How ExxonMobil Funded Global Warming Skeptics

Erik Moeller writes "According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns. Would a 'global warming controversy' exist without the millions of dollars spent by fossil fuel companies to discredit scientific conclusions?"

The real reason for global warming:

[spun]

All the flames that are about to be posted...

I've got an idea

[ILuvRamen]

why don't the tobacco companies merge with the oil companies then if they're so similar. Then you just know eventually someone will make a careless mistake and BOOM! That'll kill two very evil birds with one stone :-)

I'm a global warming skeptic...

[the_tsi]

...and I have been for years. Where do I sign up to get my check from Exxon?

What Global Warming?

[eno2001]

Rush Limbaugh told me that the only reason that it's not snowing in winter anymore in the northern sections of the U.S. is because of the number of cows we farm and the carbon moronoxide they expude from their butts. Cow farts != global warming folks! And besides, even if global warming is happening (which it isn't) there's a lot of benefits: The southern U.S. will become a tropical paradise. The mid U.S. will be able to produce different crops. And even the Canadians will benefit in that they won't have those savage winters anymore. Any concerns about coastal areas flooding can be put to rest as the army corp of engineers will be able to build very efficient and effective dams and breakwalls for most normal situations. Besides, floodwaters can easily be pumped out back to the ocean to lower the local water level. So stop all this worrying. There is no global warming. Rush told me so and I believe him. Megadittos!!!

Re:UCS - definitely unbiased

[sammy baby]

The UCS, which has it's own agenda and pushes it at every opportunity, is upset because someone on the opposite side wants their view heard as well? To bad.

Hear hear. I'm sick and tired of hearing what scientists think about global warming: it's about time that we heard from the oil companies.

Read my expose ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... of how gas-powered wood chipper companies and giant "Yurt" manufacturers secretly fund Sierra Club's magazine!

Wasted Money

[Aqua_boy17]

If only they'd used the $16 million to recruit more pirates, they'd have done a lot more to reduce Global Warming. More pirates = Less Global Warming. I thought everyone knew that by now! We simply have to have more pirates.

And more cowbell would be nice too.

Re:What Global Warming?

[cascadingstylesheet]

>Rush Limbaugh told me that the only reason that it's not
>snowing in winter anymore in the northern sections of the
>U.S. [...]

Since you believe that "it's not snowing in winter anymore",
can I have your snowblower? You're not going to need it
anymore, right?

here is the proof

[elmartinos]

Ok, the environmentalists are right. I have finally found the proof [funnyhub.com].

Re:and the enviromentalist

[MillionthMonkey]

Their Mom: I've heard both of your extreme viewpoints, so we'll need to compromise. Bobby gets 75%, Billy gets 25%.

But that's not fair to Bobby. Bobby should get it ALL.

If Mom weren't biased in favor of Billy's socialist "75-25" plan, Bobby would be getting 87.5% at the very least.

Re:Not only, but also

[cartman]

Exxon ("Esso" here in the UK) are still, as the Greenpeace campaign from 5 years ago pointed out, "#1 Global Warming Villain".

No, the "#1 Global Warming Villain" is Greenpeace itself, by far. Greenpeace and similar organizations have done incalculable damage to the environment, far more than Exxon could ever hope to achieve. By relentlessly attacking nuclear power, Greenpeace has achieved nothing except to destroy the only viable competitor to coal. The result has been a massive increase in coal-burning over the last 30 years, with a corresponding increase in C02 emissions. That is what Greenpeace has achieved. Let Exxon envy them.

As an example, France decided to go ahead with nuclear power, ignoring Greenpeace and the like. As a result, France's carbon emissions per capita are now 85% lower than those of the US. Had the US and China gone the same route as France, which they probably would have done but for Greenpeace and similar organizations, then the global warming problem would be far less severe than it is today.

(Obviously the carbon emissions per capita would still be higher in the US than in France, even with nuclear power, because of automobiles. However the carbon emissions per capita in the US would be far lower than now.)

Hooray for Greenpeace! If they really work at it, perhaps they can increase carbon emissions by another 30% in a mere 10 years.

It seems that Greenpeace is some kind of shill for the coal industry, intentionally or not. In that regard, Greenpeace is far more effective than Exxon's fake scientific institutes. Exxon's fake institutes have fooled nobody, whereas Greenpeace has convinced many people that it's really a pro-environment group. Seriously! Exxon should take lessons.

Re:and the enviromentalist

[jotok]

Bravo.