In response to an email exchange with someone at ExxonMobil, I spent much of the day researching what they have done and, as far as I can tell, may still be doing. The link is to the Union of Concerned Scientists...that report is long, as is my post, but the first 10 or 20 pages are important reading. I checked enough (see below) to believe it is true. What follows are selected parts of an email I wrote and sent today. I had the quoted text in color: here, just look for the quotes so you can tell what I am writing vs. what is online. Some of the text I'm deleting is quotes from private email I received...not quite fair game to post.

**deleted text**
Your email arrived soon after the March 11, 2008 issue of EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 89, no. 11. On the second page of that issue (p. 206) is an article titled “Improving how scientists communicate about science”. One of the 3 references was to Union of Concerned Scientists (2007), Smoke, mirrors, & hot air: How ExxonMobil uses big tobacco’s tactics to manufacture uncertainty on climate science”.
This is available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.
I’ve now read the majority of that report.

**deleted text**

You may be interested in how I view the very first answer by Stuewer:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/news_features_20070601_climate.aspx
“There is growing public concern today about climate change. Do you share that concern?
We have followed this issue for more than two decades, so we understand the current concern well.”

I read this in the context that ExxonMobil has been undermining legitimate climate science for some part of two decades. Given that context, while there may be little that is actually wrong in that web site, it seems inadequate; the minimum.

ExxonMobil has a much higher bar to clear than other companies concerning statements about climate science because of their past, and perhaps present, behavior. This behavior is documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists and confirmed by the web sites of organizations that ExxonMobil has contributed to. I would advise that ExxonMobil address the issues that I raise directly on their website. Admit what has been done, stop doing it, and make it clear that they are not doing it any more. Because ExxonMobil’s credibility is pretty much shot on these issues, hopefully a truly independent group like Union of Concerned Scientists will confirm the change in behavior.

**deleted text**

You provided a list of a few public policy groups funded by ExxonMobil, and stated **deleted text**
From the ExxonMobil site, I downloaded gcr_contributions_public06.pdf. I do not have time to comprehensively look at the listed groups. I did look at the web site for Frontiers of Freedom Institute. ExxonMobil gave $180,000 to this group during the period (1 year?) covered by gcr_contributions_public06.pdf.

An article linked on the top page of that site is:
http://www.ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=77on

“The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world. The international climate conference built on the momentum of growing number of skeptics as the conference showcased a new report by a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC called the “Nongovernmental International Panel of Climate Change” (NIPCC). The skeptical scientist report was titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.”

Key findings of the NIPCC’s climate findings:
(1) Most of climate change is caused by natural forces.
(2) The human contribution is not significant.
(3) Solar-activity changes are the main cause of climate change.
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service and past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, told the conference that the IPCC “chose to ignore these facts, because they conflicted with the conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (man-made).””

The article refers to the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change:
Sponsors include the George C Marshall Institute, to whom ExxonMobil donated $85,000, as well as the National Center for policy analysis, to whom ExxonMobil gave $75,000. The following is written in the introduction to this conference. It is claimed that “No corporate dollars were used to help finance this conference.” It seems that the corporate dollars were indirect/hidden.
From:
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

So, why do I even care what ExxonMobil does? I’ve had a number of first-hand encounters with earth scientists working in the petroleum industry, who have beliefs concerning climate that are simply not correct. I’m aware of the AAPG giving their “journalism” award to Michael Crichton for, in part, his fiction novel “State of Fear” (which I read). I know professors who have resigned or are considering resigning from AAPG over climate change positions. I’m a research scientist, and part of my work is in the paleo-climate field. The hidden actions of ExxonMobil, which I’ve confirmed for myself today, have been successful at confusing people, and are bad for the future of taxpayer-financed science and education.

Chris

• Union of Concerned Scientists