How Exxon Used the New York Times to Make You Question Climate Science

picture-14046-1464216053.jpg
on

A breakthrough study from Harvard unearths the extent Exxon has gone to in order to destroy the public’s trust in climate changeย science.

Last week, Harvard University researchers Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes (ofย Merchants of Doubtย fame) published the first peer-reviewed study comparingย ExxonMobilโ€™s internal and external communications on climate change.

The abstract of the Supran and Oreskes study shows that ExxonMobilโ€™s own scientists and executives had a much sharper understanding of climate science than the company told the public (emphasisย added):

โ€œAccounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83 percent of peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12 percent of advertorials do so, with 81 percent instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science โ€” by way of its scientistsโ€™ academic publications โ€” but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy,ย we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.โ€

As the Harvard authorsย credit, the advertorials came from aย study published on PolluterWatchย by our former colleague at Greenpeace, Cindyย Baxter.

Cindyย republished many ofย ExxonMobilโ€™s New York Times advertorialsย back in 2015. This was right as investigative reporters at InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times revealed the extent ofย knowledge among Exxonโ€™s own scientistsย that burning fossil fuels caused unnatural globalย warming.

With these revelations in mind, Cindy recalled a peer-reviewed study in the journal Public Relations Review on โ€œadvertorialsโ€ or โ€œop-adsโ€ that Mobil Oil paid to have published in the New York Times. The authors of that study, Clyde Brown and Herbert Waltzer, reviewed 819ย New York Times advertorials that Mobil placed โ€œevery Thursdayโ€ย from 1985 toย 2000.

Using a subscription database called ProQuest, Greenpeace found that Exxon and Mobilโ€™s op-ads went back at least as far as 1974, and continued until at least 2004. This was years after Exxon and Mobil merged to form the worldโ€™s largest non-government oil corporation in 1999. Combined with evidence published by reporters showing the degree to which Exxon and Mobilโ€™s own scientists understood the global warming phenomenon and its root in human fossil fuel combustion, the advertorials take on newย meaning.

These oil companies were not as naive or uncertain as they long pretended to be, up until the point that denying the science was no longer possible. It turns out, they knew the entire time, and they appear to have intentionally deceived theย public.

Here are some of the ExxonMobil advertorials that Greenpeace published inย 2015:



View”>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705598-xom-nyt-1999-12-9-2mrw-en… note

โ€œUnsettled Scienceโ€ โ€“ From 2000, this advertorial clearly downplays ExxonMobilโ€™s internal understanding of climate changeย science:



View”>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705605-xom-nyt-2000-3-23-unsettl… note

โ€œDirections for Climate Researchโ€ โ€“ From 2004, Exxon used the classic โ€œwe need more researchโ€ delay tactic. This was eight years after thousands of scientists in the scientifically-conservative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released findings from its Second Assessment Report in 1995, which warned policymakers that humans pushed the climate beyond so far beyond its natural boundaries that we may not be able to reverse the trend. As the IPCC reports became more dire, Exxon engaged front groups, lobbyists, and politicians to attack the science itself.



View”>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2080755-xom-2004-jan-21-climate-… note

More examples are available in ourย archive of ExxonMobil advertorialsย onย PolluterWatch.

Originally published at Greenpeace US.

Image credit: ยฉ Robert Meyers /ย Greenpeace

picture-14046-1464216053.jpg
Connor Gibson is a researcher for Greenpeace USA and a guest author for DeSmogBlog. He focuses on polluting industries, their front groups and PR operatives. He specializes in tracking those who professionally deny climate change science and obstruct policy solutions to global warming. Connor Gibson is based in Washington, DC.

Related Posts

on

A new lawsuit alleges toxic, radioactive waste leaked into a PA familyโ€™s water well, uncovering a regulatory abyss for miles of fracking pipelines in the state.

A new lawsuit alleges toxic, radioactive waste leaked into a PA familyโ€™s water well, uncovering a regulatory abyss for miles of fracking pipelines in the state.
Analysis
on

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.

The celebrity investor pitched โ€˜Wonder Valleyโ€™ with no committed investors, no Indigenous partnership, and about 27 megatonnes of projected annual emissions.
on

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.

City Council OKs private equity firmโ€™s purchase of Entergy gas utility, undermining climate goals and jacking up prices for the cityโ€™s poorest.
on

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.

With LNG export terminals already authorized to ship nearly half of U.S. natural gas abroad, DOE warns build-out would inflate utility bills nationwide.