User:X1\/Exx3c

See User:X1\/Springee&HughD too.

wp:Help desk/Archives/2018 February 13

Funding of climate change denial
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 stated "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."

Exxon responded to the article by saying the allegations were based on cherry-picked statements from ExxonMobil employees and noting the ongoing climate research the company engaged in during the time in question. The company also denied claims made by InsideClimate News that it had curtailed carbon dioxide research in favor of climate denial. Exxon's statement said the drop in oil prices hurt oil companies in the 1980s and caused research cut backs. The statement also claimed that it was uncertain if increases in greenhouse gas emissions caused significant warming, or if immediate action on climate change was necessary.

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,” and concluded that Exxon Mobil systematically “misled non-scientific audiences about climate science.”   Exxon called the report "inaccurate and preposterous".  The report was covered by a range of media.

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. The climate research was primarily conducted by Exxon while the advertiorials were primarily from Mobil.

State and federal investigations
Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) July 2016 subpoenaed a variety of involved parties; with state Attorney Generals Maura Healey and Eric Schneiderman of New York refusing to comply, along with the Union of Concerned Scientists and 350.org of the nine environmental, scientific and philanthropic organizations. The AG and the organizations have refused to comply with the subpoenas from Smith and have refused to comply with earlier demands for documents from him, claiming that the federal subpoenas are unconstitutional, citing case law going back to the proceedings of the House Un-American Activities Committee and have cited principles of States' rights. The attorneys general of Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas, all Republicans, have previously sided with Smith and Exxon.

As of August 2016, Schneiderman leads queries by at least five attorneys generals, regarding decades-old research on climate change conducted by Exxon while it funded groups promoting doubt about climate science. In response to Lamar Smith arguing free speech, Schneiderman stated "“The First Amendment doesn’t protect you for fraud.”

Smith said he had called a mid-September 2016 hearing to “affirm the legitimacy” of his inquiry. Smith has questioned the overwhelming scientific consensus underlying climate change, and he has received more than $675,000 from the fossil fuel industry since 1998, including more than $24,000 from ExxonMobil. In early September, Smith and ExxonMobil noted that Mr. Schneiderman has received substantial campaign contributions from people and organizations with an interest in environmental matters. The witnesses called in the hearing included Ronald Rotunda (with ties to Heartland Institute) and Elizabeth Price Foley who are affiliated with conservative causes and organizations. The first witness Jonathan Turley (not affiliated with conservative groups) in his prepared comments he stated that he supported action against climate change, and testified the justification for the state subpoenas are than less clear, expressing the opinion that they violated free speech. Per testimony by Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a former acting general counsel of the House of Representatives, this was the first time a House committee had subpoenaed a state attorney general, that the subpoenas were unenforceable against both the attorneys general and the groups, and that “the science committee cannot and should not try to enforce” them.

Reception
Paul Krugman, Michael E. Mann and Naomi Oreskes were among several scientists and journalists to comment that Exxon's decisions to protect its profits in spite of the scientific consensus led to global inaction on climate change, stalled progress in developing renewable energy, and made the effort to slow climate change more difficult. In October, 2015 Bill McKibben wrote in The Nation that Exxon "knew everything there was to know about climate change by the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science."

ExxonMobil responded to InsideClimate News, McKibben, and Oreskes saying the allegations were based on cherry-picked statements from ExxonMobil employees and noted the ongoing climate research the company engaged in during the time in question. In November, ExxonMobil denied claims made by InsideClimate News that it had curtailed carbon dioxide research in favor of climate denial. Exxon's statement said the drop in oil prices hurt oil companies in the 1980s and caused research cut backs. The statement also claimed that it was uncertain if increases in greenhouse gas emissions caused significant warming, or if immediate action on climate change was necessary.

In November 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed alleging it misled its investors and the public by failing to disclose the risks posed to its business by climate change.