Global Warming and Exxon PR Tactics

Back when I was writing Global Warming Pt III, I noticed that I had trouble finding scientists who supported claims that the evidence on global warming is inconclusive but that were also independent. Nearly everyone I found is involved with some an organization with a sciency name and funding from Exxon.

It seemed fishy at the time, but I tried not to think about it too much - I mean, really, are all of these guys corrupt just because Exxon supports their work?

Now, in a book excerpt, George Monbiot is claiming that the tactics Exxon uses are in fact as shady as they sound: The denial industry. From the summary:

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade.

The tactic is this: set up/fund a wide variety of scientific sounding organizations (TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change), and let these organizations do the obfuscation for you. Monbiot claims that these organizations do not invent junk science, but they loudly publicize contradictory studies, sometimes even long after they've been disproved.

This reminds me of a movie that was out recently, Thank You For Smoking. In the movie, the main character, a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, explains that to win any argument, all he has to do is cast doubt on his adversary's evidence.

That similarity is more than just a coincidence from the movies: the most damning part about all of this is that the tactics Exxon is using, and even some of the organizations they are paying, were invented by Philip Morris during the smoking debates of the last century.

It's unfortunate that this is the tactic Exxon is using, because it casts them as a bad guy with something to hide. If there was truly strong evidence that global warming wasn't happening/caused by CO2, wouldn't it be better for Exxon to stand up for it and act as champion?

That's where this excerpt reveals a little of its bias: there's a strong implication that the junk science is the only anti-global warming science, and that the only scientists who don't support the global warming conclusions are paid by Exxon. It's unfortunate that this article doesn't attempt to disentangle the junk science groups and the real scientists, because global warming skeptics shrug off these claims. After all, just because Exxon is paying them doesn't mean the science is wrong. And even if there are some groups out there using junk science, there are still thousands of independent scientists publishing sound papers skeptical of global warming.

Right?

Here's a video clip from the BBC with diagrams of what's happening, for my reader who can't read: VIDEO: BBC Reveals ‘Direct Link’ Between Tobacco Companies And Global Warming Deniers