Global Warming "Disinformation"

[weknowthewor]

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit independent scientific organization formed in 1969, has slammed what it calls ExxonMobil's disinformation tactics in regard to climate change. The UCS has just released a report that details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics (as well as some of the same organizations and personnel), to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. The report claims that in the last seven years, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

 

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the UCS' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

 

The UCS report, entitled "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Change," details how the oil company has:

 

* raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence

* funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings

* attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest

* used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

 

The report details how the intricate web of ExxonMobil-funded organizations publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians.

 

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, author of the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

 

The report also claims that ExxonMobil exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress. "As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Harvard University's Dr. James McCarthy, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."

 

The report concludes that ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change. "ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."

 

What is your view point?

[jackson33]

w/o spending much time on this, my guess is your opposed to a capitalist society in general and prefer government dictate our every move from cradle to death, so long at it checks with you first.

 

i am only one person and anything i say is also for non-profit. however i also have no alternative motive, pro or con with regards to legal social activity.

 

also i will not list the activity or wishes that have been vigorously attacked by those preferring to engineer my wishes or society in general. i would have to start with prohibition, take you through a very long list of things thought bad and turned out good or that have been proved previously as incorrect.

 

as to the oil companies or their GW views, its likely they spent some dollars on this research, compared to your disclaimer of that view. as for the tobacco companies, your not going to like this. what has become epidemics in fat and obesity, diabetes and many other anxiety problems may very well off set any so called life year savings of those attacks. life spans have been increasing and in time you might figure out enjoyment of life, living it to the fullest have more a value than worrying about every little tid bit.

 

there is no concrete evidence the planet is warming, outside the cycle appears to be in. if it continues to warm another 10 or 12 degrees (at plus .5 now) we may be back to what was 1200 years ago, but this is highly unlikely.

 

if your simply motivated by politics, which is expected for the next couple years, i would suggest your leaders are ill advised on American ideology and will not attain whatever this 50 year onslaught is expected to produce. be it notoriety or respect...

[bascule]

there is no concrete evidence the planet is warming, outside the cycle appears to be in

 

Uhh, what cycle is that?

 

 

What about increasing carbon dioxide? More frequent extreme weather? Disappearing glaciers? Melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice? Greenland's ice sheet melting?

 

Your statement demonstrates total ignorance of present scientific knowledge

[swansont]

One problem is that it's far to easy to say things like

 

there is no concrete evidence the planet is warming, outside the cycle appears to be in.

 

since the non-scientist is free to decide what constitutes "concrete" evidence. In the public domain, scientific arguments suffer because the rules are different for science than for e.g. politics, where rhetoric has value in swaying opinion, and many have the misconception that science is a democracy where all viewpoints are equally valid.

[jackson33]

One problem is that it's far to easy to say things like

 

 

 

since the non-scientist is free to decide what constitutes "concrete" evidence. In the public domain, scientific arguments suffer because the rules are different for science than for e.g. politics, where rhetoric has value in swaying opinion, and many have the misconception that science is a democracy where all viewpoints are equally valid.

 

thats correct; a scientist, one with a couple letters after a name, can get attention of the weak minded in his group and say anything. they all woo and ah, and the world will come to an end. never mind the others that objected to this view go on to to day doing the real work.

 

my opinions are based on those that say "concrete" and according to you have no rights. you know this and your arguments are by any name, are always the same. attack the messenger, belittle and hope a few listen.

 

most of us will be around in a few years as we head back toward the cold end of this current cycle and ill be the one saying, COOL IT, we will some day go back to a warming trend...

[jackson33]

Uhh, what cycle is that?

 

 

What about increasing carbon dioxide? More frequent extreme weather? Disappearing glaciers? Melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice? Greenland's ice sheet melting?

 

Your statement demonstrates total ignorance of present scientific knowledge

 

firstly, the chart shows a very short period it the 300 million plus life on earth scenario. just before what you show were temperature and climate substantially higher (it is thought) and if you understand charts, would give your period a straight line. this entire period shows less than 1 % change, which is in reality changed many time this each day/night cycle. (one day)

 

the earths lower atmosphere is primarily what its been over the past 10k years and will be during the next 10k years. Nitrogen-Oxygen 77 & 22 %, give or take a .5 or so. there may have been some changes, even major in the the upper ones. the ionosphere is thought to have been much warmer than its current 7-800 degree. these layers couldn't care less who drives what or if i leave my A/C on to long, but are driven by what the sun does do. they in turn effect what the troposphere can be.

 

this seems to be my day, for eating humble pie, fed to me by the elite of public debate. sorry, its not my nature to back off a subject because i cannot conform to subjective nonsense.

 

since there may be some logical people reading this, i have never suggested

clean water, refreshing air or moderate use should not be discussed with in reason. these thing are good for humanity in general. its the idea nature will some how respond to these efforts suggest a degree of ignorance even above what i have been given credit...

[bascule]

(drolling ad hominem against climate scientists)

 

Moving right along...

 

my opinions are based on those that say "concrete" and according to you have no rights.

 

Care to give a name?

 

attack the messenger, belittle and hope a few listen.

 

Psst, when your only arguments are ad hominems, it's not particularly befitting to accuse your opponent of them, especially when they're coming back at you with substance.

[SkepticLance]

To go back to the original question.

 

Exxon's motives are probably suspect. However, the results are what count. I am familiar with what Professor Patrick Michaels says on this subject. According to him, if a climate scientist is exploring research that does NOT coincide with the prevailing paradigm, that scientist will find it impossible to get funding from the traditional sources, such as government. If a climate scientist wishes to pursue research that might not support that paradigm, then he or she is forced to seek funding from unconventional sources. If they can get research dollars from Exxon, then they will.

 

I think it is healthy for both sides of this issue to be fully explored. Exxon is doubtless a nasty, underhanded, evil, inconscionable multinational (excuse the sarcastic exaggeration). However, if their dollars permit two sides of the story to be explored, I think that is a good thing.

[bascule]

firstly, the chart shows a very short period it the 300 million plus life on earth scenario. just before what you show were temperature and climate substantially higher (it is thought) and if you understand charts, would give your period a straight line. this entire period shows less than 1 % change, which is in reality changed many time this each day/night cycle. (one day)

 

I don't suppose the phrase "global mean surface temperature" means anything to you (Hint: day and night cancel each other out)

 

That said:

 

if it continues to warm another 10 or 12 degrees (at plus .5 now) we may be back to what was 1200 years ago, but this is highly unlikely.

 

The reconstruction above demonstrates how out of tune your perceptions of the climate system are with reality. 1200 years ago, the global mean surface temperature was not "10 or 12 degrees higher." As you can see the cooling trend preceeding the "Little Ice Age" was moderate compared to the rapid changes we've seen this century.

 

I suggest actually studying the issue of climate change before going on the offensive. You also might try increasing the content of your posts, as at present they seem to be right at about 0% actual substance, consisting primarily of a barrage of insults and misinterpretations.

[jackson33]

To go back to the original question.

 

Exxon's motives are probably suspect. However, the results are what count. I am familiar with what Professor Patrick Michaels says on this subject. According to him, if a climate scientist is exploring research that does NOT coincide with the prevailing paradigm, that scientist will find it impossible to get funding from the traditional sources, such as government. If a climate scientist wishes to pursue research that might not support that paradigm, then he or she is forced to seek funding from unconventional sources. If they can get research dollars from Exxon, then they will.

 

I think it is healthy for both sides of this issue to be fully explored. Exxon is doubtless a nasty, underhanded, evil, inconscionable multinational (excuse the sarcastic exaggeration). However, if their dollars permit two sides of the story to be explored, I think that is a good thing.

 

Exxon, British Petroleum and all the rest, have done some research into this subject. there finding in general are about the same. actually they represent the bottom of the barrel, since they only produce the fuels that move and run the economy. auto makers, aircraft and ship manufacturers and a host of others are directly involved with what findings could effect. then you have the millions that invest in all the industry that could be attacked. all this nonsense is directed at a capitalistic view. the same that profess concern for the atmosphere also dislike free enterprise.

 

there is a apparent notion by some that any business is somehow harmful to something else. this has stemmed from the successful out come of gigantic settlements received from the tobacco industry. those people are now fighting or attempting to sue and intimidate the results that would be smokers are currently suffering. Weight gain, obesity and diabetes increase has followed the line up, as the smokers have decreased.

[jackson33]

I don't suppose the phrase "global mean surface temperature" means anything to you (Hint: day and night cancel each other out)

 

are we discussing the same subject. of they do as do the cycles. its all meaningless and has nothing to do with what some say mankind is doing....

 

That said:

 

 

 

The reconstruction above demonstrates how out of tune your perceptions of the climate system are with reality. 1200 years ago, the global mean surface temperature was not "10 or 12 degrees higher." As you can see the cooling trend preceeding the "Little Ice Age" was moderate compared to the rapid changes we've seen this century.

 

thats about right and this would straight line your graph...my point.

 

I suggest actually studying the issue of climate change before going on the offensive. You also might try increasing the content of your posts, as at present they seem to be right at about 0% actual substance, consisting primarily of a barrage of insults and misinterpretations.

 

then were back to accusing the accuser and who done it first. my opinions are not of my creation. the names you know and their reasoning you know. you have chosen to get behind folks like Al Gore who has no idea what makes up CO2, much less what the main sources are.

[swansont]

thats correct; a scientist, one with a couple letters after a name, can get attention of the weak minded in his group and say anything. they all woo and ah, and the world will come to an end. never mind the others that objected to this view go on to to day doing the real work.

 

my opinions are based on those that say "concrete" and according to you have no rights. you know this and your arguments are by any name, are always the same. attack the messenger, belittle and hope a few listen.

 

most of us will be around in a few years as we head back toward the cold end of this current cycle and ill be the one saying, COOL IT, we will some day go back to a warming trend...

 

 

Attacking and belittling the messenger as a way of making one's point is one of the practices I decry, and I request that you point out where I have done this.

 

The fact that you defend your "opinion" just confirms my point. Science isn't about opinion, science is about data. There's another thread open where some of these points are being discussed, and an earlier thread of several pages where this was debated. The arguments against global warming having a significant anthropogenic component contain, by and large, rhetorical devices rather than scientific arguments. The vague definition of what constitutes "concrete" evidence being just one.

[SkepticLance]

Just a bit of information to help put things into perspective.

 

If we take the average global temperature as of, say, the year 1900AD as a baseline, then work from there, then...

 

-Current temperatures are about 0.75 Celsius warmer than baseline.

-Warming currently, as average of long term trend, is about 0.16 Celsius per decade.

-Maximum global temperature, to the best of my knowledge, was during the Cretaceous, at about 10 Celsius higher than base.

-The maximum temperature reached in the Medieval climate maximum (about 1000 AD) is not known. Probably fairly similar to today's temperatures, based on indirect evidence.

 

We have excellent evidence of average global temparature change from about 1880 AD. This is due to the fact that thermometers were widespread since then. However, scientists have to rely on indirect measures before that date (eg. Tree ring data, isotope ratios etc). Thus a very much larger error factor applies for any time before 1880.

 

For this reason, comparing temperature change after 1880 with temperature change before is fraught with error.

[bascule]

We have excellent evidence of average global temparature change from about 1880 AD. This is due to the fact that thermometers were widespread since then. However, scientists have to rely on indirect measures before that date (eg. Tree ring data, isotope ratios etc).

 

GCM reconstructions?

 

Thus a very much larger error factor applies for any time before 1880.

 

If anyone were using pre-1880 data as some sort of instrumental baseline, but they're not. The margin of error is too great and the sample size too small. Certainly data from tree rings is useful in assessing the history of regional temperatures, but you're not going to see someone computing the global mean surface temperature using tree ring data alone. It'd be statistically unsound.

 

That's why climate scientists let GCMs take over in assessing the global mean surface temperature in the time before the instrumental record (as you can see from the Mann Hockey Stick graph I pasted)

 

For this reason, comparing temperature change after 1880 with temperature change before is fraught with error.

 

You need to get over this whole idea that model output is inherently erroneous.

 

The Standard Model is "just a model". We've never empirically observed a quark. We have no "hard data" that one exists.

 

By the same line of reasoning you've used, the standard model is inherently wrong and unreliable.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule.

We have argued this before. For other readers benefit note that Bascule takes the view that computer climate models are reliable. I say they are not, and have a broad margin of error. I am not sure I want to argue it out again with Bascule, since neither of us are going to give in on this point.

 

Let me just say that everything in science has a certain error factor. Some have a bigger error factor than others. Indirect measures are more likely to be in error than direct measures. Calculation,deduction, and modelling is more likely to be in error than even indirect measurements.

 

If we do not respect these points, we are living in cloud cuckoo land. And that is not science.

[silverslith]

Melting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice?

 

Just a minor point. Refering to "melting Antarctic sea ice" is a bit disinformative. Sea Ice is only a few meters thick and the glacial fringes or Ice Shelves around antarctica that have almost disappeared in the last decade are a few km thick. Over 50 miles of over a mile thick ice melting back to the coast is kind of more serious than a bit of sea ice 1000 times thinner.