Dear ExxonMobil: Royal Society says stop funding climate change denial
Earlier this month the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, sent a letter (PDF) to Esso, ExxonMobil's U.K. branch, to demand that the oil giant withdraw support for organizations that undermine scientific evidence supporting the theory of global warming. The Royal Society conducted a survey which found that last year, ExxonMobil distributed $2.9 million to 39 of these think tanks and lobby groups. Groups on the list include the International Policy Network, which is headquartered in London, and the George C. Marshall Institute, based in Washington DC. The letter states that these organizations have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".The letter also takes aim at ExxonMobil's official claims that the "gaps in the scientific basis" make it very difficult to blame climate change on human activity. The Royal Society says that these claims are not consistent with scientific literature and misrepresent the science of climate change.
Bob Ward, the senior manager of policy communication at the Royal Society and the letter's official author, said, "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
The IPCC is the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their next report, due in February of next year, is expected to say that the Earth's temperature could increase higher than previously thought.
The actual letter can be found here (PDF).
[Source: Guardian via Energy Bulletin]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Dr Detroit 7:07AM (9/22/2006)
Choice is simple. Boycott ExxonMobil!
Reply
Dr. Woo 8:02AM (9/22/2006)
And if you denied that we were going into an Ice Age back in the 80's, you were a damn commie, too!
Reply
Rick 9:36AM (9/22/2006)
OMG!! You mean to tell me that an open market system that values the almighty $ might actually NOT have the best public interest?!! I'm aghast and soooo disillusioned.
Reply
Dr. Woo 12:36PM (9/22/2006)
Actually, that was the 70s, not the 80s. My bad.
"OMG!! You mean to tell me that an open market system that values the almighty $ might actually NOT have the best public interest?!! I'm aghast and soooo disillusioned."
OMG!! You mean to tell me that an open market system that values individual freedoms and thought might actually be coercing a non-governmental agency into supporting a perceived "public interest?!!" I'm aghast and soooo disillusioned.
Could it be that maybe...just maybe...a company who has even a smidgeon of regard for its own prosperity might possibly want to fund research on BOTH ends of the spectrum?
Reply
Fabio 6:13AM (9/30/2006)
@ Woo
"Could it be that maybe...just maybe...a company who has even a smidgeon of regard for its own prosperity might possibly want to fund research on BOTH ends of the spectrum?"
Sure it could, except it's not the case at hand.
Reply