Talk:ExxonMobil climate change denial/Archive 4

added link removed with mass deletion?
I had added a reference ( August 23, 2017 PBS NewsHour) to the paragraph below; "In the fall of 2015, the non-profit, non-partisan news organization InsideClimate News published a series of reports on an eight month investigation based on decades of internal Exxon Mobil files and interviews with former Exxon employees, which described how 'Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.' On its website, Exxon Mobil urged 'Read all of these documents and make up your own mind.' In August 2017 the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters published a content analysis by Harvard University researchers of Exxon Mobil’s internal reports, peer-reviewed research papers, and advertising, including advertorials Exxon placed in the op-ed section of The New York Times between 1972 and 2001. The authors found that '83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents [from Exxon] acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt' and concluded: 'Exxon Mobil contributed to advancing climate science -- by way of its scientists’ academic publications -- but promoted doubt about it in advertorials,” and concluded that Exxon Mobil systematically “misled non-scientific audiences about climate science.”" which was deleted en masse. Is that appropriate?  The paper is a significant addition to this article.  I didn't find or, but this subject could be recovered by a rewrite.  X1\ (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WP:DENY we don't reward socks by keeping their edits. If we keep the edits it simply encourages more sock edits.  As posted the material is the typical low quality, partisan additions HughD frequently made.  The edit follows a typical pattern, talk up the source ("the non-profit, non-partisan news organization InsideClimate News "), then find a few quotes that sound particularly damning when presented without context.  Note that using quotes in a way to that breaks their original context is WP:SYN.  Then finish with an example of WP:OVERCITE.  The material may have a place in the article but the current paragraph does not.  Springee (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear you on the wp:deny recognition and it appears we agree on the need to rewrite this, while keeping some items. I am confused from where some of these quotes are cited.  I'll need time to dig.  I agree there is no need to "talk up" a Pulitzer Prize winning source, nor emphasizing "peer-reviewed journal".  This part seems OK;

"In the fall of 2015, InsideClimate News published a series of reports on an eight month investigation based on decades of internal Exxon Mobil files and interviews with former Exxon employees, which described how 'Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.' On its website, Exxon Mobil urged 'Read all of these documents and make up your own mind.'"
 * but I would add Exxon called the report "inaccurate and preposterous" as it is more definitive, maybe add different sources than MoJo such as this or that.
 * I'd separate the timeline by years (and months/days) starting at; In August 2017, Environmental Research Letters published a content analysis by Harvard University researchers of Exxon Mobil’s internal reports, peer-reviewed research papers, and advertising, including advertorials Exxon placed in the op-ed section of The New York Times between 1972 and 2001.
 * This part I'll need to sort through more; "The authors found that '83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents [from Exxon] acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt' and concluded: 'Exxon Mobil contributed to advancing climate science -- by way of its scientists’ academic publications -- but promoted doubt about it in advertorials,” and concluded that Exxon Mobil systematically “misled non-scientific audiences about climate science.”"
 * X1\ (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that is better than what we started with. I'm not overly fond of sources like VOX when it comes to topics like this.  They seem to be advocating more than reporting with a balanced perspective.  Also, what is really at hand is we have a Harvard published study.  We have several sources that reported the study.  I would suggest we stick with, as much as possible, the contents of the study, and avoid the editorial opinions of sources like VOX. It's been a while since I read all this but I thought we basically had two primary sources (not using the WK "primary" definition).  First we have ICN as they were the source of a number of the claims.  Summarizing their claims and EM's response is totally appropriate.  Next we have the Harvard study and it's results.  Was the Harvard work covered by ICN?  If not I think I would stick with sources that say, "___ study said ____" but avoid sources that add an editorial spin (I would typically say NYT is neutral while VOX is biased as an example).


 * What I would like to try to avoid is an article that either through selective quoting or careful presentation of the broader facts tries imply a moral judgment on the topic. This was one of the long standing issues with HughD's edits.  They frequently were "reliable quotes" but arranged in a way to suggest the reader should be morally incensed by the subject.  To digress for a moment, this was part of the problem with earlier drafts of the gas tank fire section of the Pinto article.  By selective quoting of sources and emphasizing sources that damned vs tried to explain, the article read as if there was a boardroom meeting where the Ford execs signed off on trading lives for profits based on a simple math formula.  However, the scholarly sources make it clear that there was no grand plan or scheme. Rather the outcome was the result of internal groups inside of a very large company responding to the bits of information they had and making choices that were rational given their field of view.  As was reported, some of the key decision makers had recommended or purchased Pinto's for their own family members.  I suspect with EM things were similar.  It seems very unlikely the research arm and the PR arms of the company were coordinating their research findings and marketing claims.  Thus we should avoid giving too much weight to the opinion aspects of sources like MoJo or VOX who sell based in part on outrage.  I think we will have a successful article if people leave it feeling better informed about the range of views of the subject.  Springee (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * X1, I'm contemplating an extensive rewrite of the restored material. I'm not a fan of the current style which is of the pattern X said "Y" repeated for a number of sources.  It's would be better to have a more narrative form.  It would also better integrate two paragraphs.  Let me know your thoughts.  Since you said WIP in your edit summary I'll give it a bit of time. Springee (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The "two paragraphs" should not be integrated. They are different items, of different years.  X1\ (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree about keeping the paragraphs separate. They are basically saying the same thing.  Both sources are saying Exxon knew more than they were letting on.  For that reason it makes more sense to combine the paragraphs.  The topic sentence is the claim that Exxon knew more than they let on. The supporting claims are the ICN article and the Harvard Study.  Any sources that dispute or Exxon statements to the contrary can also be included here.  For editorial reasons one of the big problems I have, as I stated before, is the way the current paragraphs follow a poor narrative form.  They start by playing up the source then use a simplistic summary with a few damning direct quotes.  It doesn't help the reader better understand the topic.  It's the Wikipedia equivalent to sound bite news. Springee (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire article is "basically saying the same thing", but it has to be organized somehow. The section called Funding of climate change denial is organized chronologically.  If you are seeking to rewrite the entire section, work together here before making such a drastic change attempt.  That will save you significant wasted effort.  I agree Wikipedia is mostly not beautiful prose, but that is to be expected as it is basically written by an ever-changing, disorderly mob with little criterion for admission.  It would seem from Wikipedia's success that this "disorder" is rather necessary.  The current "narrative form" is boring, but less contentious as the challenge is broken-down in to more manageable chunks, organized by years.  By you saying "playing up the source" and "a few damning direct quotes" you sound too emotionally invested in this topic, thus making a NPOV more difficult.  You have stated you want a "balanced perspective", but let us not have a false balance or false equivalence.  I am not saying this is what you are attempting to achieve.  I believe you when you stated you want a "successful article if people leave it feeling better informed".  I want readers to be better informed too.  X1\ (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I found an ICN article on the Harvard Study you were asking about above: "Harvard Study Finds Exxon Misled Public about Climate Change" from August 22, 2017. It seems a good addition, add?  X1\ (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't like In the fall of 2015, InsideClimate News published a series of reports on an eight month investigation based on decades of internal Exxon Mobil files and interviews with former Exxon employees, which described how "Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed. This takes ICN for neutral source - which it isn't - and treats its statements as truth - which they aren't. In particular I think "without revealing all that it had learned" is false William M. Connolley (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong words, but where is your evidence (RSs)? A reference that is in the article called "Exxon: The Road Not Taken, Exxon Sowed Doubt about Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty" was named a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service was produced by ICN (one of other examples), who works with Frontline (U.S. TV series) (also a distinguish award winner, also for example Pulitzers).  Here is an example: Video: Exxon Researched Climate Change in 1977.  So how is ICN, in the references used here, not a "neutral source" or aren't truthful (i.e. subject to liability)?  I don't see "without revealing all that it had learned" as false at all since the RSs to that effect have been in the public domain for a significant amount of time now.  I don't even see the quote as controversial, which I verified (a previous editor created the paragraph, which Springee some how confused me for) as in the "About this Series" right-side section of the series.  X1\ (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth Mother Jones got a Pulitzer for the Pinto Madness article. It turned out to be largely bunk.Springee (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link(s) to that effect? I found the Pinto Madness article, but it is from 1977, so my google search might not have found it.  I didn't find a MoJo win on Pulitzer's site either.  Can you direct me to what you are talking about?  X1\ (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been away, so I'm somewhat out of date. X: you wanted "RS" for my opinion. But what I'm doing is explaining my reasoning, not trying to add something to the page, so I don't need to meet the strict RS test: I just need to be right. I think it is obvious that ICN is non-neutral wrt Exxon; it is an advocacy organisation. That doesn't mean it is wrong; just non-neutral. Do you think otherwise? Where I do think the text is factually incorrect is cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned. Exxon did some (not-very exciting) research, and it published it. Which of it's research do you think it failed to publish? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't read that ICN is non-neutral advocacy, could you post a link? X1\ (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a link. Try looking at InsideClimate News: coverage of them is thin. Do you have a source that says they are neutral? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Found Springee's suggested changes (moved here due to above comment); "Exxon refuted the claims stating that their internal research had not reached a consensus and listing the publications in question. In August 2017, Environmental Research Letters published a content analysis by Harvard University researchers of Exxon Mobil’s internal reports, peer-reviewed research papers, and advertising, including advertorials Exxon placed in the op-ed section of The New York Times between 1972 and 2001.  The authors found that '83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents [from Exxon] acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt' and concluded: 'Exxon Mobil contributed to advancing climate science -- by way of its scientists’ academic publications -- but promoted doubt about it in advertorials.” Exxon called the report 'inaccurate and preposterous'. The Independent Petroleum Association of America also published a refutation of the Harvard study particularly noting that Exxon and Mobil were separate companies during much of the period in question." X1\ (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Replacing  (PBS NewsHour) with a fossil fuels lobby IPAA PR creation's yelling?  This is what you intend by "balanced" Springee?  X1\ (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are going to undo the changes you need to explain why. The changes I made were largely a reduction in redundant citations and cleaning language/phrasing. The material was added by an IP sock and thus the burden of justifying it is on the editor who chooses to restore it. Springee (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I did explain why. See above, and let us start discussing per BRD.  X1\ (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed that above. I'll continue my reply below.Springee (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see below, please do not move other editor's commentsSpringee (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You aren't "consolidating", you are deleting and replacing with fossil fuels lobby PR. Not RS.  X1\ (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Study by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes
I removed the recent addition about the study by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes because information about this study and its critics was already included in this article. The addition just duplicated existing information. Beagel (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

shouldn't the "Acknowledgement" portion state that Exxon acknowledges in its 2014 report that greenhouse gases will increase, not "lower"...?
shouldn't the "Acknowledgement" portion state that Exxon acknowledges in its 2014 report that greenhouse gases will increase, not "lower"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliechuckles688 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bad grammar
See the sentence "In 1980, Exxon analyzed in one of their documents that if instead of synthetic fuels such as coal liquefaction, oil shale, and oil sands the demand for fuels to be met by petroleum, it delays the atmospheric CO 2 doubling time by about five years to 2065". This seems to be ungrammatical. I can not see who posted it.


 * I've simplified it. I don't think we need the list of synfuels; or the exact CO2 doubling time William M. Connolley (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the 1982 report worth a separate section?
Just read the most recent xkcd and was also impressed by the accuracy of the prediction that global temperatures are about to rise to +1°C by 2022. Ain92 (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Universe of Energy
...if ExxonMobil was denying climate change, then why did they sponsor an attraction at EPCOT warning of climate change for all the world to see?

This Wiki subject is absolute nonsense. 2600:1009:B060:BEDF:8DA:5476:BD30:FFBD (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a little more info, such as when the attraction was open, how long it displayed, what it said, and how emphasis might have been directed to the various things said?
 * The article quotes Rex Tillerson where (paraphrasing) he said climate change is a reality, and then being dismissive about it. Possibly the EPCOT attraction was similar in this regard? Captain Puget (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

https://progresscityusa.com/energy/script_original.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajpajpajp1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)