By Dave Levitan. Crossposted fromย Climate Liability News.
A peer-reviewed analysis of 37 years of communications from ExxonMobil concluded that the oil company has misled the public for decades about climate science and climate change. When their communications were aimed at the public and non-scientific audiences, they focused on doubt and uncertainty. At the same time, the companyโs internal communications and peer-reviewed science broadly agreed with the scientific consensus that fossil fuel burning is warming theย planet.
โAvailable documents show a systematic discrepancy between what ExxonMobilโs scientists and executives discussed about climate change privately and in academic circles and what it presented to the general public,โ the study concluded. It was researched and written by Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran, a postdoctoral fellow in Harvardโsย Department of the History ofย Science.
Oreskes has long studied the history of scientific consensus and dissent around climate science and wrote the bookย Merchants of Doubtย to shed light on the deception of a small group of scientists to further a political agenda around climate change and other environmental issues.ย ย
She and Supran undertook an analysis of Exxonโs communications as the attorneys general of two states haveย been investigatingย whether the company violated various consumer or investor protection laws by misleading the public. Exxon has pushed back against revelationsย initially made by InsideClimate Newsย as well as by theย Los Angeles Timesย and Columbia Universityโs Graduate School of Journalism that the company has been studying climate science for decades while simultaneously promoting doubt about the scientific consensus to help block climateย action.
Exxon claims it has long been transparent about climate science and associated risks. On aย websiteย devoted to this issue, the company notes that it โhas continuously, publicly and openly researched and discussed the risks of climate change, carbon life cycle analysis and emissionsย reductions.โ
But those claims are directly challenged by the newย report.
โSupran and Oreskesโ paper demonstrates quantitatively what weโve known qualitatively for years now: despite its own clear knowledge of climate science and climate risks, Exxon ran an active, well-funded communications campaign to dismiss those risks for decades,โ saidย Carroll Muffett, an attorney and the president and chief executive of the nonprofit Center for International Environmentalย Law.
Following the media investigations, Exxon argued that the reporters cherry-picked documents out of a large cache of research. โSo we decided to look at the whole tree,โ Oreskes said in a telephoneย interview.
The new analysis, published on Wednesday in the journalย Environmental Research Letters, makes no claims regarding the legality of Exxonโs actions, and focuses instead on whether or not the companyโs internal and external communications suggest a pattern ofย deception.
โThereโs no questionโ regarding this discrepancy, Oreskesย said.
Supran and Oreskes studied and compared 187 individual communications between 1977 and 2014, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and โadvertorialsโ โ paid advertisements addressed to the public and published in the New Yorkย Times.
They examined each documentโs position on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, as well as on acknowledgement of the risk of assets being stranded or unusable as the climate continues to warm. The authors found that in general, as documents became more public, they increasingly focused on or highlighted doubt and uncertainty in climateย science.
Of all the peer-reviewed scientific papers that Supran and Oreskes reviewed, about two-thirds expressed a position, one way or the other, on anthropogenic global warming. Of those, 83 percent acknowledged that it is real and human-caused. Most non-peer-reviewed and internal documents also take this stance, though there are some with more of an โacknowledge and doubtโย position.
Meanwhile, 81 percent of the advertorials written by Exxon took a โdoubtโ position on the reality of climate change and only 12 percent acknowledged the science. The difference between the advertorialsโ positions and the other documents was statistically significant, the authorsย said.
Analysis of every document is provided in hundreds of pages of supplemental information, but the paper itself highlights a number of illustrative quotations. For example, a 1996 peer-reviewed paper stated that โThe body of statistical evidence โฆ now points towards a discernible human influence on globalย climate.โ
That same year, an Exxon advertorial seemed to undercut that conclusion: โGlobal warming: whoโs right? Facts about a debate thatโs turned up more questions than answers.โ It went on to call the โtheoryโ that fossil fuel burning can affect the Earthโs climateย โunproven.โ
โIn public, ExxonMobil contributed quietly to the science and loudly to raising doubts about it,โ Supran and Oreskes wrote. They also pointed out several instances of clear factual misrepresentations in the advertorials, including the idea that the warming effect of greenhouse gases is offset by a cooling effect from other particulate products of combustion of fossil fuels. Exxon scientists had reported being โnot very convincedโ of this theory a decade earlier and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had rejected the concept a year before that advertorial wasย published.
Exxon seems to have approached the concept of stranded assets differently in different types of communications as well. The idea is mentioned in 24 peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and internal documents, but never in anย advertorial.
The discrepancy between the advertorial content and that of the other types of documents is important, the authors suggest, because of the difference in these communicationsโ reach. Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications are difficult for the public to access (to say nothing of the internal documents), and likely each one had a readership of only โtens to hundreds,โ according to Supran and Oreskes. Meanwhile, Exxon paid for an advertorial in The New York Times every Thursday between 1972 and 2001; the company was responsible for one-quarter of all advertorials printed on the Timesโ Op-Ed page over that span. These had a readership numbering in theย millions.
The authors note the limitation inherent to a textual analysis like this one, in that judgments must be made on the meaning of each of the documents. Still, they argue this should not undercut the findings. โWe feel confident that the discrepancies that we found are sufficiently great that anyone else doing this โฆ would get essentially the same result,โ Oreskesย said.
Experts say this may be an important input to the ongoing legal battles surrounding this issue. โMost significantly from a litigation perspective,ย Exxon targeted its misinformation at the media most likely to reach and inform millions of consumers and investors, leaving its acknowledgment of climate realities to specialty publications,โ Muffett said. โExxon argues that publishing climate science gives it some plausible deniability in its denial campaigns. Itโs increasingly unlikely a jury wouldย agree.โ
Danielle Fugere, president of the nonprofit As You Sow, which works to promote corporate social responsibility, said Exxonโs true colors show through in theย report.
โThis analysis, while not surprising, highlights a deeply troubling disregard for the public good,โ Fugere said. โWe have seen this story play out before โ from asbestos, to lead, to cigarettes, naming just a few โ plausible deniability in the face of clear science has been used time and again by companies and industries to delay protective action. What is constantly surprising is that government leaders and agencies fall for it everyย time.โ
Image credit: CommonDreams.org
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts