Who’s Paying for Climate Skepticism? ExxonMobile Is!

By Nick Aster | October 20th, 2005 View Comments

exxonmobil44.jpgI’m not usually much for conspiracy theories, but this one seems well documented, and very juicy. The vast majority of scientists hold climate change to be a fact – and the vast majority of them also accept that much of it is due to human activity – mostly industrial and automotive emissions. There are, however, a handful of scientists who periodically cast doubt on the connection between climate change and our actions, and even on climate change itself.
It turns out, a lot of those scientists are recieving indirect cash payments from ExxonMobile – the only major oil company to consistenly deny the human – global warming connection. The breakdown of two dozen scientists and their payoffs is listed here on the EDF site. Fascinating science!

Categorized: Climate Change|

Follow 3p on Twitter

  • Carl Sparre
    Sorry Dave, I don't agree. This is not about absolutes, it's about trends. We have a trend towards a warming climate, we also have a trend towards increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (and other greenhouse gases). Unless we reverse the latter trend, things can only get worse. It's not us in the path of the truck, it's our kids and grandkids.
  • Who's Paying for Climate Skepticism? ExxonMobile Is!

    [Source: Triple Pundit - An 'integrated bottom-line' approach to looking at business] quoted: I'm not usually much for conspiracy theories, but this one seems well documented, and very juicy. The vast majority of scientists hold climate change to be a ...
  • The link is confusing because they list individuals alphabetically and not by institutions. It makes the total amount of money seem much larger when you keep seeing $185,000 appear next to various names, when that's really the amount the institution received. This detracts from the more important point: that Exxon pays to distort scientific facts as presented to society.
    In general the whole debate about whether global warming is caused by humans or is a result of natural cycles is meaningless. It's like arguing with someone about whether or not a driver is behind the wheel of a truck which is about to hit you when it would be so much more productive to step out of the street and avoid the conversation altogether.
  • alexanderhorre
    My biology teacher gave me a great example. The truth lies in the middle. The only people making news are those that say yes and the others that say no. The bulk is in the middle.
    Global Warming has always existed, it's how the earth accumulates its climate. However Human Interaction has provided a cataylst to the inevitable, and in concentrated areas, than being dispersed.
blog comments powered by Disqus