A new Guardian arcticle today confirms what we wrote back in may: Exxon is still secretly funding global warming junk scientists.

According to the Guardian report:

Records show ExxonMobil gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to lobby groups that have published 'misleading and inaccurate information' about climate change. These include the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in Dallas, Texas, which received $75,000 (£45,500), and the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, which received $50,000.

According to Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, at the London School of Economics, both the NCPA and the Heritage Foundation have published "misleading and inaccurate information about climate change."

On its website, the NCPA says: "NCPA scholars believe that while the causes and consequences of the earth's current warming trend is [sic] still unknown, the cost of actions to substantially reduce CO2 emissions would be quite high and result in economic decline, accelerated environmental destruction, and do little or nothing to prevent global warming regardless of its cause."

The Heritage Foundation published a "web memo" in December that said: "Growing scientific evidence casts doubt on whether global warming constitutes a threat, including the fact that 2008 is about to go into the books as a cooler year than 2007". Scientists, including those at the UK Met Office say that the apparent cooling is down to natural changes and does not alter the long-term warming trend.

Ward said, "ExxonMobil has been briefing journalists for three years that they were going to stop funding these groups. The reality is that they are still doing it. If the world's largest oil company wants to fund climate change denial then it should be upfront about it, and not tell people it has stopped."

Finally.   After years of denying its role in the campaign of climate denial, Exxon has revealed a dirty secret, that it has and likely still is DIRECTLY funding junk scientists.

 

The ExxonMobil 2008 Corporate Citizenship Report and Worldwide Giving Report were just released by the company ahead of their Annual General Meeting in Dallas tomorrow (May 27th) where the company is once again under significant pressure from Shareholder Activists.

The Worldwide Giving Reports are a key part of the data from which we have derived the ExxonSecrets funding linkages for the past decade.  Through the years, most ExxonMobil Foundation and corporate grants (the ones they report to the IRS anyway) have gone to think-tanks, organizations who have in turn propped up the small army of denial scientists, amplified their voices and injected them into the media and policy arenas. 

Thanks to Exxon's revealing this little secret, we now have a direct link between the Exxon black bag o' cash and two scientists who have made their careers as global warming deniers.

The new Exxon Giving report shows straight pipe funding, in the odd but specific sum of $76,106 to the  Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory, home of Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas.  Or we assume the cash went to these two, until Exxon explains itself. 

The Observatory is the research arm of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) which has little to do with either the Smithsonian or Harvard at this point, other than in name (founded as a joint venture in 1973).  In past episodes, Smithsonian has distanced itself from Baliunas, who discredits their name.

Wait!!? Is that Ben Stiller starring as Willie and Amy Adams portraying a young spry Sally? Maybe they should spend a Night at the Museum...they might learn a few things.

The Observatory has produced some pretty useful publications over time like the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Star Catalog, originally published in 1966 by Fred L. Whipple.  But somewhere along the line they let in the riff raff...

Sally Baliunas built her denial career downplaying the significance of the destruction of the ozone layer, publishing a report entitled "The Ozone Crisis" in 1994 for the George Marshall Institute.  Baliunas was, at the time, the chair of the Marshall Institute's Science Advisory Board and Fred Seitz was the Chairman of the Board...a full throttle denial team if ever there was one.

Remember the Marshall Institute?  Oh yeah, Exxon announced that they had dropped their funding last year...who needs Marshall when you have their scientists on a leash. 

Here is an excerpt from SallyBali's Ozone junk science:

Sound familiar?  Talk about lies and misinformation, check out the projected cost estimates of getting rid of CFCs!  Wow, was Sally wrong...its a wonder she wasn't so ashamed as to never publish again...but wait, there is no shame for a denier!

During the early Bush years, Soon and Baliunas were back in action, joint authors of a denial classic attacking mainstream climate conclusions. 

"Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?" was published by the George Marshall Institute.  Jeff Nesmith of Cox News Service,  revealed that the study was funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Senator Inhofe of course loved the report!

Soon went on to coauthor another denial classic,  Polar Bears Are Doing Just Fine, reviewed by ExxonSecrets back in 2007.

This polar bear paper is key because, old Willie proudly admits both Exxon and American Petroleum Institute funding to support the research.  However, Exxon didn't report this funding in its Worldwide Giving Report or to the IRS...they never said a word about it...

After an October 17th 2007 House Science Committee hearing entitled, Disappearing Polar Bears and Permafrost: Is a Global Warming Tipping Point Embedded in the Ice?, Representative Brad Miller of North Carolina penned a letter to Exxon demanding answers.  He wrote, “Exxon has the right to fund any research or publications it wishes.  However, the Congress and the public have the right to know why ExxonMobil is funding a scientist whose writing is outside his area of expertise to create the impression that expert scientists have conducted rigorous, peer-reviewed work that says the problems with polar bears are unproven or unserious.”

As far as we know Rep. Miller never got answers.

By now, Willie Nilly has emerged from Sally Bali's shadow to become one of the go-to skeptics, appearing as a key speaker at the two recent Heartland Institute's Denial-Paloozas in New York.  Soon is again a featured panelist at next week's 3rd Heartland Institute Denial-Palooza (wait, didnt they just have the 2nd one about 2 months ago?) Senator Inhofe and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) will join the shrinking but noisy denial crew in DC on June 2nd.

The Exxon AGM season is like Christmas for us at ExxonSecrets and this year Santa treated us right.  Now, Rex Tillerson,  what exactly have you been paying Soon and Baliunas to do and for how long?  Clearly it didn't start in 2008.  Answers please.....we're waiting...

ExxonSecrets is hanging here in the Big Apple with DeSmogBlog, as the Heartland Institute, flush with cash from anonymous planet hating foundations and corporations, is putting on the second annual global warming Denial-Palooza.

The Guardian led with a description of the keynote address by Czech president, Václav Klaus, whose country holds the important rotating presidency of the EU.  Klaus' alarmist message to the cheering denier throng was that European nations plans for climate solutions hide a nefarious plot to ruin human society... "They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back" 

How's that for optimism and hope in troubled times?  Yo Vaccie, chillax and enjoy the Energy Revolution.

The New York Times panned the conference in Monday's paper, documenting several cases of peer to peer disagreement on how to best deny global warming - MIT's Richard Lindzen slamming the sun-spot people and Fred Singer correcting fellow skeptics understanding of physics.  ExxonSecrets loves it when the skeptics eat their young.

But the best salvo of the Times article was a recitation of last year's Exxon Corporate  Citizenship report blockbuster sentence by ExxonMobil spokes Alan T. Jeffers, who wrote the Times in an e-mail, saying that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

Ending Exxon's diversion campaign being the primary goal of ExxonSecrets, seeing these immortal words from last May in the NY Times warmed our hearts....

Heartland, the free-marketeers, went on...attacking corporations who now express some consciousness of the threat of global warming: "Joseph L. Bast,  the president of the Heartland Institute, said Exxon and other companies were just shifting their stance to improve their image. The Heartland meeting, he said, was the last bastion of intellectual honesty on the climate issue." Last bastion of antireglatory extremists more like.

“Major corporations are painting themselves green around global warming,” Mr. Bast said, adding that the companies have shifted their lobbying and public relations efforts toward trying to shape climate legislation in their favor."

Well they have a point there, we have noticed a spike in climate greenwashing.  Maybe Heartland wants to join our StopGreenwash campaign?

Despite Exxon unceremoniously kicking them to the curb in 2007, Heartland seems to have raised a lot of money bashing Al Gore over the last few years.  In a promo brochure handed out at the conference, the Heartland Institute's funding looks like the much maligned Michael Mann hockey stick graph. Their funding more than doubled from 2005-2007 rising from $2.5 million to $5.2 million after hovering at less than $2 million from 1999-2003.

 

 

 

Today, Guardian writer Ed Pilkington took a fresh swat at Governor Sarah Palin's use and defense of Exxon-funded junk science on polar bears in the State of Alaska's attempts to to kill the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.

We have covered the evolution of this story on ExxonSecrets for over a year here and here with links to articles and documents of interest.

Much has been made of Palin's denial of global warming since she was nominated as the GOP Veep candidate, but no one has questioned her credibility for using 'research' that was funded by ExxonMobil, American Petroleum Institute and Charles Koch Foundation.

We are wondering if Gwen Ifill of PBS will ask Ms. Palin a pointed question tomorrow? or if Senator Biden has read the Guardian story?

Tom Kizza at the Anchorage Daily News has followed this story the best, filing two good articles earlier in the year here and here.

This classic ExxonSecrets map of the junk science authors from the Dyck, Soon, et al article shows once again the tentacles of the Denial Machine (see page 9 for acknowledgement of funding from Exxon and friends).  Palin's goon squad cited the Dyck, Soon paper 6 times and even attached a copy of the article (pre-publication) to their 49 page submission to the Department of Interior.

All the background documents can be found on Greenpeace Investigations:

• Exxon funded junk science
• rebuttal by real polar bear scientists
• Alaska's submissions to Department of Interior

No reporters have questioned Exxon or API about funding this research and no one has gotten the scientists themselves on the record as to how much money they got from Exxon and friends and the marching orders attached to that funding.

 

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. 

 

A clear window into what happened to our democracy could be seen today as the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing, “Exploring the Skyrocketing Price of Oil,” with executives from BP, Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and ExxonMobil.  I found it on C-Span.  Some of the highlights:

None of the executives could remember how much they make, although most admitted it was in excess on 2 million dollars.  They all did their best to look somber about the record high prices of oil and then went on to blame China, OPEC (remember that old boogeyman?) and most importantly, lack of access to new places to drill for oil to help make America energy independent.  These guys are paid enormous amounts of money to pretend they care about the pain the public feels when they tighten the screws on us.  Congress throws some theatrically tough questions and act concerned, although they don’t pay for the gas for their own limos.  You and I do.  So its sort of like Broadway except it seems the makeup artists use brooms.    

J. Stephen Simon, the Senior VP of ExxonMobil went through a series of arguments showing how dramatically the oil industry margins have been reduced.  By the end of his explanation it seemed that ExxonMobil was profitless, although thanks to public records we know that their profits were a record 40 billion dollars last year and are on pace to crush that record this year.  He spoke of working together to strengthen American competitiveness, advised us not to worry about the current “upcycle” (that was his euphemism for the sky high gasoline prices) and all the while whining about taxes.

All the executives stated directly or implied that the oil price crisis could be alleviated by giving them access to the last wild places where oil is still to be found in America: the Rocky Mountain Front Range, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and more coastal drilling.  If your grandmother had oil in her teeth they’d want those too.  The fact is that these sources take years to explore, destroy wild areas permanently and would only reduce the price of oil marginally.  But they would add handsomely to the oil companies’ profits.  It’s the perfect argument for the oil companies: they want more of the same, record profits, easy access to our lands and waters, continued subsidies of about 40 billion dollars a year for oil and gas (easy to remember as it is the same as ExxonMobil’s 2007 profits – and both are on track to go up in 2008), and blame the lack of access on the environmentalists.   

The fact is I am not against oil prices going up.  That is what is going to make us use less.  If oil prices were being driven up by a federal system that put a cap on the carbon that these and other companies bring into the economy and force them to buy credits to emit permitted amounts, the revenue from the credits would then go back to Americans, all Americans to help offset the higher energy costs – not drive profits higher.

The retiring head of Shell had a fun way to try and downplay the record profits.  He mumbled out something about the profits they are reporting being very large in absolute numbers but you have to look at the segments of our business, the upstream something or another, historic age of oilfields, marginal costs… 

I started to feel sorry for these guys, I felt less resentful of the 40 billion dollars in subsidies that we give these guys each year who can’t remember how many millions of dollars they are paid.  Heck, I felt like running down to the Hill and bringing them flowers.  After all, they got some pretty tough questions from the Senators.  To make matters worse, a protest kicked in, I could hear the voices in the back of the room while watching on my computer screen the faces of the witnesses as they heard somebody demanding that we separate oil and state  Dammed hippies insisting that the politicians stop taking campaign donations from the executives that they are supposed to protect Americans from, yeah, and wreck the whole game.

Pretty nuts… like enough to make you wanna take the bus.