4 ms·

Researchers say Exxon duped public over climate concerns

110 points by Geekette 9y ago

ehutch79 9y ago
You mean the head of the EPA's former company?
- cmurf 9y ago
  Pruitt was the AG of Oklahoma. You're thinking of Tillerson who is the current Secretary of State. Yes, it is easy to forget him seeing as he doesn't say much, and is busier dismembering the department of state than advocating for it either within government or among other governments.
  - Jordanpomeroy 9y ago
    +1 for dismantling government bureaucracy -1 for deceiving us about global warming, maybe
    - guelo 9y ago
      Yea the world's most powerful country doesn't need diplomats. China, EU and Russia's diplomats can make their wimpy negotiations between countries. We'll just let CEOs have free reign to make whatever real deals they want to. In fact, we don't need any government at all. We just need to give corporations free rein, they always know what's best for all of us.
xoa 9y ago
The actual paper [0], despite the authors' thoroughness, is actually quite readable and well worth a look at least alongside the various media summaries. There are interesting comparisons to be made to the tobacco lawsuits and to concerns over PR by the sugar industry over the last 50 years, though I think any legal action is most likely to be far in the future as climate damages really ramp up. 0: "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)", http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Legal action at this rate is going to amount to holding an impromptu trial on the deck of the Titanic.
- Boothroid 9y ago
  I've often thought what the implications ought to be for countries like Norway, sitting on a massive sovereign wealth fund derived from oil and gas. It might prove useful and just to confiscate those assets and put them to work on climate change mitigation programmes!
epistasis 9y ago
>Exxon said it acknowledges climate change is a risk that requires action, and it dismissed the conclusions of the study, saying the researchers are looking for money. >“The study was paid for, written and published by activists leading a five-year campaign against the company,” Exxon said in an emailed statement. “It is inaccurate and preposterous. Rather than pursuing solutions to address the risk of climate change, these activists, along with trial lawyers, have acknowledged a goal of extracting money from our shareholders and attacking the company’s reputation.” I wonder if the emailed statement ever rose above the ad hominem that was quoted.
- will_brown 9y ago
  I actually think this is fantastic precedent set on the part of Exxon, essentially we can conclude any study paid for, written and published by the oil industry will be dismissed as inaccurate and preposterous so long as the conclusion benefits shareholders of the oil industry or defends the reputation of the oil industry in anyway.

110 points by Geekette 9y ago

ehutch79 9y ago

You mean the head of the EPA's former company?

cmurf 9y ago
Pruitt was the AG of Oklahoma. You're thinking of Tillerson who is the current Secretary of State. Yes, it is easy to forget him seeing as he doesn't say much, and is busier dismembering the department of state than advocating for it either within government or among other governments.
- Jordanpomeroy 9y ago
  +1 for dismantling government bureaucracy -1 for deceiving us about global warming, maybe
  - guelo 9y ago
    Yea the world's most powerful country doesn't need diplomats. China, EU and Russia's diplomats can make their wimpy negotiations between countries. We'll just let CEOs have free reign to make whatever real deals they want to. In fact, we don't need any government at all. We just need to give corporations free rein, they always know what's best for all of us.

xoa 9y ago

The actual paper [0], despite the authors' thoroughness, is actually quite readable and well worth a look at least alongside the various media summaries. There are interesting comparisons to be made to the tobacco lawsuits and to concerns over PR by the sugar industry over the last 50 years, though I think any legal action is most likely to be far in the future as climate damages really ramp up. 0: "Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)", http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

QAPereo 9y ago
Legal action at this rate is going to amount to holding an impromptu trial on the deck of the Titanic.
Boothroid 9y ago
I've often thought what the implications ought to be for countries like Norway, sitting on a massive sovereign wealth fund derived from oil and gas. It might prove useful and just to confiscate those assets and put them to work on climate change mitigation programmes!

epistasis 9y ago

>Exxon said it acknowledges climate change is a risk that requires action, and it dismissed the conclusions of the study, saying the researchers are looking for money. >“The study was paid for, written and published by activists leading a five-year campaign against the company,” Exxon said in an emailed statement. “It is inaccurate and preposterous. Rather than pursuing solutions to address the risk of climate change, these activists, along with trial lawyers, have acknowledged a goal of extracting money from our shareholders and attacking the company’s reputation.” I wonder if the emailed statement ever rose above the ad hominem that was quoted.

will_brown 9y ago
I actually think this is fantastic precedent set on the part of Exxon, essentially we can conclude any study paid for, written and published by the oil industry will be dismissed as inaccurate and preposterous so long as the conclusion benefits shareholders of the oil industry or defends the reputation of the oil industry in anyway.