A Completely separate, independent journalistic team is now reporting this story in one of America’s largest newspapers.
Among those interviewed was Ken Croasdale, senior ice researcher for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, who was looking into the well known physics of climate change, to determine what impacts there might be on Exxon’s exploratory efforts in the far north.
Between 1986 and 1992, Croasdale’s team looked at both the positive and negative effects that a warming Arctic would have on oil operations, reporting its findings to Exxon headquarters in Houston and New Jersey.
Hashtag #exxonknew
The good news for Exxon, he told an audience of academics and government researchers in 1992, was that “potential global warming can only help lower exploration and development costs” in the Beaufort Sea.
As Croasdale’s team was closely studying the impact of climate change on the company’s operations, Exxon and its worldwide affiliates were crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming.
The gulf between Exxon’s internal and external approach to climate change from the 1980s through the early 2000s was evident in a review of hundreds of internal documents, decades of peer-reviewed published material and dozens of interviews conducted by Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times.
Documents were obtained from the Imperial Oil collection at Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and the Exxon Mobil Historical Collection at the University of Texas at Austin’s Briscoe Center for American History.
I’ve been pointing out he eerie media silence on Inside Climate’s recently released double-atomic bombshell story on what Exxon knew, and when they knew it, about climate change.
For people close to the issue, it was never credible that Exxon — a company that employs thousands of scientists and engineers and whose core business depends on their expertise — could be that confused about the science. We now know that they not only understood the science, but contributed to it.
As early as 1977, one of Exxon’s senior scientists warned a gathering of oilmen of a “general scientific agreement” that the burning of fossil fuels was influencing the climate. A year later, he had updated his assessment, warning that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
In the 1980s, Exxon scientists collaborated with academic and government researchers to build climate models and understand their implications. When one researcher expressed the opinion that the impacts would be “well short of catastrophic,” the director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon Research responded in a memo, “I think that this statement may be too reassuring.” He said it was “distinctly possible” that the projected warming trend after 2030 “will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population),” a conclusion that most climate scientists now hold, assuming we continue business as usual.
What did Exxon executives do with this information? Until 1989, they circulated reports summarizing it inside the company. They allowed their scientists to attend academic meetings, to participate in panels, and to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals — in short, to behave as scientists. And they did acknowledge the “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.”
Then corporate executives turned about face. As the scientific community began to speak out more strongly, first about the risks of unmitigated climate change and then about the fact that it was underway, Exxon executives and organizations funded by them embarked on a campaign designed to prevent governments from taking meaningful action. These activities continue today.
21 thoughts on “LA Times is Now on the “Exxon Knew” Story”
Good, I’m not sure how many people are going to feel mislead and bad about EXXONS unethical and mind boggling putting profit above against mankind’s long term interests and survival, and more importantly motivated to register their dismay by voting and making life style choices, but the more people that are honestly informed by the media, the better I will feel.
Pleased top see the story also published in the New York Times Oct 10th
Also the story was published in the Taipei Times (in the English edition) . . . it’s good to see it breaking around the world. At least the news reading English speaking Taipei expats will be knowledgeable – hope it made the Chinese edition too.
Oreskes. Yep, draw attention to her, that will turn out well.
Choose to believe it or not, the way you guys are connecting assorted dots from “Exxon knew in the ’70s-’80s” to potential RICO prosecutions is painful for me to watch, because I see you-all jumping from dot to dot while being seemingly oblivious to how the path leads to the last one out in mid-air in front of a cliff, with nothing but air under your feet.
1) “Don’t trust any science pronouncements you hear from industry!”, you-all have cried for the last 20 years …. yet you beg us to trust these particular science pronouncements from industry now without question in the face of no impartial analysis
2) The beginning of this “Exxon knew” time was when the global cooling fad was all the rage
3) And you insinuate via zero evidence that skeptic climate scientists were subsequently bought and instructed to lie
#3 is the make-or-break killer to this entire deal. Fail to establish (with evidence that will stand up in courtroom evidentiary hearings) that skeptic climate scientists held pro-AGW positions but were subsequently corrupted with vast sums of money to knowingly lie and fabricate material meeting requirements set forth by industry people, and all you have is some Exxon consultants pointing out the practically negligible amount of warming that skeptic climate scientists have long been consistently talking about, which, according to them, the IPCC has not yet conclusively proved to be primarily driven by human-induced greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, cite Oreskes or Brulle or any number of accusers du jour about so-called ‘extensively documented proof’ of skeptic scientists’ corruption until the cows come home, but not one of you yet disputes how the accusation’s media traction only stems from one single source, a guy widely acclaimed as being a shrewd investigator who never told where he got his ‘smoking gun’ leaked coal association memo from, much sharing any of his other investigative leads, all the while being lauded as a Pulitzer winner when he never won a Pulitzer.
It is why I ask the Sharpton-esque question, “Commit political suicide, we much?” You paint yourselves ever deeper into this corner of a tobacco industry parallel, oblivious to your enslavement to an accusation based on essentially one single phrase taken out of context from a memo set of guidelines which was never implemented nor even directly tied to a coal association that all the accusers claim it was. You can hardly ask for a bigger receipt for disaster than that.
It’s pretty clear that the behavior of Exxon should be answered with a RICO action. We shall see if that happens. The fact that the mainstream media has pretty much avoided this story tells us a lot about mainstream media. If you ever wondered why so many are climate deniers in the face of all the evidence, it’s because they’ve never seen or heard the evidence!
How many decades will it be until Exxon ends up in bankruptcy?
Let’s see:
1) They drill a product that is slowly killing off mankind
2) They are slowly running out of that product they are drilling
3) People and businesses are trying to use less and less of that product
4) Exxon knew they will harming the planet and its inhabitants for the last 30 or more years….and they continued to do it….and they left a paper trail.
5) People are going to continue to be more and more pissed off at them as those people find out more of the details….and more people from Exxon come forward with the truth.
6) There is a paper (and money) trail leading to people like the Hearthland Institute, Joe Bastardi, and others who are paid to lie for Exxon and other fossil fuel companies.
I think Joe Bastardi will be in court long before Exxon is in court.
1) Fossil fuels have given us longer lifespans, better medical care, unbelievable technological progress.
2) FF reserves are greater now than at anytime I history
3)Heavy industry is fleeing from developed nations where energy has been made expensive by ill considered renewable programs, to jurisdictions where it is cheaper ie US, India, China. Cars, boats, trucks planes,trains,you know, those things that bring your food, clothing, shelter to you.
4,5 and 6) You’re basically talking out your butt. If anything it is the international gangster/bankster/Marxists running the climate scam that will be damned by history, if not jailed in their lifetimes.
This story makes me livid. I agree with Bill McKibben that this is one story that is probably the most anger-inducing. Even after being prepared for it with the evidence presented in Merchants of Doubt, it still hits hard. Merchants of Doubt showed how the industry knew in general, but this detail and the conversations on risk among the scientists are telling.
Indulge us. All of us, not just me. Point to the specific point in the movie where Oreskes or anyone else provided viewers with irrefutable evidence proving skeptic climate scientists and/or skeptic speakers held prior positions in favor of AGW, but now knowingly lie and do so because they are instructed and paid to do so. Point to the specific point in the Merchants of Doubt book where the same is provided to readers. If that search fails to turn up anything, try going through any of Oreskes’ other instances where she makes the accusation of industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists. I submit you will find exactly what I found, Oreskes doesn’t corroborate the accusation, she just repeats it. Try seeing where it comes from, then collect all the details surrounding exactly what “smoking gun” evidence the accusation is based on. No need to trust me on anything here, in fact you may pretend I don’t exist and that you came up with this due diligence action entirely on your own as a devil’s advocate thing to do just to make sure you have all your ducks lined up in a row.
So in 1978, Exxon senior scientist warns “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
In 1989, Exxon senior management reaches the “hard decision” that man must be dissuaded from making any hard decisions, because the only intelligent ones would mean curtains for the only business Exxon was confident they could profit from.
How crass can you get? How does this differ from what Big Tobacco did with the “Tobacco Institute” and their decades-long conspiracy to misinform the public about the risks associated with THEIR product?
I for one would love to see a criminal investigation, and this would be a GREAT time for the Justice Department to insist on holding individuals criminally liable.
Of the top 10 countries holding portions of those reserves, only Canada does not have a national oil company, and the nine that do control 1.23 trillion of the world’s total proved reserves. That is about 75% of the world’s proved reserves that are off-limits to private oil companies.
By comparison, the portion of the world’s total proved reserves owned by the 10 largest oil companies is about 75.23 billion barrels, or 4.6%.
Good, I’m not sure how many people are going to feel mislead and bad about EXXONS unethical and mind boggling putting profit above against mankind’s long term interests and survival, and more importantly motivated to register their dismay by voting and making life style choices, but the more people that are honestly informed by the media, the better I will feel.
Pleased top see the story also published in the New York Times Oct 10th
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html?_r=0
Also the story was published in the Taipei Times (in the English edition) . . . it’s good to see it breaking around the world. At least the news reading English speaking Taipei expats will be knowledgeable – hope it made the Chinese edition too.
http://taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2015/10/10/2003629688
Oreskes. Yep, draw attention to her, that will turn out well.
Choose to believe it or not, the way you guys are connecting assorted dots from “Exxon knew in the ’70s-’80s” to potential RICO prosecutions is painful for me to watch, because I see you-all jumping from dot to dot while being seemingly oblivious to how the path leads to the last one out in mid-air in front of a cliff, with nothing but air under your feet.
1) “Don’t trust any science pronouncements you hear from industry!”, you-all have cried for the last 20 years …. yet you beg us to trust these particular science pronouncements from industry now without question in the face of no impartial analysis
2) The beginning of this “Exxon knew” time was when the global cooling fad was all the rage
3) And you insinuate via zero evidence that skeptic climate scientists were subsequently bought and instructed to lie
#3 is the make-or-break killer to this entire deal. Fail to establish (with evidence that will stand up in courtroom evidentiary hearings) that skeptic climate scientists held pro-AGW positions but were subsequently corrupted with vast sums of money to knowingly lie and fabricate material meeting requirements set forth by industry people, and all you have is some Exxon consultants pointing out the practically negligible amount of warming that skeptic climate scientists have long been consistently talking about, which, according to them, the IPCC has not yet conclusively proved to be primarily driven by human-induced greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, cite Oreskes or Brulle or any number of accusers du jour about so-called ‘extensively documented proof’ of skeptic scientists’ corruption until the cows come home, but not one of you yet disputes how the accusation’s media traction only stems from one single source, a guy widely acclaimed as being a shrewd investigator who never told where he got his ‘smoking gun’ leaked coal association memo from, much sharing any of his other investigative leads, all the while being lauded as a Pulitzer winner when he never won a Pulitzer.
It is why I ask the Sharpton-esque question, “Commit political suicide, we much?” You paint yourselves ever deeper into this corner of a tobacco industry parallel, oblivious to your enslavement to an accusation based on essentially one single phrase taken out of context from a memo set of guidelines which was never implemented nor even directly tied to a coal association that all the accusers claim it was. You can hardly ask for a bigger receipt for disaster than that.
Don’t be shy Russell! http://gelbspanfiles.com/
It’s pretty clear that the behavior of Exxon should be answered with a RICO action. We shall see if that happens. The fact that the mainstream media has pretty much avoided this story tells us a lot about mainstream media. If you ever wondered why so many are climate deniers in the face of all the evidence, it’s because they’ve never seen or heard the evidence!
How many decades will it be until Exxon ends up in bankruptcy?
Let’s see:
1) They drill a product that is slowly killing off mankind
2) They are slowly running out of that product they are drilling
3) People and businesses are trying to use less and less of that product
4) Exxon knew they will harming the planet and its inhabitants for the last 30 or more years….and they continued to do it….and they left a paper trail.
5) People are going to continue to be more and more pissed off at them as those people find out more of the details….and more people from Exxon come forward with the truth.
6) There is a paper (and money) trail leading to people like the Hearthland Institute, Joe Bastardi, and others who are paid to lie for Exxon and other fossil fuel companies.
I think Joe Bastardi will be in court long before Exxon is in court.
The henchmen always take the fall first.
1) Fossil fuels have given us longer lifespans, better medical care, unbelievable technological progress.
2) FF reserves are greater now than at anytime I history
3)Heavy industry is fleeing from developed nations where energy has been made expensive by ill considered renewable programs, to jurisdictions where it is cheaper ie US, India, China. Cars, boats, trucks planes,trains,you know, those things that bring your food, clothing, shelter to you.
4,5 and 6) You’re basically talking out your butt. If anything it is the international gangster/bankster/Marxists running the climate scam that will be damned by history, if not jailed in their lifetimes.
This story makes me livid. I agree with Bill McKibben that this is one story that is probably the most anger-inducing. Even after being prepared for it with the evidence presented in Merchants of Doubt, it still hits hard. Merchants of Doubt showed how the industry knew in general, but this detail and the conversations on risk among the scientists are telling.
Indulge us. All of us, not just me. Point to the specific point in the movie where Oreskes or anyone else provided viewers with irrefutable evidence proving skeptic climate scientists and/or skeptic speakers held prior positions in favor of AGW, but now knowingly lie and do so because they are instructed and paid to do so. Point to the specific point in the Merchants of Doubt book where the same is provided to readers. If that search fails to turn up anything, try going through any of Oreskes’ other instances where she makes the accusation of industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists. I submit you will find exactly what I found, Oreskes doesn’t corroborate the accusation, she just repeats it. Try seeing where it comes from, then collect all the details surrounding exactly what “smoking gun” evidence the accusation is based on. No need to trust me on anything here, in fact you may pretend I don’t exist and that you came up with this due diligence action entirely on your own as a devil’s advocate thing to do just to make sure you have all your ducks lined up in a row.
Seriously?
So in 1978, Exxon senior scientist warns “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
In 1989, Exxon senior management reaches the “hard decision” that man must be dissuaded from making any hard decisions, because the only intelligent ones would mean curtains for the only business Exxon was confident they could profit from.
How crass can you get? How does this differ from what Big Tobacco did with the “Tobacco Institute” and their decades-long conspiracy to misinform the public about the risks associated with THEIR product?
I for one would love to see a criminal investigation, and this would be a GREAT time for the Justice Department to insist on holding individuals criminally liable.
Merchants of Doubt is a modern fairy tale. It’s full of half-truths, untruths and naked propaganda.
In case anyone thinks Exxon/Mobil is being unfairly attacked, have a listen to their spokesman trying to avoid discussing these facts.
Thankfully, the interviewer was extremely professional – something we don’t see a lot of anymore:
https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/532108
In addition to being on-line, the Exxon story is on the front page of the Sunday “Dead Trees” edition. http://www.latimes.com/includes/sectionfronts/A1.pdf
If you were wondering, the Canadian branch of Exxon had an executive with the last name of Harper. During the 70s and early 80s, iirc.
His son is now the PM of Canada. Hopefully not for much longer.
ARE WE BEING MISDIRECTED?
According to
http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2014/12/15/the-worlds-top-10-oil-companies/
Of the top 10 countries holding portions of those reserves, only Canada does not have a national oil company, and the nine that do control 1.23 trillion of the world’s total proved reserves. That is about 75% of the world’s proved reserves that are off-limits to private oil companies.
By comparison, the portion of the world’s total proved reserves owned by the 10 largest oil companies is about 75.23 billion barrels, or 4.6%.
CHEW ON THAT FOR A WHILE.