “me”: CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Longer “me”: Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!

Pavlovian reflex, no doubt.

You went off your meds again, didn’t you?
#13 Betula
June 4, 2008

“merely asking you why you believe this paper to be correct and the (shall we say) mainstream opinion to be wrong.”

I know this is hard for you to understand, but I can only use engish to explain it……..Jaworowski’s paper is the opinion of a qualified scientist……because his opinion is different, he’s a denialist twit. I never said he was correct or the IPCC was wrong, I never said he was wrong or the IPCC was correct……..the future catastrophic events are not fact, they are opinion……if I am skeptical that all Polar Bears are dying and that all C02 is bad and that the evil rich countries need to be held legally liable for the flooding in Bangladesh…that’s my opinion….why does that keep you awake at night?

It keeps you awake because you can’t grasp how my opinion can be different from yours. What could my opinion be based on that it is different than yours? It just so happens that many people on the IPCC have different opinions…..yes there is a consensus, among scientists and politicians… that is based on different opinions coming together…..or the report would never be finalized. Was there arguing and shifting among the people involved? Was it an easy process? Well Damn all those denialist twits on the IPCC that didn’t agree there would be complete world destruction!

And talk about mainstream……do you watch the news? How can I be so naive as to not envision millions being displaced, massive flooding, havoc, death and destruction, most species becoming extint, huge hurricanes, massive tornados, tsunamis and the end of the world as we know it, where we have to feed on our neighbors just to survive……and we only have a short time to act to make the climate consistent.

jodyaderdien, do you argue with everyone who doesn’t share your view on everything? Could you have a friend that doesn’t share your political views? Does everyone have to agree 100 percent on everything they read? Can you agree partially? Does everyone have to envision the future as you envision it? Is everyone who doesn’t share your apocalyptic view a denialist twit? Are all scientists in the world on the IPCC? Do they all share the same opinion as the IPCC? Are all those scientists with other opinions worthless, denialist, flat earth believing,neo-con loving, holocaust denying, right wing, rich, evil, corporate connected, greedy, selfish, lying warmongers?

Of course they are.
#14 Betula
June 4, 2008

Presumably your 1.54 was a way of saying you agree with the statement above, and by extension you disagree with Jaworowski in his statement that:”

No, my 1.54 is a way of saying “it’s as good as any”…..simply because the numbers are best guess estimates and not facts. Therefore, it’s not a fact that Jaworowski is wrong and the IPCC is right and vice versa.

I’m not the one fixated on the IPCC being correct, and all others who may disagree, even on one aspect, regardless of their expertise, are moronic denialist twits.
#15 Betula
June 4, 2008

“Stop being a moron.”

Chris, they are basing a best guess estimate of the future temperature on observed facts. The observed facts are then plugged into uncertain models…… you are then taking those best guess estimates as pure fact.

So you believe you are observing the future, when all you are really doing is obseving a guess.
#16 Lee
June 4, 2008

Betula, THIS is why people know you’re a denialist twit (or “moron”):

“Chris, they are basing a best guess estimate of the future temperature on observed facts. The observed facts are then plugged into uncertain models…… you are then taking those best guess estimates as pure fact.”

The discussion is specifically on the value of climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity does then give us values for future temps – but if we know the sensitivity directly, we can predict those future temps INDEPENDENTLY of the models.
Estimates of climate sensitivity have been calculated from empirical evidence, COMPLETELY independent of the climate models. Those values are in accord with one another, and with the values derived from the models – and they all cluster at about 3C / 2xCO2 (or equivalent forcing).

You are either ignorant (at this point, willfully ignorant) of the empirical approaches to calculating climate sensitivity, or you are dishonest in denying them and pretending that the only approach is via the models.
#17 jodyaberdein
June 4, 2008

Re: 113

Betula,

I’m not sure we’re really discussing the same point here. Let me try to be plain.

In a thread about misrepresentation of basic science you present a fairly shoddy parody of a scientific review, published in a non peer reviewed, non ISI listed, politically funded journal.

The paper makes some really quite interesting claims about the basic science of climate change, claims about which you remain quite circumspect.

You do however go on at some length about claims of possible catastrophic climate driven events, albeit that you get the details of those claims reasonably wrong.

You do however seem to have misunderstood the distinction between a question and an argument. What I’ve been doing back there is called asking questions (#42, #59, #79, #88, #93, #100).

The point of these questions has been to try to get you to form something called an argument.

All the while you have been making various statements. The problem is they don’t mesh together, they don’t support your conclusion.

What you need is something like:

Climate change is happening and sensitivity is 4.5 degrees.
(presmise)

I Betula have the remote control to the Sun down the back of my sofa, and can turn it down a bit if you like (premise)

Therefore:

The purported catastrophies you alarmists are going on about can all be avoided (conclusion).

You get the idea.

So how do you get from

‘nobody knows what the climate sensitivity is, and one opinion is just as good as another’ (premise)

all the way down to

‘I don’t believe that catastrophic climate change will happen’ (conclusion).

I’m stuck on this one. I just thought you might have decided the whole CO2 thing wasn’t an issue and that’s how you got there.
#18 Chris O'Neill
June 5, 2008

Betula:

“So what’s your best estimate for climate sensitivity then?”

You want me to give an estimate of a hypothetical

“Not a hypothetical. Something from observed facts.”

You observed the future?

Anyone who thinks that climate sensitivity estimates are based on future observations is a moron.