Anti-science groups funded by ExxonMobil hype email story

This is a repost from Media Matters Action, by Chris Harris.  Note that the oil giant had said it would stop funding the anti-scientific disinformers, but that was one more lie (see “Another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science disinformers despite public pledge“).

Over the past decade, oil giant Exxon Mobil has paid millions to organizations and “think tanks” in an attempt to deceive the public about the science behind global climate change.  It’s no surprise that those very same organizations are now doing everything in their power to please their benefactor by drawing attention to the so-called “Climategate” scandal involving hacked emails from the University of East Anglia in England.

American Enterprise Institute

Exxon Mobil Has Given The American Enterprise Institute Nearly $2 Million Since 2001. Since 2001, Exxon Mobil has donated $1,910,000 to the American Enterprise Institute. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • American Enterprise Institute Fellow Wrote Weekly Standard Cover Story On Hacked CRU Emails. The American Enterprise Institute F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow Steven F. Hayward wrote a Weekly Standard cover story on the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia:

Slowly and mostly unnoticed by the major news media, the air has been going out of the global warming balloon. Global temperatures stopped rising a few years ago, much to the dismay of the climate campaigners… Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s–as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil (such as the forced sterilizations of thousands of Indian men in the 1970s, much of it funded by the Ford Foundation). Today the climate campaigners want to forcibly sterilize the world’s energy supply, and until recently they looked to be within an ace of doing so. But even before Climategate, the campaign was beginning to resemble a Broadway musical that had run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it’s closing time for the climate horror show. [Weekly Standard, 12/14/09]

Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Exxon Mobil Has Given The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow Over $465,000 Since 2001. Since 2001, Exxon Mobil has donated $467,000 to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow’s “Climate Depot” Has Been A Leading Promoter Of Hacked Email Scandal. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’s Climate Depot blog, managed by former Sen. Jim Inhofe aide Marc Morano, featured the word “climategate” 120 times on December 8, 2009. [Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Climate Depot, accessed 12/8/09]

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Exxon Mobil Has Given The Competitive Enterprise Institute Over $1.6 Million Since 2001. Between 2001 and 2005, Exxon Mobil donated $1,690,000 to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • The Competitive Enterprise Institute Promoted The “Explosive Information Associated With The Climategate E-Mails.” On December 2, 2009, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released a statement saying:

In the wake of the burgeoning Climategate fraud scandal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on December 2 filed an emergency petition demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency stop its plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, pending a complete investigation.

The purpose of the filing is to “put EPA on notice that new information has very recently been released, whose content is so grave that it may well destroy EPA’s scientific basis for an Endangerment Finding.”  The petition urges EPA to reopen its proceeding and engage in a full examination of this information, accompanied by public comment.

“The petition points out that if the explosive information associated with the Climategate e-mails was serious enough to cause the departure of the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), then it also justifies EPA’s reopening its proceeding,” said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel, who filed the emergency petition. [Competitive Enterprise Institute, 12/2/09]


Exxon Mobil Gave FreedomWorks Over $275,000 In 2001. In 2001, Exxon Mobil donated $275,250 to FreedomWorks, then known as Citizens for a Sound Economy. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • FreedomWorks On Hacked Emails: “Has The Global Warming Lie And Conspiracy Been Truly Exposed?” On November 20, 2009, FreedomWorks posted a blog reaction to the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia. It stated, “In a potentially game-changing turn of events regarding ‘global warming’ alarmism and its cap-and-trade policy implications, a hacker got into the computer system of the British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (‘CRU’), one of the leading sources of the climate change hoax, and has made public a large amount of data and e-mail among the usual alarmist suspectsThe main thing is that this would appear to be a black day for the cult of Algore [sic]and the self-serving “scientists” who, whether in search of greater funding or leftist politics, seem to be part of a large conspiracy of lies. Maybe one of these guys will turn state’s evidence and explain what’s going on. In the meantime, if further investigation proves this apparent pattern of lies true, someone should sue each of these men for abuse of public resources since many of them are on a government payroll. This news needs to be spread far and wide, especially to politicians and regulators who have the desire and authority to tax and regulate us in the name of ‘global warming’.” [FreedomWorks, 11/20/09]

Heartland Institute

Exxon Mobil Has Given The Heartland Institute Over $530,000 Since 2001. Since 2001, Exxon Mobil has donated $531,500 to the Heartland Institute. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • Heartland Institute Said Global Warming Claims Were “Discredited” By Hacked Emails. According to the Heartland Institute, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today formally determined that human emissions of carbon dioxide pose a threat to human health and the environment. That finding runs counter to scientific evidence and inappropriately defers to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been discredited by the “Climategate” scandal and numerous scientific critiques.” [Heartland Institute, 12/7/09]

Heritage Foundation

Exxon Mobil Has Given The Heritage Foundation $385,000 Since 2001. Since 2001, Exxon Mobil has donated $385,000 to the Heritage Foundation. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • The Heritage Foundation Has Attempted To Draw Attention To Hacked Emails. In numerous blog posts, the Heritage Foundation has done its part to draw attention to the hacked emails.  The conservative think tank’s blog wrote:

1,000 emails and more than 3,000 other documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the United Kingdom publicly revealed by a hacker, or allegedly an inside whistleblower, are rekindling the flame to the global warming debate just weeks before the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference where the United States will propose an emissions reduction target. [Heritage Foundation, 11/23/09]

For those who thought the exposed emails from Britain’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit would come and go without much play, think again. Surely the skeptics and even the agnostics wouldn’t miss an opportunity to jump on such devastating revelations, but the fact is ClimateGate is having immediate and possibly long-lasting effects all over the world. [Heritage Foundation, 12/1/09]

[T]he always-witty Mark Steyn calls it, Warmergate. Skepticism is only bound to grow and here comes that funny little word transparency again. Reason senior analyst Shikha Dalmia writes, “A complete airing of the science of global warming, which is looking less and less avoidable by the day, might eventually vindicate the claims of climate warriors. Or it might not. The only thing Obama can control in this matter is which side he will support: The truth, or-what he accused his predecessor of-ideology.” [Heritage Foundation, 12/3/09]

Maybe the scandal won’t be everything the skeptics hope for but Heritage Senior Policy Analyst David Kreutzer reminds us that “Few policy questions, and none with as big a price tag, are based so fundamentally on there being a scientific consensus.” The least we can do is a little prying and poking. [Heritage Foundation, 12/2/09]

National Center For Policy Analysis

Exxon Mobil Has Given The National Center For Policy Analysis $520,000 Since 2001. Since 2001, Exxon Mobil has donated $520,000 to the National Center for Policy Analysis. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • NCPA: Hacked Emails “Should Serve As A Major Red Flag To The Obama Administration And Other Government Delegations.” On December 7, 2009, the National Center for Policy analysis wrote:

The Climate-gate scandal, which revealed that scientists attempted to suppress inconvenient data, used tricks to change reported outcomes, suppress dissent, and undermine the peer review process, should serve as a major red flag to the Obama administration and other government delegations, according to NCPA Senior Fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

“Even though the science used to justify the need for a costly climate treaty is unraveling, the Obama administration is shrugging off the emails, parroting the claim that the science is settled and it’s time to act, which couldn’t be further from the truth,” Dr. Burnett said. “Instead of the administration choosing to slow down and make sure the science is solid, it feels the need to push harder for an agreement to set new greenhouse gas emissions targets.” [NCPA, 12/7/09]

National Center For Public Policy Research

Exxon Mobil Has Given The National Center For Public Policy Research $390,000 Since 2001. Since 2001, Exxon Mobil has donated $390,000 to the National Center for Public Policy Research. [Publicly Available IRS 990 Forms via Conservative Transparency, accessed 12/7/09]

  • National Center For Public Policy Research Hypes Hacked Emails. On December 3, 2009 the National Center for Public Policy Research published a statement saying:

In a scandal now known as “Climategate,” released documents and emails from a climate research branch of a British university reveal what appear to be efforts to manipulate data to support the preexisting views of leading climate researchers.

Raw data on which IPCC conclusions were based also has been destroyed.

IPCC reports on global warming are frequently relied upon by corporations and governments to develop their policy on climate change.

“For the sake of his company, shareholders and customers, Rogers must stop lobbying for a law whose scientific foundation could be made of sand.  Given the questions surrounding the integrity of scientists that contributed to the IPCC report, Rogers must conduct an internal review to independently evaluate the impact of manipulated and destroyed data on Duke Energy’s climate change policy,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the Free Enterprise Project. [National Center for Public Policy Research, 12/3/09]

17 Responses to Anti-science groups funded by ExxonMobil hype email story

  1. Mark Shapiro says:

    Amazingly, this is news. The press does not cover it.

    No surprise to our friend Jeff Huggins, of course. Folks in the MSM know who pays the bills.

  2. Seth Masia says:

    We’ve covered it in Solar Today:

    Better yet, see the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists:

  3. Jeff Huggins says:

    The One Trillion+ Pound Elephant down your street and, frequently, trying to mislead and confuse you on the front page of The New York Times, on cable TV, and nearly anywhere it can find a gullible scientifically uninformed brain …

    ExxonMobil products generate over one TRILLION pounds of CO2 in a single year, and the number is most likely substantially greater than that.

    Their products and operations generate SO much CO2, in a single year, that the amount weighs more than the weight of the entire human species living on Earth today, i.e., more than all 6.8 billion of us weigh, together!

    Now that’s A LOT!

    Although spreading confusion and delay through paid anti-scientific organizations is downright unethical, and is harmful to all of us, including to future generations, it is the least conspicuous of ExxonMobil’s actions and inactions.

    ExxonMobil’s own statements, words, actions, inactions, tactics, corporate results, and strategies present HUGE paradoxes and inconsistencies and the net result is not at all good, to put it mildly.

    By now we should all be boycotting them. Period.

    As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve sent my “analysis” of ExxonMobil to over 40 people in the media, and in organizations that are supposed to track and critique the media, and to relevant blogs, and to several universities, and to practically everyone else except to Santa Clause and to Tiger Woods’ fifth fling.

    The news media’s coverage of ExxonMobil at this point should be going far beyond the notion that they sometimes fund these sorts of efforts. Just compare what they tell the public themselves, directly, in their PR pieces and ads, and what they tell our elected leaders, with what they report and say in their own financial and operating reports, and with basic science. It’s a mess.

    But, what do we see today? ExxonMobil with a big PR piece on the front page of The New York Times, and Andy writing about Dante in an article whose title begins with “Violins and Hints of Hades” and whose first sentence includes the phrase “environmental campaigners”.

    I have a chemical engineering background, a background in the oil industry, and a business background (as I’ve mentioned far too many times now: sorry!), and I feel that I can say with great confidence and sincerity that we should be boycotting ExxonMobil at this point. Not only that, we should be spreading the word. Not only that, we should be insisting that the media spend more time focusing on the transgressions of the most profitable oil company in the world, who is messing up the climate itself, rather than on the transgressions of a guy who hits golf balls around.



  4. mike roddy says:

    Not surprised that a CEI Weyerhauser “fellow” wrote that denier piece. I’ve been fighting Weyerhauser for decades. Their MO here in the West is to clearcut, spray herbicides, and plant monocultures on 40 year rotations that they call a “fast growing, healthy forest”. When there were landslides where the land was clearcut in Washington, the Weyerhauser geologist said with a straight fact that this had nothing to do with the clearcuts (in spite of about 20 studies to the contrary). Lying is second nature to the timber industry- the oil and tobacco industries could learn from them.

    Industrial forestry has a much bigger carbon footprint than most people realize, too- another part of the science they work hard to distort.

  5. glen says:

    Guess who — was given space on the Washington Post’s opinion page to hype the email story

    hint: one of JR’s “favorite” politicians

    [JR: Now you’ve gone and done it! Thanks for the tip.]

  6. Eli Rabett says:

    Even better, look what Exxon got at the Smithsonian (Astrophysical Observatory) for Christmas, a soggy polar bear.

  7. Greg Gorman says:

    From ExxonMobil 2008 Corporate Citizen Report chapter entitle “Managing Climate Change Risks”

    “With increased global energy
    demand, energy-related carbon
    dioxide emissions are expected to
    rise by an average of 1 percent per
    year through the year 2030. As was
    recently summarized in the Fourth Assessment
    Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
    Climate Change (IPCC), the risks to society
    and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse
    gas (GHG) emissions are significant. Meeting
    the enormous energy demand growth and
    managing the risk of GHG emissions are the
    twin challenges of our time.
    We all must engage in the search for solutions
    if we are to succeed at mitigating these
    risks. Progress can be achieved through
    climate change policy frameworks that enable
    countries to pursue economic progress while
    promoting the development of technologies
    necessary to generate and use energy more

  8. MVR says:

    Whilst not speaking to the wrongheadedness of the various positions taken by these think-tanks; someone really should point out the obvious. All the references cited are specific to the CRU email controversy… You folks at do realize, i hope, that this in and of itself does not necessarily implicate exxonmobil for backing “junk science” and the like. After all, its not as if exxon has editorial control over what is produced by its various donor recipients. Given the timing on these leaks and corresponding articles there is simply not enough evidence to reach the conclusions you reach. I understand this is all politics of course–but the logic on display in this piece really is far too contrived.

  9. Jeff Huggins says:

    To Greg Gorman, Comment 7

    Hi Greg. A quick question:

    Is the point you are making in your Comment 7 that ExxonMobil’s actual actions (and their other statements) don’t reconcile with the sentiments that they (ExxonMobil) express in the quote in your Comment 7; or, are you including their statement to suggest that they are actually being responsible and that they “mean” what they say?

    I’m just trying to understand your point? Thanks.

    Also, are you the famous photographer?

    Thanks. Cheers,


  10. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi All-

    The direct ExxonMobil funding of these think tanks is more than matched by funding from a network of conservative “charitable” foundations.

    The Scaife foundations (Carthage, Sarah Scaife, and Scaife family) are controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, a conservative billionaire, publisher of a chain of newspapers, and, according to Joe Conason’s book The Hunting of the President, funder of the Clinton impeachment effort. Scaife has given over a billion dollars to conservative causes, over a thirty year period.

    The Bradley foundation is capitalized by Rockwell International stock, and so constitutes a way of funneling tax money through the Military/Industrial Complex, and into public policy.

    The Olin Foundation also used to fund similar causes.

    This network of conservative “charitable” foundations contribute several times as much money to the think tanks listed in the above article as ExxonMobil. does.

    A few searches on The Media Action Network’s transparency database shows this:

    American Enterprise Institute:

    ExxonMobil: $1,910,000
    Carthage (Scaife): $900,000
    Sarah Scaife: 6,436,000
    Scaife Family: 590,000
    Bradley: 17,144,047
    Olin: 7,647,124


    ExxonMobil: 275,250
    Carthage (Scaife): 200,000
    Sarah Scaife: 2,960,000
    Scaife Family: 325,000
    Bradley: 205,000
    Olin: 1,300,000

    Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow:

    ExxonMobil: 467,000
    Carthage (Scaife): 1,205,000
    Sarah Scaife Foundation: 375,000

    Competitive Enterprise Institute:

    ExxonMobil: 1,690,000
    Carthage (Scaife): 60,000
    Sarah Scaife: 2,240,000
    Scaife Family: 350,000
    Bradley: 900,040
    Olin: 230,300

    Heartland Institute:
    ExxonMobil: 531,000
    Carthage (Scaife): 10,000
    Sarah Scaife: 325,000
    Scaife Family: 350,000
    Olin: 40,000

    Heritage Foundation:
    ExxonMobil: 385,000
    Carthage (Scaife): 2,559,000
    Sarah Scaife: 21,235,000
    Scaife Family: 702,640
    Bradley: 14,255,702
    Olin: 8,070,835

    And so on.

    What does this mean?

    I don’t know.

    But a great many tax free “charitable” conservative foundations are providing the majority of the money to keep some of these think tanks specializing in global warming denial afloat.

    And now these same think tanks are adding their voices to the CRU hacking disinformation.

  11. Greg Gorman says:

    To Jeff Huggins, Comment 9

    I was making is simply that ExxonMobil as does Shell and BP acknowleges IPCC findings.

    ExxonMobil is an international corporation and like most businesses are hedging their bets. When the customer base changes and demands clean energy, strategies change. When sources of supply become scarce, strategies change to open new revenue streams. Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and CEO supports Carbon Tax, invested in Algae Biofuel research, reduced flaring in Nigeria, and supports many other projects to reduce GHG and improve energy efficiency. Carbon sequestration techniques being demonstrated in Texas may increase productivity of existing wells avoiding the cost of deep drilling. I don’t really believe they relish the thought of rebuilding after a hurricane, or moving refineries further inland as the tides roll in. On the other hand, opening oil fields and exploration in environmentally sensitive parts of the world or in coastal waters now availble after the big thaw are clearly advantageous to the stockholder.

    Just as environment changes so do business strategies. It appears in the case of ExxonMobil we are seeing change. We need to push them to the tipping point. At least strive for carbon neutrality via biofuel supplements, cogeneration, and just good stewardship.

    I am just a common citizen, not the famous photographer.



  12. Jeff Huggins says:

    Dear Greg (Comment 11)

    Greg, thanks for your comment.

    The problem I see after analyzing ExxonMobil statements, PR, advertorials, financial and operating reports, and results, is this: They are incredibly inconsistent, they conflict with each other, they are misleading, they are deceiving, and so forth (nearly every other word in the dictionary); and there is an incredible gap between their positive=seeming statements and their actual actions; and they are being incredibly irresponsible. They’ll sometimes say or imply that they want to solve the problem, and then they’ll do stuff that shows (or very strongly indicates) that they don’t really care about solving it, period.

    Tillerson spoke about different mechanisms (various cap-and-trade approaches, carbon tax, etc.) well over two years ago, in a speech that I’ve quoted many times. At that time, he said that they were working on their preferred approach and had been working on it. Well over two years ago. Yet, even as they now sometimes say or hint that they’d prefer a carbon tax, do you really think they are publicly PUSHING for a carbon tax, seriously, for example, in their PR pieces or in their appeals to the government? And, what are the specifics? After all, they’ve been working on it for over two years now! So, what specific amount of tax do they suggest? What are they doing to push for that? And, what results (in terms of sizable reductions in the use of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the main point of course) do they actually forecast, if such a carbon tax were adopted? And so forth. In other words, what are the genuine and serious specifics? They’ve been working on it since before June of 2007, according to them.

    There are plenty of comments to quote from their financial and operating reviews, and other public statements, that show that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. To an amazing degree.

    So, my suggestion is, give up on ExxonMobil, and boycott them. If you “trust” that ExxonMobil will be any sort of meaningful leader (or even responsible participant) in an actual solution (that involves a meaningful and sufficient reduction in CO2-generating fuels), I think your trust is completely misplaced. And, I say that as a chemical engineer who has followed the matter, who collects ExxonMobil advertorials, who has analyzed their financial and operating reports, who has worked in the oil industry, and who got an offer from Exxon itself (before it was ExxonMobil) long ago to work for them as a Chem. Eng. The right answer for ExxonMobil at this point is to boycott them, not to trust them with the future climate.


    Thanks Greg.

    Be Well,


  13. Cynthia says:

    Actually, I think Jeff has a very good point. He keeps emphasizing the need to boycott Exxonmobile. Considering the fact that Exxonmobile is The Main Stumbling Block to any progress in mitigating climate change, all we have to do is to hit them where it hurts the most: their purse strings.

  14. Greg Gorman says:

    Is a boycott necessary? I just sent a message to ExxonMobil via their website requesting them to make a bold statement to reaffirm there support of the IPCC findings. Wouldn’t this demonstrate “corporate citizenship”?

  15. Jeff Huggins says:

    Hi Greg (Comment 14),

    Thanks for your message.

    At this point, (and speaking here about ExxonMobil), their actions count much more than words, and words need to be consistent and compelling.

    It was well over two years ago that Rex Tillerson gave his speech to the Royal Institute for International Affairs, in which he quoted Bertrand Russell and did the normal ExxonMobil blah blah blah.

    It has been nearly thirty years since Walter Cronkite covered the greenhouse effect and the risk of global warming on the CBS Evening News, on April 3, 1980, to a nationwide audience. That was before Ronald Reagan was elected President, several years before Madonna had issued her first album, before CNN had launched, and at a time when John Lennon himself was still alive and singing.

    ExxonMobil has had PLENTY of time, and they’ve chosen to use it to deceive us and to delay.

    If you can get them to get down on their knees, beg forgiveness, completely change their executive ranks, come clean with the public, and change course starting tomorrow AM, then perhaps it might make sense to delay a boycott, while the public and (hopefully) the media can “trust but verify” a day at a time. But, if not, then a prompt boycott is what is called for and is, by now, what they deserve.

    I’ve also corresponded with a Board Member of ExxonMobil who is a noted Prof. at the business school I attended, and that was well over a year ago. Although we corresponded in both directions, I’ve seen no substantial change, and indeed things have only gotten worse.

    So, in my view, time is up.

    Good luck with your efforts. But, don’t be fooled by their words, of course.

    Be Well,


  16. Chris Winter says:

    MVR wrote: “You folks at do realize, i hope, that this in and of itself does not necessarily implicate exxonmobil for backing “junk science” and the like. After all, its not as if exxon has editorial control over what is produced by its various donor recipients. Given the timing on these leaks and corresponding articles there is simply not enough evidence to reach the conclusions you reach.”

    True, ExxonMobil has no editorial control over what AEI, CEI, Heartland and the like publish. But the fact that those organizations have continued to receive grants from ExxonMobil over the years while publishing junk science and attempting to derail any policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions says plainly that ExxonMobil approves of those activities.

    “I understand this is all politics of course–but the logic on display in this piece really is far too contrived.”

    You’re wrong there too. Part of it is science — a big part when it comes to global warming. And the logic on display in the article you refer to looks fine to me. Yours, on the other hand…

  17. MVR says:

    Chris (Comment 16),

    You’re wrong there too. Part of it is science — a big part when it comes to global warming. And the logic on display in the article you refer to looks fine to me. Yours, on the other hand…

    My logic is fine. I am not denying the science of global warming.While I am not an climate expert, I am convinced that the consensus across the scientific community is genuine and as a consequence the problem of AGW must be addressed ASAP.

    My comment on calling the conclusions reached political is based on the fact that the article failed to reference any evidence of these thinktanks producing “junk science” (beyond the recent cases of opinion type pieces on the CRU leaked emails); and based on this alone came to conclude that ExxonMobil’s previous statements pertaining to their funding policy were deceptive. Now that may very well be the case, but the evidence adduced in this article does not support such a conclusion.

    NB., My intent in writing the comment in the first place is based entirely upon the fact that I think that–if we are going to win the fight to bring the problem of pollution under control–we are going to need step it up a notch. Scoring cheap political points by convincing the choir that ExxonMobil is some kind of great Satan may be music to AGW defenders ears, but I suspect it will prove ineffective in the long run.

    Moreover they should not be the primary target at this point. Efforts should be directed at pressuring–in the short term–those political representatives who are sitting on the fence on carbon regulation policy. Because if we can get the regulation in place, and change the economic incentives, Exxon, et al. will have no choice but to reform their business to reduce carbon production… And once in place, over the longer run, we can hopefully mitigate the risks posed by AGW.