The UK TV watchdog, Ofcom, is the watchdog for the UK broadcasting industry, keeping an eye on how broadcasters carry out their duty to the public to be both fair and accurate and not cause harm.

Ofcom ruled today on a complaint against the polemic documentary about global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle.    

It upheld complaints by the former UK Chief Scientist, Sir David King, the IPCC and oceanographer Carl Wunsch, stating that the filmmakers had treated them unfairly, misquoted them or misled them into being interviewed.  However, it managed to cleverly dodge the complaint about accuracy or misleading the public, to the fury of some scientists. 

The film itself has been sold around the world, and the DVD viewed by thousands online. 

What those viewers still haven't been told is that at least 10 of the 16 interviewees are  central to the denial industry - directly associated with - or even paid by - think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. 

And yes, we have a map showing you just how that all works.  Total funding to these groups since 1998?  $11,335,600

But of course even Exxon is apparently walking away from them - if you believe the latest statements from the company.  

The issue isn't over yet - the complainants are now considering appealing the decision.  But meanwhile the UK public has been swayed by the film - a staggering 60% are now sceptic about climate science - a shift that has been squarely blamed on the Swindle by the UK's leading polling company, Ipsos MORI, as George Monbiot mentioned in his column. 

The best interview I've seen of the problems with the programme was by ABC Australia's Tony Jones, which is well worth a watch.

Part I

Part II 

The tipping point on global warming is close, according to James Hansen,  director at NASA's Goddard Institute for space studies.  

In his speech to congress on 23 June, Hansen has issued his strongest warning yet about the state of the climate. 

He focuses, at one point, on the CEO's of major companies, singling out Exxon and Peabody in particular.  "In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

The crimes, as we know, are the continued funding of the denial industry, peddling confusion and doubt in the public.  This week also saw an new poll in the UK paper, The Observer, pointing out the rise of climate scepticism, which follows an earlier poll in the US saying the same thing.  The US poll, though, showed that the rise was amongst Republicans. 

That would be the Republicans who are the denial industry's audience.  

So again we point to the 23 organisations that Exxon continues to fund.  The sooner they stop, the better.  

Today we are launching a local campaign Strike Out Exxon to flush the red beast out of the brand new Washington Nationals baseball park.  The park is touted as a certified "green" faciltiy by the US Green Building Council. 

Exxon has bought the advertising rights to the 7th inning stretch...so now its no longer the...mom and apple pie, GodBlessAmerica, Take Me out to the Ballgame, Root Root Root for the home team, my first Phillies game with dad at Connie Mack at age 6, peanuts and crackerjack 7th inning stretch...

no no no... it's now branded "THE EXXONMOBIL 7th INNING STRETCH" 100 feet tall on the center field scoreboard with bright red ExxonMobil logo on every LED ad screen ringing the park. 

Instead of singing our song, having a stretch and going to get some crackerjack and a beverage of choice from the concession stands, eager Washington fans are reminded of the $95 fill-up the just plowed into their Chevy Tahoe that GM wont even take back on trade-in!

I called the advertising guys at the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies and a few other teams to get a sense if it was unusual to have an monster oil company as a sponsor of the "stretch" advertising parcel.  I learned the BoSox have Coca Cola as a sponsor, which makes some sense, thirsty after 7 innings?  The Yankees have Cracker Jack, which makes even more sense, its their song after all.  The Yankees guy said he had never heard of an oil company buying that space before and seemed a little perplexed that a promotions person would take such an offer.

By the way, the song Take Me Out to the Ball Game is 100 years old this year, I read the other day in a great children's book by Jim Burke on the song's origins in NYC at the turn of the century when baseball came of age and became a integral part of the nation's fabric.

I updated the lyrics with apologies to Jack Norworth:

TAKE EXXON OUT OF THE BALL GAME
GET THEM OUT OF THE CROWD
TIRED OF FOUR DOLLAR GAS-O-LINE
AND GLOBAL WAR-MING IS MA-KING ME SCREAM

LETS ROOT, ROOT, ROOT FOR THE NAAATIONALS
AND STRIKE EXXON OUT OF THE GAME
FOR ITS 3…2…1 POLAR BEARS AND WE KNOW WHO TO BLAME.

The Strike Out Exxon campaign was spurred this spring by Chesapeake Climate Action Network, a great regional global warming advocates here in DC, and our friends at Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth and the Hip Hop Caucus.  We welcome additional member organizations but hope this campaign is swift.  There were even rumours that Exxon might vie for the naming rights to the park to be auctioned later this summer.  Hopefully the Nationals owners think that through.

Because the only thing Exxon is stretching is the truth about global warming and its monster bank accounts. Stay tuned for updates and contact CCAN for free tickets.

Who's being cute, Exxon?

While Exxon may have dropped some groups and is starting to admit that they "divert attention" CEO Rex Tillerson reverted immediately to type in comments made to the media after the shareholder meeting.

He duly trotted out the Bush/Exxon/Lee Raymond "more research" [therefore no action] line on climate, and  told the Canadian Financial Post 

"We have to let scientists to continue their investigative work, unencumbered by political influences. This is too important to be cute with it."

Excuse me?  "unencumbered by political influences"?  This is the company which spends millions on lobbying, which has spent $23 million on front groups to continue their climate denial.  Or is Exxon not a "political influence"? 

Yes, more research on climate is needed in all sorts of areas - but this is not an excuse for sitting on your hands, Mr Tillerson. If anyone is being "cute" it has to be your continued funding of 28 climate denial organisations. 

If Exxon had gotten its hands out of political influence on climate science back in the early 1990's,  things could be very different today. 

And speaking of cute,  check out Exxon's takeover of the new baseball park in Washington.

Unbelievable. 

Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry. 

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting. 

 The statement reads:

 "in 2008 we will distcontinue 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."  (page 41 under "public policy research contributions."

"Could divert attention"?  We award Exxon a special prize for the Understatement of the Year.  The denial industry can be held responsible for the US's failure to act on climate. And Exxon has been at the heart of it for more than a decade. 

So which groups is Exxon dropping?  According to Reuters, gone from the funding list in 2008 are the George C Marshall Institute,  the Committe for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Frontiers of Freedom... and others.  

These groups are what you might call the "engine room" of the climate denial industry.  

But even Exxon's walking away from them now. 

The company started dropping groups in 2006, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute being the first to go.  Last year, it dumped the Heartland Institute, which organised the biggest denial conference for a long time, in New York in March and has been running a slightly ridiculous campaign against Al Gore. 

 The other groups were all co-sponsors of the Heartland conference which concluded, surprisingly enough, that global warming isn't happening.

 We note that this announcement didn't come from the usual spokesman from Exxon, Ken Cohen, who chairs the company's funding committe, but from a new person.  Clearly the new CEO Rex Tillerson is trying to shift his company from the poisoned chalice left to him by former CEO and arch denialist, Lee Raymond. 

But is cutting nine groups getting the job done? 

In short, no.  From the 2007 Worldwide Giving Report, posted on Exxon's website on Friday, we can see that Exxon funded a total of 37 global warming denial groups, to the tune of nearly $2 million,  which is pretty similar to 2006. Even cutting nine of them means the company is still funding 28 groups engaged in climate denial. 

Tillerson needs to make a much wider sweep if he really wants to shake off Raymond's legacy - he has started, but we think he should apologise to the global community for the harm his company has caused.

1998 communications strategy groups finally seen off

The latest round of Exxon cuts means an end to the funding of the organisations who gathered together in 1998 to plot a communications strategy designed to foster public scepticism of climate science and undermine the Kyoto treaty. 

The plan was drawn up by a small cabal of groups and companies, including Exxon, Chevron and the big energy provider, the Southern Company, and Fred Singer's outfit, SEPP.  In there were also Frontiers of Freedom and the Marshall Institute, who have both enjoyed Exxon funding ever since. 

The memo stated that "Victory will be achieved when:

... average citizens "understand" (recognise) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom;

..."Those promoting the Kyoto Treaty on the basis of extant science appear out of touch with reality."

Well, sorry guys,  while you may have achieved a certain level of climate scepticism, the IPCC's latest report is absolutely clear on the climate science - and governments are acting on it. 

Will this stop the denial industry?

 Well, no.  We note that Walt Buchholtz, Exxon's former funding man, left the company and went to work at Heartland for a year. No doubt he helped set up Heartland's new sources of funding from other members of the business community. 

There's still a ways to go, but it's a start. When companies like Exxon start questioning this lot, there's not a lot of people who will continue to support them.